Can anyone give me a good definition of Social Policy. I have come up with a couple but need more.?
435507
Basically, social policy is policy developed by governmental agencies which helps regulate health and well-being of humans in a given societal structure (like, for example, minimum liability insurance required on vehicles).  The definitions are more specific based on the agency that creates the policy.  For example, politics may create social policy to deal with the issue of abortion.  See the definitions below from Wikipedia:\n\n"Social policy relates to guidelines for the changing, maintenance or creation of living conditions that are conducive to human welfare. Thus social policy is that part of public policy that has to do with social issues such as public access to social programs. In an academic environment, social policy refers to the study of the welfare state and the range of responses to social need.\n\nIn United States politics, social policies are those which regulate and govern human behavior in areas such as sexuality and general morality."\n\nSee the following:
937129
Tax reform.  Social Security reform (phase out)  Flushing many social programs off of the books.  Generally just returning to a smaller government.
812388
The only way to save Education is Private Schools with Vouchers.   Democrats stopped.\nThe only way to save Social Security is to Privatize.   Democrats stopped.\nLBJ's War on Poverty.   Poverty won.\nWar on Drugs.   Drugs won.\nYou have Good Point.
274331
Unemployment\n\n*Massive State sponsored work programs- small wage, reduced or free rent, free food, ect ect
119072
a society is a group of whatevers existing as a unit.  All units have basic agendas/goals such as survival, if the individual can help the society achieve these goals than he/she is useful.  If he/she works agaisnt these goals then they are a liability.
693932
Social Services is a better word for welfare. Just state that it is a free income for those that can not find work and are not drawing unemployment. It is sponsored by the goverment. But, the working man pays for it. Some time it runs in families,like a virus. Social services give more to people than the working man can. there are many working men out there that don't have money in their pockets, can't send their children to the dentist. or get eye glasses as they need them. Welfare clients can get just about anything they want whether needed or not. These people should be made to get  out and rake leaves,shovel side walks,mow lawns, for senior citizens and disabled people. To earn aleast some of their income. If I dare say, most of them are lazy. I used to deliver mail, the box was not shoveled out, The check was in the mail for them and I thought to be nice I would try to pull up and deposit the check. Well, I got stuck in over a foot of snow, While I was trying to get out, there were 4 adults watching out the window . Ugggggggggggh
173652
Welfare is welfare, corporate or social EXCEPT for the following facts:\n\n1) The Goverment gives WAY more to Corporations then it does to the poor and needy. This is just plain wrong. It helps wealthy and powerful corporations become even more powerful and rich. These corporations then fire a bunch of rank and file workers and then ship their jobs overseas. They use the our tax money to help THEMSELVES out and screw over the American tax paying public. As for the poor they get peanuts. Has anyone out there tried to live off of Food Stamps or other public assistance? If you have then you know that the money the goverment gives doesn't really do shit for you. Most working poor need public assistance just to keep their heads above water. Aren't we a "Christian" country? We're obilgated to help the poor not help the rich get more wealth!\n\n2) Whenever the rich gets a break (in getting out of paying taxes or free money) they use it to expand themselves first and then maybe they might throw a few dollars into the American public by spending it for the good of the many,\n\n3) CEO's and other power players get rich off grants while the rank and file (Joe public) get shit!\n\n4) There are lots of idiots out there that think that the poor have it easy and just get fat off our tax dollars and the FACT is that most of them are barely making it and are an inch from joining the homeless.\n\n5) The working class and the working poor pay more taxes then the rich because the rich can afford expensive tax lawyers and find the loop holes in the tax laws while the middle class and the poor pay more then the rich do. That's fucked up!\n\n6) Remember ENRON and the S&L scandels? Who made off with the money (a bunch of rich CEO assholes) and who got screwed (all the working class Joes and their families)?\n\nWhy should my tax dollars go to rich asshole and big corporations that DON'T need the money?!?!?\n\nAn ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It takes less money to help the mentally ill in an out patient center then it does to lock them up in prison (the same goes to drug addicts and other criminals) But the corporations that keep building the prisons get richer off the goverment grants and they love it.
410611
OK, you're doing your homework.  You probably have a formal definition of "social contract theory," since you use capital letters.  I don't, but I'm going to answer anyway.  Maybe it fits, maybe not.\n\nA contract, in law, is an offer, acceptance and consideration.  In a social contract, therefore, we have an assumption that social institutions are voluntary, the way a contract is voluntary, and that there are benefits on both sides (consideration).  In the Declaration of Independence, this is explicit:  "deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."  It is implied strongly in the Constitution:  "We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution."  \n\nIn both cases, they were contrasting our system to one with a monarch, yet that monarch was also subject to a written contract, the Magna Carta.  So the concept of contract was not new, only the way in which it was used.  It was developed to be the ruling document of the nation.  And it was a nation with a Constitutionally defined President, not a monarch.
128974
You should ask a lawyer, or socialworker. They may have many ideas.
912836
Freedom of religion - Do what you want to do as far as it doesn't violate any laws (murder, theft, polygamy, etc), Economic- Free Market with the fewest government interferences as possible (barring a reasonable minimum wage and anti-monopoly actions), Social - Provide for those that ABSOLUTELY need it, and when they get up, drop the support to force them to make it on their own.  Foreign Policy - Leave others alone, trade, form alliances (economic), but if you mess with the US, we pound your face in.  No more of this "we can't bomb them because they are in a mosque (or church, just to be fair)" crap.
1019928
Are you referring to the 'New Deal'. \n\nThe New Deal was a wonderful set of policies that we still use today. It is what brought the country out of the Great Depression. \n\nIt consist of everything from social security benefits to taxes on luxury items. Try a few searches on the New Deal and you can learn a lot about our history and why we have some of the things we have today.
715489
Duh, the Democratic Party has always had as their core social issues. Sorry it had to be generalized but it is true. The basic party platform is to use funding of government, not on military and big business, but on social programs.
182735
Try a d-i-c-t-i-o-n-a-r-y.  perhaps a dictionary of terms used in SOCIAL WORK, or EDUCATION.  You might need to expend some energy in the reference section of your school library, but I did it and so can you.
774729
Socialism is a nice idea, but it depends too heavily on people doing the right thing always. \n\nIf we believe the tenet "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs", to me that means that if I am efficient, frugal and smart in how I do things, anything excess is siphoned off to someone who is not at smart, not as frugal and not as efficient.\n\nIn effect, that person is leeching off of me. i resent that. Why doesn't he work a little harder, or stop having all those kids or whatnot?\n\nAnd who makes these decisions as to what is and what isn't? Again, a nice idea, but rather unworkable
414774
Google this phrase:\n\n"policycommittee@"\n\nWITH the quotes!
366354
You would be well advised to reconsider comparing any specific US social policy program to anything of Denmark or other North-European countries. Denmark and most of Europe don't have particular 'programs', they have so-called universal social security policies in which a high tax rate finance social policies open to all (hence 'universal'). \n\nPoverty is not a big problem in these countries, but in so far as there are poverty stricken areas or families (or children), these would normally receive substantial social security benefits from the government, such as unemployment pay, tax reduction, housing benefits and so on.
216129
Great Society\n\n(1966), the term coined by President Lyndon B. Johnson to characterize his domestic program. Johnson believed government should be involved in improving the quality of life for Americans and promised a "war on poverty." The program included Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), a domestic peace corps; a Job Corps for school dropouts; and the Head Start program for preschool education for underprivileged children. Johnson also declared a war on crime and disease, and increased financial support for public education, urban renewal, job training programs, housing subsidies, and environmental initiatives. Medicare and Medicaid were two of the most enduring legacies of the Great Society, as well as three landmark civil rights acts passed in 1964, 1965, and 1968.