#social welfare schemes

[townpostin]

Jharkhand CM Promises ₹1 Lakh Annual Aid to Families if Re-elected

Soren transfers funds to women under JMMSY scheme, slams BJP for ‘divisive politics’ Hemant Soren pledges ₹1 lakh annual financial assistance to families if his government is re-elected in Jharkhand. RANCHI – CM Hemant Soren announced ₹1 lakh annual aid for families if re-elected, while criticizing BJP at a Hazaribagh event. At a public function in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant…

[insightfultake]

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana: A Bold Step Toward Housing for All

For millions of Indians, homeownership has long been a distant dream, overshadowed by economic constraints and soaring real estate prices. The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), launched in 2015, seeks to turn that dream into reality by providing affordable housing to the country’s economically weaker sections. With over 3 crore houses sanctioned and more than 2 crore completed, the scheme has not only changed the skyline of urban and rural India but also transformed lives.

[iasguidance]

Janani Suraksha Yojana

Context: Janani Suraksha Yojana has shown remarkable success, with more than 88 per cent deliveries taking place in a hospital. About Janani Suraksha Yojana:  Launched in: 2005 Type pf scheme: Centrally sponsored scheme Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Aim: To reduce maternal and neonatal mortality by promoting institutional delivery through financial…

[ifoughttime]

You folks would be happy to know that the Government of Karnataka, a state in India made all their public bus fare free for ALL women residents of the state. The upside of this was they saw a surge of women travellers, especially rural women to tourist places they never had access to before! The program has been launched for nearly 8 months and the number of women passengers has not gone down.

They witnessed it was easier for more women to take up job opportunities outside of their hometowns because they have access to travel without spending a chunk of their paychecks on travel fares.

THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[sheltiechicago]

Srinagar, Indian Kashmir

A female worker of the social welfare department, working under the Anganwadi scheme, shouts slogans during a protest. Dozens of Anganwadi workers and helpers protested against the newly approved human resource (HR) policy framed by the government

Photograph: Farooq Khan/EPA

[singhary]

Social Security Schemes In India: Ensuring Welfare for All

Social security schemes in India are aimed at ensuring the welfare of all citizens. These schemes are intended to provide financial assistance to the economically weaker sections of society, including senior citizens, the disabled, and women. The Indian government has implemented several social security schemes that provide benefits such as pensions, insurance, healthcare, and other forms of assistance.

One of the most significant social security schemes in India is the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP). This program provides financial assistance to the elderly, widows, and disabled persons who are below the poverty line. Other notable social security schemes in India include the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) and the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY), which provide insurance coverage for accidental death and disability, as well as life insurance.

Furthermore, the government also has schemes for rural and urban populations such as the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, which aims to provide affordable housing to the urban poor, and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which aims to provide employment to rural households.

Read In Details: All About Social Security Schemes In India

Despite these efforts, there is still a long way to go in ensuring that social security schemes reach all those who need them. The government needs to focus on expanding the coverage of these schemes and improving their implementation to ensure that they truly benefit the most vulnerable sections of society.

[frothlad]

There's that post that makes the rounds, where Superman is shown being really angry that Billy Batson has been turned into Captain Marvel, chews out the old wizard, and goes to mentor the kid.

And it's a nice bit. It's a little too angry for Superman, I think; I expected more "this is a problem that has to be solved" than "how dare you do this to a child".

But it does incredible damage to Billy as a character. And I don't like it for that. It violates key principles of what kind of character Billy and Captain Marvel are and what kind of stories they tell.

Billy is, far more than Superman or Batman, a wish-fulfillment character for a child. Say a magic word and you are an adult, and powerful, and can't be hurt, and say the word again and you don't have any of an adult's boring responsibilities.

And Billy himself is an archetypical child adventurer, the same as Tintin or any of a hundred others: He goes out, finding trouble, getting into scrapes, uncovering plots, conspiracies, thefts, and schemes, and dealing with them. Cap relies on being Billy to investigate. (It is instructive to consider the variations in genre for Freddy and Mary as well; Freddy is less adventurer than social welfare investigator, while Mary is a girl and has girl adventures.)

The Superman scene's Billy is a victim, out of his depth.

The Billy I like is a champion, quick-witted, good-hearted.

It's all about what genre the characters are in. If you put Nancy Drew in a gothic, holy crap is that fucked up. If you put Scooby and the gang in Jeepers Creepers, holy crap is that fucked up. Animorphs is what happens if you put child adventurers into a realistic war story, and holy crap that is fucked up.

If you put Billy in a story where child endangerment is actually a thing, you've thrown away what the character is good at and intended for.

That is, of course, not to say that you can't genre-bend characters or that there isn't great possibility in deconstruction of genres.

But I don't have to like it. I like Billy in his native genre just fine, thank you.

(It is of course worth noting that the same Superman scene has extremely broad and extremely negative implications for Superman's relationship with Batman. You can't invoke child welfare for Billy and not for Robin.)

[eaglesnick]

“Even today we don’t pay serious attention to the issue of poverty, because the powerful remain relatively untouched by it. Most people distance themselves from the issue by saying that if the poor worked harder, they wouldn’t be poor.”

— Muhammad Yunus

Never was the expression “same old, same old" more appropriate than when it comes to government statements and attitude towards welfare payments.

Below is a series of statements by various Conservative Chancellors since 2010.

“Work or lose your benefits: Iain Duncan Smith heralds biggest shake-up of welfare state since the war." (Mail Online 28/05/10)

“Hammond calls for fresh welfare cuts to protect military spending." (The Herald: 03/03/13)

“The benefit system is broken. I  think people in this country understand that the welfare system needs to change."  (George Osborne 02/04/2013

“DWP’s own statics show that nearly 90 people died every month between December 2011 and February 2014 after their ESA benefit stopped because a work capability assessment found them able to work." (Independent: 23/11/16)

“Sajid Javid insists Universal Credit cut will go ahead amid warnings of ‘catastrophic’ consequences" (Canary:12/09/21)

“Jeremy Hunt has been accused of "demonising" disabled people after announcing sweeping welfare changes that will strip them of benefits if they don't look for a job.”  (Sky News: 22/11/23)

“Tories pledge to cut rising welfare bills." (Rishi Sunak LBC News: 08/06/24)

Every Tory Chancellor has cut welfare payments. It is what we expect from uncaring Conservative governments whose priorities are always  cutting government spending.

No Tory government seems to be concerned about the causes of a rising welfare bill – junk food leading to ill health, decades of low wages, a rigged housing market leading to unaffordable rents and a lack of social housing, starving the NHS of sufficient funding, a total lack of planning regarding social care of the elderly. I could go on.

The one connecting theme is those on welfare are seen as unworthy of even the little help they are given. Time and time again, it is the poorest and least healthy in our society who are told they must make sacrifices to save the country money because it is their fault they are poor or sick.

Strangely it is never the rich and wealthy who are asked to contribute more. They can go on enjoying paying a lower tax rate for their unearned income than the ordinary men and women who have to work for a living; and while the British government provides £23billion to corporations and big business over the next three years, the poorest in our society  must take a cut in their benefits. In short, the poor and the sick are subsidizing big business.

This is what we expect from the Tories and comes as no surprise. What is disheartening is that this is now the policy of the Starmer Labour government.

“Keir Starmer defends planned welfare cuts …Prime minister wants to reform disability benefit payments to help fund greater spending on defence." (Financial Time: 10/03/25)

Really?  The poor and the sick are to pay for the defence of the rich and wealthy? It's a novel idea but how about the rich and the wealthy paying some of the necessary increase in defence spending? Perhaps an end to their tax breaks? Perhaps an end to their tax avoidance schemes? Perhaps a tax on their wealth? Maybe British business could be charged a defence levy?

But no, that just isn’t going to happen. Starmer is a Blairite and Blaire is a supporter of the old neo-liberal economic order. The disillusionment with neo-liberal free market economics and its failure to boost the living standards of ordinary Americans has led to the rise of the populist hard-right Donald Trump. The same thing is going to happen here and Starmer and the Conservative party will only have themselves to blame.

[austinslounge]

"It's beyond reasonable doubt that the Gerbers are now trying to destroy Austin's life and reputation. This latest article about him and Dicaprio just proves it."

You are giving the Gerbers way too much credit. Do you really think the same parents who let their daughter as a child be photographed in compromising positions in a ransom scheme, and let their son become a hopeless drug addict as a young teen continuing to this day, suddenly be on an active revenge mission toward daughter's ex? Come on, they are old retired irrelevant & could care less about their childrens welfare other than buying each a home to fulfill their minimum responsibility while they now live it up outside LA.

The truth is that tabloids make shit up for clicks & traffic & to have us talk about it on social media. That's all. No conspiracy. Take the Austin-Leo article. Look at the other articles that lady has written. All ridiculous lies. Do you think all those other celebs have an enemy on her payroll? No way. She's just trying to increase engagement from outraged celeb stans. Don't help her in that effort. Same for L&S. Don't feed the trolls!

What we do need from Austin's pr is some positive news about him- his career, his prilojects, etc. to counteract & diminish the crap.

I do agree that there are some media articles that are created by journalists just simply for clicks and that's it. True.

But when articles start mentioning "sources" and whatnot, that's when I start thinking that this celebrity has a team, friends, or people close to them sending in this nonsense to gossip outlets. 🤔

Maybe it's not the Gerbers themselves, but it could very well be someone close to [Redacted] or her family.

There's very obviously a calculated smear campaign against Austin. Idk how you can't see that?

Why do you think that no negative news has been coming out about her since this breakup? Austin was the one who broke up with her! Think about that! If anyone should be getting a negative smear campaign, it should be her!

There is way more evidence to incriminate her with than him.

Think about it... He could claim so much stuff just from the pictures and tea we've seen of her alone in the 2+ years they were dating:

She was always out partying

She had an ED and barely ate

She was immature

She was fake and phony

Her parents were a hot mess

She was always kissing her girl pals and other guys while in a relationship with him

She was always being flirty with other men

She was clout-chasing

She was bringing him to embarrassing parties and basically making him look bad as an A-list actor in Hollywood

She was out partying with Marcello and cheating (all speculation, of course, but pictures could paint this picture since her side is still trying to say that they broke up in October 😒)

You see what I mean?

There is way more evidence against her in this breakup, but the reason why you don't see that is because Austin isn't playing that game (at least not yet 👀), and because he's a classy guy.

Even the fact that DeuxMoi keeps protecting her is evidence to me that she has a very strong team behind her to protect her image.

I guess we can agree to disagree, but I still think a lot of this is coming from her side. There was no reason to paint such an ugly picture of Austin in this breakup. The announcement from People.com was very civil and drama-free.

What seems to be going on is that the public isn't really taking too kindly to her new relationship with Lewis, and people are finally seeing her for the fake, clout-chasing, jumps-from-man-to-man, attention-seeker that she is, and so now, her team is more desperately trying to clean up her image by throwing Austin under the bus.

Look, even Vanessa's side didn't create such horrible lies about Austin when they broke up, and their relationship was way more serious, and they were actually together for 8 years.

There are plenty of celebrities who break up with each other, and hardly any negative news is put out about either side. It's because they both respect each other, and don't want to taint tor other person's image. I even used Channing and Zoe as an example. They were engaged, and had dated for at least 3 years, and announced their breakup back in October. You still don't hear much all that much detail about why they broke up, or what the issue was, or a lot of mud-slinging towards each other, etc. There's a reason. Neither of them (or their teams) are going to the press to spread lies.

Sure, some media outlets may make stuff up completely just for clicks, but when you see repeated efforts to make someone's ex look bad in the media after a breakup, it's pretty safe to say that a lot of that is coming from the other person's team. 🥴

[townpostin]

Citizen Support Centers Transform Rural Jharkhand: Jean Dreze

NSKs Bridge Gap Between Government Services and Villagers Jharkhand’s Nagarik Sahayata Kendras revolutionize rural governance, empowering marginalized communities by facilitating access to essential services across 76 blocks. RANCHI – Nagarik Sahayata Kendras in 76 Jharkhand blocks are transforming rural governance, facilitating access to essential services for marginalized communities. The…

[nvr-pass]

the dehumanisation themes in general are churning in my head. obv there are some problems especially with the analogy to addiction, but in the larger societal context i find it very interesting. poverty and lack of social welfare forces you to dehumanise yourself. war dehumanises you. this goes double if you include big daddies and little sisters. war dehumanises those who fight it and it dehumanises the next generation who will only ever know to be instrumentalised in a larger scheme.

the way you are told from the beginning that the excessive use of plasmids is what turns people into splicers, and how you go on to massacre them as the standard enemy throughout the entire game. hammering home the point that you're not supposed to see them as people anymore. and at the same time you take plasmid after plasmid yourself because there simply is no other way to make it through rapture. when you lose control over them in the later chapters, how do you not think about how your are on your best way to become one of them? when you turn yourself into a big daddy, a process that is then and there described as an irreversible loss of all personhood, how do you not wonder if you'll ever be able to leave it behind even if the fight is won?

i think the implications are very clear and intentional by the end and i was disappointed that it wasn't brought up or adressed. i mean, just through those heavy implications i think it has its presence in the end. jack and the little sisters are the next generation, forever changed and (metaphorically) disfigured by someone else's war, decide to reach out to one another, to show compassion for each others despite everything that's been modelled for them. i just wish the dehumanisation jack is for forced through during the events of the game itself was addressed more. but then again, bioshock's ending being weak is far from being a groundbreaking take.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Something I've heard often from centrist/liberal folk is that UBI would solve all problems in society, what are your thoughts?

It wouldn't.

Now, most UBI advocates I've talked to don't actually think it would solve all problems in society, but even at the most ambitious (UBI pegged to individual cost of living and granted in addition to existing welfare) it's still just social welfare. The capitalists are still in control of the means of production and the state, and they'll be able to cut these benefits if they ever decide they're negatively impacting profits, just like with any other welfare benefit. Social democratic reforms within a bourgeois state are never revolutionary.

But the worst part about UBI, at least from my USAmerican perspective, is that the mainstream idea comes from the likes of Andrew Yang, who wants to replace existing welfare with UBI, akin to a welfare equivalent of a flat tax scheme. His whole thing is that it will cut costs by eliminating any need to customize benefits, while ignoring the fact that cost of living isn't "one size fits all". If you replace say, a wheelchair subsidy with a flat UBI, you don't have any way of ensuring that the person can continue to afford their wheelchair. This form of UBI is just an austerity measure with gilded edges.

Welfare is better than no welfare. But UBI is nothing more than welfare. It doesn't socialize private property, it doesn't give the working class any more political power, it doesn't do anything to stop colonialism or imperialism and in an imperial core like the United States would do more to entrench it as it would be dependent on tax revenue that is directly proportional to colonial and imperial exploitation. Income inequality in the US is not just a question of capitalism, it's a question of imperialism and colonialism, and you can't just say "spread the money around more equitably" without asking where the money comes from.

Dismantling the structures of imperialism and colonialism is the most important task at hand for communists in the imperial core. The United States in particular has a profound role in suppressing working class movements across the globe, and if we can disrupt that we open the floodgates for countless revolutions elsewhere. So personally, as someone living in the US, that's my main interest.

[rockyp77mk3]

Mississippi and Kentucky have a high rate of Welfare recipients yet, they have a big Conservative influence in Government. Here are some forms of Socialism we have in America. Which of these would you get rid of?

Fire and Ambulance

Postal Service

Road and Bridge Maintenance

Social Security and Medicare

Farm Subsidies

Local Law Enforcement

The definition of socialism is a state where the government owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Private ownership in general and private sector business in particular are discouraged, prohibited, or regulated and taxed into extinction. In other words it is a system that seeks to destroy capitalism and centralize power.

Fire services, police departments, road infrastructure, and a postal system fall under the duties of a lawfully elected government. We the people authorize by vote and benefit from these things and they encourage prosperity under the capitalist system. These services in no way seek to control our ability to use a fire extinguisher, protect ourselves, or send an Email.

Farm subsidies can fall into the category of buying votes from the public coffer and while not socialist should be eyed critically.

Social security is a non voluntary retirement Ponzi scheme. In theory it should help workers who contribute to it have a retirement cushion. In reality politicians have raided the fund and used it for other purposes. It however is not socialist because it is an earned benefit. A better, private sector solution would be to allow workers to take their FICA and invest it independently.

Medicare, while not socialist has become something of an abomination that delivers very little of what was promised. There are better solutions.

For years people who tout Socialism as the be all-end all have pointed to roads, police, and fire departments as examples of the socialist dream. These people overlook the fact that these things, which we provide for ourselves, do not eliminate the concept of private property and resources which is the core to the socialist ideal.

[max1461]

I think that welfare econ-style reasoning, where people are modeled as having well-defined utility functions and we can ask about things like the efficiency of a given allocation scheme for resources wrt utility and so on, is incredibly useful as a tool for thinking about questions of policy. But like many models that work well at a macro scale, it falls apart and becomes ill-defined and actively misleading if applied to the micro-scale of individual humans, and their individual wants, needs, and social relations. Utilitarianism works at a political scale, but the humanistic world is far outside its domain of applicability and it fails to be a good theory of ethics or, for most of us, a good guiding life philosophy.

Like any model, it's important to remember that it's only a model, and to keep a watchful eye for these places where the messy ground truth rears its ugly head.