why does anything need to be changed? why now? what has happened the last 2 years that everything must be changed suddenly?
Because In the last two years I (help)/ wife have been working in a school that is 90% welfare students/parents. The parents of these kids WANT/DEMAND that their son/daughter is delcaired disabled so they can recieve more monthly money. Is that who you wan't raising americas future? It is now my wifes JOB (as told by some students parents) she is supposed to provide a snack for their hungry children, even though her school provides breakfast, lunch, dinner. (not all schools provide dinner) Not only that but 50% of her students are given a "weekend power pack" which is meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) for the weekends because their parents don't feed them. The only ones suffering here are the kids. And now the with all the assistace programs these parents feel entitlement that its the job of the school or gov. to provide basic school supplies.
The worst part is this is that these kids are just 6th graders and many that get all this assistance have 3 or 4 sibilings. I just want regulation/consequesnces on the parents. I would gadly pay double in taxes to help this happen because its only effecting the children in the schools future.
why does anything need to be changed? why now? what has happened the last 2 years that everything must be changed suddenly?
Because In the last two years I (help)/ wife have been working in a school that is 90% welfare students/parents. The parents of these kids WANT/DEMAND that their son/daughter is delcaired disabled so they can recieve more monthly money. Is that who you wan't raising americas future? It is now my wifes JOB (as told by some students parents) she is supposed to provide a snack for their hungry children, even though her school provides breakfast, lunch, dinner. (not all schools provide dinner) Not only that but 50% of her students are given a "weekend power pack" which is meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) for the weekends because their parents don't feed them. The only ones suffering here are the kids. And now the with all the assistace programs these parents feel entitlement that its the job of the school or gov. to provide basic school supplies.
The worst part is this is that these kids are just 6th graders and many that get all this assistance have 3 or 4 sibilings. I just want regulation/consequesnces on the parents. I would gadly pay double in taxes to help this happen because its only effecting the children in the schools future.
Maybe the best idea for you is to write your congressman...
13 million kids live in poverty in the U.S., and you are building a belief system about those kids based on What? What you've read in a book???
I believe the whole point was that he is NOT building a belief system about this group of people as a whole. He is acknowledging - and asking you to acknowledge - that poor people cannot be generalized into one homogenous group, that each family has an individual story. To deny/disregard the individualism of people, opting instead to categorize them as one group (worthy of condemnation), is dehumanizing (and is often the first step in the process of harming others).
I am sorry But I don't take a "handful of stories" My wife works at a school (with 85% free lunches/ weekend power packs), do you think her school has a "handfull" of kids or do you think there are hundreds, Year and Year she makes house visits, thats a little more than a "handfull".
Let's take those good educations we received because our middle-class parents had enough sense of personal responsibility to ensure that we worked hard... and do some math here. I don't know how big your wife's school is but, just for the sake of argument (and so you can't accuse me of under-estimating), let's say it has 10,000 students. Now let's give you the benefit of the doubt & assume that a full 85% of these students are poor - and that your wife - and you, by proxy - have personal experience with every single one of them. Let's even go further to say your wife has been working there for 10 years & every kid is new every year.
10,000 students X 0.85 of them living in poverty X 10 years = 85,000 students that make up your personal experience (which is likely at least 1000 times the real number).
Your experience would still account for less than 1% of the population of kids living in poverty in this country. Do you really think that's a representative sample, one that can be used to make accurate sweeping generalizations about an entire population of 13 MILLION kids? I'll just tell you now - since your good education has already taught you this - that the answer is NO.
If 99% of the students you teach year after year (parents) are abusing the system and wanting their kids to be declaired "disabled" so they can recieve more money Its hard to fathom its suddenly different everywhere else.
Wait, so only 85% of the school is poor, but fully 99% of your wife's students have the EXACT same story as that one kid? :? :roll: (Does your wife know you're making these assertions about all her students?)
If innercities have such a great sense of community then why does the murder and crime rate increase every year? I am not sure how that is a generalization. Would you say that the areas in the US that have the highest crime and murder rate are areas with a good sense of community? Simple community service will bring on a sense of community. It has been proven that just adding vegetation to innercity areas has reduced/will reduce crime. So a conclusion I draw from that is that "If" they actually took care of their public/own housing then you will see a better community with reduced crime/murder.
Let me be sure I understand your logic here: Trees necessarily & independently cause a sense of community, which necessarily & independently causes a decrease in crime. So all you have to do to remain safe in your neighborhood is plant a tree? You should take that revolutionary piece of information over to the crime thread on the AET!
Yes clearly, you draw your conclusions from a book and I draw mine from interaction witht he people :roll:
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS (so-called) EXPERIENCE WITH POVERTY, CRIME, OR "THE INNER CITY"!!!!!
What are you building your constructs on? I don't know anything where reading trumps interaction.
You keep talking about all this reading & lack of interaction, yet you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO knowledge Of Go Beavers or his experience. Right? Again with the sweeping, uninformed generalizations!
Its pretty simples actually, The student loan industry rakes in $85 billion a year, and a significant sum of that is in government subsidy and tax considerations. Student loans increase the number of students who can attend school, which causes a rise in tuition because they have to up the fees in every aspect of the university. I am sure there is something you can look up on google.
Huh? :?
It was clearly a joke towards SCB, we have a past and I knew It would excite her.
Attention, Your Honor, Judge Jeanwah.... I would like to note for the record that blockhead thinks being "mean" is okay, given historical context.
You want some factual information about the poor. Here is my state OHIO.
The income limit (max) per family ( of 3) in Ohio is $734.00 a month to recieve welfare benefits.
Can you please express this as a percentage of the federal poverty level?
Lets break that down to 4 weeks and that comes out to $183.5 a week. Now I will give them benefit of the doubt and say its a single mother raising two children. If she works a measly 40 hours a week that comes to an hourly wage of $4.5. Now minimum wage in Ohio is $7.30. So before when I pointed out that they should be doing community service while on welfare to help the community I was blasted and TOLD that welfare recipients work 2 jobs (also another excuse for why their children do bad in school, because the parent is not there). If a person worked 2 jobs at minimum wage to equate 40 hours a week then they would not be eligible to recieve welfae.
My initial educated guess is that your numbers are incorrect, which would invalidate this point.
Also money spent on welfare is CASH, It says it right on Ohio's website "monthly cash payment" Food stamps are on a voucher/card.
Don't those two statements contradict each other? :?
You also need to factor things in that they don't have to pay for such as daycare/healthcare/. So when I go on house visits with my wife and see some of the things that I see (material items much nicer than what I have) I question how they can have the money to get that, while their child as my wife tells me is wearing the same clothes on a weekly basis and hasn't had a bath in a week.
(1) As we've discussed on numerous occasions, you don't really know where every person gets every thing in his/her house.
(2) I would like to know the total number of extravagant possessions you have really seen in the homes of poor welfare recipients whose children don't have enough clothes, and what exactly those possessions are. Honestly. Once & for all.
why does anything need to be changed? why now? what has happened the last 2 years that everything must be changed suddenly?
Because In the last two years I (help)/ wife have been working in a school that is 90% welfare students/parents. The parents of these kids WANT/DEMAND that their son/daughter is delcaired disabled so they can recieve more monthly money. Is that who you wan't raising americas future? It is now my wifes JOB (as told by some students parents) she is supposed to provide a snack for their hungry children, even though her school provides breakfast, lunch, dinner. (not all schools provide dinner) Not only that but 50% of her students are given a "weekend power pack" which is meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) for the weekends because their parents don't feed them. The only ones suffering here are the kids. And now the with all the assistace programs these parents feel entitlement that its the job of the school or gov. to provide basic school supplies.
The worst part is this is that these kids are just 6th graders and many that get all this assistance have 3 or 4 sibilings. I just want regulation/consequesnces on the parents. I would gadly pay double in taxes to help this happen because its only effecting the children in the schools future.
Maybe the best idea for you is to write your congressman...
This is also great advice -- since you are obviously very concerned about the situation that is unique to your particular school district/wifes school. Because it is seriously not a nationwide thing that you are describing. You might need to look more local.
The thing is no one was even mean to her, It was just an emotional response. It is the definition of hypocritical.
Yes, I respond emotionally when people - who presumably vote - say we should take food away from hungry children. That is not, in fact, the definition of hypocritical.
The thing is no one was even mean to her, It was just an emotional response. It is the definition of hypocritical.
Yes, I respond emotionally when people - who presumably vote - say we should take food away from hungry children. That is not, in fact, the definition of hypocritical.
Please show me in this thread, which should not be hard since its 6 pages, where I said " We should take food away from hungry children" until you find that quote, you are just acting like a immature and emotional little kid who won't admit their wong.
Let me get this straight, then: You want to take away the welfare that pays for people's children's food, and plan to also take all those kids away from their parents & put them in foster care, and use the money you saved on welfare to pay for the foster care system, right? And you're saying this is necessarily the best thing for the children? I just want to be sure I'm clear on your ideas here.
Let me get this straight, you care about kids so much and you start wishing ill will on people, yet you are perfectly fine with parents/parent raising kids they can't even feed/cloth/provide shelter?
Yes I think in the best intrest of the child that if a couple have a child they can't provide the basic needs for, then there should be a program that takes care of that child until the parents can adequately provide for that child.
Again, just so I'm clear here (because you suggested that I need to be clear on your ideas)... What exactly would be the criteria for removing children from the custody of their parents? Income? Are you saying that all people who are or become poor should have their kids taken away?
You want some factual information about the poor. Here is my state OHIO.
The income limit (max) per family ( of 3) in Ohio is $734.00 a month to recieve welfare benefits.
Can you please express this as a percentage of the federal poverty level?
Lets break that down to 4 weeks and that comes out to $183.5 a week. Now I will give them benefit of the doubt and say its a single mother raising two children. If she works a measly 40 hours a week that comes to an hourly wage of $4.5. Now minimum wage in Ohio is $7.30. So before when I pointed out that they should be doing community service while on welfare to help the community I was blasted and TOLD that welfare recipients work 2 jobs (also another excuse for why their children do bad in school, because the parent is not there). If a person worked 2 jobs at minimum wage to equate 40 hours a week then they would not be eligible to recieve welfae.
My initial educated guess is that your numbers are incorrect, which would invalidate this point.
Also money spent on welfare is CASH, It says it right on Ohio's website "monthly cash payment" Food stamps are on a voucher/card.
Don't those two statements contradict each other? :?
You also need to factor things in that they don't have to pay for such as daycare/healthcare/. So when I go on house visits with my wife and see some of the things that I see (material items much nicer than what I have) I question how they can have the money to get that, while their child as my wife tells me is wearing the same clothes on a weekly basis and hasn't had a bath in a week.
(1) As we've discussed on numerous occasions, you don't really know where every person gets every thing in his/her house.
(2) I would like to know the total number of extravagant possessions you have really seen in the homes of poor welfare recipients whose children don't have enough clothes, and what exactly those possessions are. Honestly. Once & for all.
The thing is no one was even mean to her, It was just an emotional response. It is the definition of hypocritical.
Yes, I respond emotionally when people - who presumably vote - say we should take food away from hungry children. That is not, in fact, the definition of hypocritical.
Please show me in this thread, which should not be hard since its 6 pages, where I said " We should take food away from hungry children" until you find that quote, you are just acting like a immature and emotional little kid who won't admit their wong.
You have got to be kidding. You have said many times in many different threads that you think welfare funds (which feed hungry children) should be cut off for many people. Most people who discuss this topic with you have seen this.
Are you now saying that I misunderstood your ideas, since you believe not only that welfare should be cut off, but also that children should be removed from the home? If so, do you believe that welfare should never be cut off for needy families if the children remain in the home?
You have got to be kidding. You have said many times in many different threads that you think welfare funds (which feed hungry children) should be cut off for many people. Most people who discuss this topic with you have seen this.
Are you now saying that I misunderstood your ideas, since you believe not only that welfare should be cut off, but also that children should be removed from the home? If so, do you believe that welfare should never be cut off for needy families if the children remain in the home?
I have never said "many times" that welfare funds should be cut OFF/??? I have always argued drug testing/regulation/ punishment for having children when you can't afford them. And I have always offered solutions in which the the child would be put into a program that is funded from deduction of the welfare recipients (who broke rules).
Again I never said welfare should be CUT. I have always argued for restriction/regulation/consequences.
Please define needy family? If they have an able body, they should be able to find work and if still below poverty level SHOULD be given VOUCHERS (not cash) for food/clothing. Giving people that don't have/havent had money a ATM card with money on it, is not the way to ensure the money is going to the right place (children).
You have got to be kidding. You have said many times in many different threads that you think welfare funds (which feed hungry children) should be cut off for many people. Most people who discuss this topic with you have seen this.
Are you now saying that I misunderstood your ideas, since you believe not only that welfare should be cut off, but also that children should be removed from the home? If so, do you believe that welfare should never be cut off for needy families if the children remain in the home?
I have never said "many times" that welfare funds should be cut OFF/??? I have always argued drug testing/regulation/ punishment for having children when you can't afford them. And I have always offered solutions in which the the child would be put into a program that is funded from deduction of the welfare recipients (who broke rules).
Again I never said welfare should be CUT. I have always argued for restriction/regulation/consequences.
Please define needy family? If they have an able body, they should be able to find work and if still below poverty level SHOULD be given VOUCHERS (not cash) for food/clothing. Giving people that don't have/havent had money a ATM card with money on it, is not the way to ensure the money is going to the right place (children).
So none of these "consequences" or "punishments" for which advocate ever involve cutting off or decreasing welfare benefits?? :?
I define "needy families" as whoever meets the financial requirements for benefits.
"13 million kids live in poverty in the U.S., and you are building a belief system about those kids based on What? What you've read in a book??? I am sorry But I don't take a "handful of stories" My wife works at a school (with 85% free lunches/ weekend power packs), do you think her school has a "handfull" of kids or do you think there are hundreds, Year and Year she makes house visits, thats a little more than a "handfull". If 99% of the students you teach year after year (parents) are abusing the system and wanting their kids to be declaired "disabled" so they can recieve more money Its hard to fathom its suddenly different everywhere else. Like you and others point out, everywhere else in the U.S. they are just hard working 2-3 job single parents who are on welfare..."
My belief system is based on a balance of knowledge and personal experience. These are facts, research, historical trends, combined with what I'm experiencing with my 5 senses interacting with my surroundings and community. 99% are "abusing the system"? How did you come up with that number? Did you do a scientific research experiment that included interviews, surveys, and income/expenditure analysis?
"If innercities have such a great sense of community then why does the murder and crime rate increase every year? I am not sure how that is a generalization. Would you say that the areas in the US that have the highest crime and murder rate are areas with a good sense of community? Simple community service will bring on a sense of community. It has been proven that just adding vegetation to innercity areas has reduced/will reduce crime. So a conclusion I draw from that is that "If" they actually took care of their public/own housing then you will see a better community with reduced crime/murder.
Clearly, to the people reading this, we're finding out who needs to learn more about the world."
The violent crime rate doesn't increase every year and, instead, it's been going down steadily across the country. This is an example of where you need to read facts because facts like these can change how you view things.
"Yes clearly, you draw your conclusions from a book and I draw mine from interaction witht he people :roll: "
"What are you building your constructs on? I don't know anything where reading trumps interaction. "
An example of this is your proposal in another post where you said: "Yes I think in the best intrest (sic) of the child that if a couple have a child they can't provide the basic needs for, then there should be a program that takes care of that child until the parents can adequately provide for that child."
Here you are advocating the removal of the child from the home because the parents can't provide for the child. This is a clear example of your ignorance on this whole topic. Based on research (reading), consultation with experts, and my own personal experience, interventions that work best are ones that keep the family intact. You're advocating for the dismantling of the family and the traumatizing of the children, and yet you said that you care for kids as much or more than anyone else here. Your concern should manifest in better thought out ideas, because it sounds more like resentment and hostility toward poor families.
Its pretty simples actually, The student loan industry rakes in $85 billion a year, and a significant sum of that is in government subsidy and tax considerations. Student loans increase the number of students who can attend school, which causes a rise in tuition because they have to up the fees in every aspect of the university. I am sure there is something you can look up on google.
Huh? :?
I don't need to look this one up on Google because I work for a major public university (enrollment 26,000+). At my university, at least, the number of enrolled students has nothing to do with the amount we charge in tuition fees. If that were true, the enrollment and tuition fees would increase at approximately the same rate, which they don't.
If I follow your theory correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) then you're assuming more students = more expenses from adding classes and hiring more professors; and more students using buildings = more money spent on maintenance for those buildings? That isn't how it works. More students would lead to more classes being taught by the same number of professors, and the money received from tuition fees does not go into the fund that building maintenance draws from (there are different budgets for different things). It may be different for private universities, but at the public university I work for the two are unrelated.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Because I don't like the idea of starving children.
Heres an IDEA... Don't have fucking kids if you can't afford to feed/cloth/shelter yourself, let alone the kids you want to be in the world.
But let me guess... You shouldn't be allowed to put rules on people who recieve money for free.
great idea,
if they live below the poverty line we should force them to have abortions
Blockhead, I wanted to respond to what you put in the thread of "AET is full of leftists", but now it's locked so I'll follow up here:
"something that is completely lost on this site is personal responsibility - If you can't take care of your self don't worry well force someone to, you can have everything they have for free or reduced cost and don't worry about taking responsibility for your children/homes, well take other peoples money to ensure you don't have to make any sacrifices of your own. ALso don't worry there is no punishment for abuse and you can recieve these benefits for an unlimited ammount of time. Also don't worry about taking care of your communities, once they get destroyed well make laws and force nice communities to allot land for more housing so you can live in a nicer areas. Also you don't have to worry about parenting, thats what the gov is here for. Well proivde your kids with clothes, shelter, food, schooling, healthcare, all you have to do is... nothing... We'll even have the schools provide weekend food for your family."
My recall was that people that disagree with you aren't saying that no one should be responsible for their situation, family, or community. What they were saying was that there is more to each individuals situation and that solutions are more difficult than just lecturing someone about responsibility. Part of the problem with AET is that people start threads, and respondents are mostly respectful and disagree with facts, but the person who starts the thread just quits the discussion. Just like you did in this thread.
Blockhead, I wanted to respond to what you put in the thread of "AET is full of leftists", but now it's locked so I'll follow up here:
"something that is completely lost on this site is personal responsibility - If you can't take care of your self don't worry well force someone to, you can have everything they have for free or reduced cost and don't worry about taking responsibility for your children/homes, well take other peoples money to ensure you don't have to make any sacrifices of your own. ALso don't worry there is no punishment for abuse and you can recieve these benefits for an unlimited ammount of time. Also don't worry about taking care of your communities, once they get destroyed well make laws and force nice communities to allot land for more housing so you can live in a nicer areas. Also you don't have to worry about parenting, thats what the gov is here for. Well proivde your kids with clothes, shelter, food, schooling, healthcare, all you have to do is... nothing... We'll even have the schools provide weekend food for your family."
My recall was that people that disagree with you aren't saying that no one should be responsible for their situation, family, or community. What they were saying was that there is more to each individuals situation and that solutions are more difficult than just lecturing someone about responsibility. Part of the problem with AET is that people start threads, and respondents are mostly respectful and disagree with facts, but the person who starts the thread just quits the discussion. Just like you did in this thread.
Life isn't fair man, some people WILL have to work harder than others. That should not be used as an excuses... Also I have work/family So i don't have time every single day to check on threads, nor do i log in everytime i get on this site, so If I go to AMT and don't see one of my threads up anymore, I assume that its taken its corse and died down. do you expect these threads to go on forever... ALso which Facts did I disagree with... You were the one that said they don't get cash...............
Blockhead, I wanted to respond to what you put in the thread of "AET is full of leftists", but now it's locked so I'll follow up here:
"something that is completely lost on this site is personal responsibility - If you can't take care of your self don't worry well force someone to, you can have everything they have for free or reduced cost and don't worry about taking responsibility for your children/homes, well take other peoples money to ensure you don't have to make any sacrifices of your own. ALso don't worry there is no punishment for abuse and you can recieve these benefits for an unlimited ammount of time. Also don't worry about taking care of your communities, once they get destroyed well make laws and force nice communities to allot land for more housing so you can live in a nicer areas. Also you don't have to worry about parenting, thats what the gov is here for. Well proivde your kids with clothes, shelter, food, schooling, healthcare, all you have to do is... nothing... We'll even have the schools provide weekend food for your family."
My recall was that people that disagree with you aren't saying that no one should be responsible for their situation, family, or community. What they were saying was that there is more to each individuals situation and that solutions are more difficult than just lecturing someone about responsibility. Part of the problem with AET is that people start threads, and respondents are mostly respectful and disagree with facts, but the person who starts the thread just quits the discussion. Just like you did in this thread.
Life isn't fair man, some people WILL have to work harder than others. That should not be used as an excuses... Also I have work/family So i don't have time every single day to check on threads, nor do i log in everytime i get on this site, so If I go to AMT and don't see one of my threads up anymore, I assume that its taken its corse and died down. do you expect these threads to go on forever... ALso which Facts did I disagree with... You were the one that said they don't get cash...............
I should have stated it more clearly, stating that I see a larger group of people disagreeing with conservatives and using facts to back up their position. I didn't see anyone making excuses. You were overgeneralizing about welfare recipients and your belief system is based on anecdotal evidence and not based in facts. Often, when facts are used to disagree with conservatives, they don't respond to it. The same goes when they are asked a good question about their belief system. I don't expect them to go on forever, but if someone starts a thread, they should probably respond to it.
or better yet, option D where i don't tell anybody how to raise their kids...
Then don't expect other people to pay for their kids. They are "their" kids right??? why is it anybody else's responsibility???
funny... Because as a gay man, I pay the same taxes that you do but I have many fewer rights and protections for my marriage. I also have fewer spousal tax shelters and credits. So I actually pay more.
I also am not allowed to adopt kids in many states but I have to pay taxes that go to schools and programs for kids.
Seems like I'm carrying your sorry ass.
Does that mean you support lower taxes for gay couples?
I'm kinda surprised that Blockhead didn't have an answer for that.
Yeah, he doesn't like having to help other people but doesn't seem to mind when other people are helping him.
What the hell are you talking about... When did you even address me?
WHen did I say I don't like having to help other people... Please show me.
What are you helping me pay for? Please explain
What the hell are you talking about... When did you even address me?
WHen did I say I don't like having to help other people... Please show me.
What are you helping me pay for? Please explain
What the hell are you talking about... When did you even address me?
WHen did I say I don't like having to help other people... Please show me.
What are you helping me pay for? Please explain
Look two posts up.
I still don't see where you addressed me...
ANyways you don't have to get married... I pay taxes that fix roads that I never use, should I start complaining about that...
We all Pay taxes for children programs... school/education/food/etc... How do you figure your carrying my sorry ass???
What the hell are you talking about...
I'm talking about where you were blubbering about how someone else's kids shouldn't be your responsibility and I pointed out that as a gay man... I have to pay into a lot of programs that do me no good at all.
I mean, why should I - a guy who isn't legally allowed to adopt kids in many states - have to pay into school lunch programs? Or pay for child protective services? Or to build playgrounds?
Why should I, a gay man, have to help fund planned parenthood? I mean, I'm not gonna be a parent any time soon.
Why should I have to fund a war when I'm not legally allowed to fight in it?
Now... I don't actually believe all those things. Being American means we need to work together for the greater good and stop acting like Veruca Salt when she didn't get her way. Which is what you're doing.
Welfare may be open to abuse and that should be addressed but the solution isn't to just do away with the social safety net and let the homeless starve. It isn't to eliminate medicare and let the elderly die. And it certainly isn't to treat people who've paid into that system who now need it like they're prisoners on a chain gang. Being unemployed and unable to find work is bad enough without being forced to scrub toilets and clean road sides. There are few jobs in this country and it's time to start punishing the people who caused that problem, not the people left behind by it.
something that is completely lost on this site is personal responsibility - If you can't take care of your self don't worry well force someone to, you can have everything they have for free or reduced cost and don't worry about taking responsibility for your children/homes, well take other peoples money to ensure you don't have to make any sacrifices of your own.
Thats just ridiculous. It isnt lost man. Some of us are upset that some people cant be responsible, but we actually care more that their kids are starving, wearing rags, or cant get medical help.
something that is completely lost on this site is personal responsibility - If you can't take care of your self don't worry well force someone to, you can have everything they have for free or reduced cost and don't worry about taking responsibility for your children/homes, well take other peoples money to ensure you don't have to make any sacrifices of your own.
Thats just ridiculous. It isnt lost man. Some of us are upset that some people cant be responsible, but we actually care more that their kids are starving, wearing rags, or cant get medical help.
Yes... You clearly care so much about the kids... If you care so much about children then why do you support people who can take care of their own food/shelter/clothes having children. Not only that but they get PAID / Rewarded...
And actually kids aren't staving/ wearing rags and they most certinly do get medical help.
My wifes school gives out Power Packs (weekend meals) to students, Clothes through multiple programs (crayons to computers)... If their starving its because their parents aren't being parents and providing for their children with the gov. food stamps and monthly checks. But your right, its all about the kids, why allow a family who has starving kids to have more kids... That makes alot of sense...
Yes... You clearly care so much about the kids... If you care so much about children then why do you support people who can take care of their own food/shelter/clothes having children. Not only that but they get PAID / Rewarded...
And actually kids aren't staving/ wearing rags and they most certinly do get medical help.
My wifes school gives out Power Packs (weekend meals) to students, Clothes through multiple programs (crayons to computers)... If their starving its because their parents aren't being parents and providing for their children with the gov. food stamps and monthly checks. But your right, its all about the kids, why allow a family who has starving kids to have more kids... That makes alot of sense...
i think that perhaps you would be better off on some deserted island somewhere where you and your family can be by themselves and have all the personal responsibility you want so you don't have to worry about anybody else, because fuck everybody else. just continue to look out for number one, but don't step in number two.
clearly some of us are not grasping this whole "we live in a society" thing...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Yes... You clearly care so much about the kids... If you care so much about children then why do you support people who can take care of their own food/shelter/clothes having children. Not only that but they get PAID / Rewarded...
And actually kids aren't staving/ wearing rags and they most certinly do get medical help.
My wifes school gives out Power Packs (weekend meals) to students, Clothes through multiple programs (crayons to computers)... If their starving its because their parents aren't being parents and providing for their children with the gov. food stamps and monthly checks. But your right, its all about the kids, why allow a family who has starving kids to have more kids... That makes alot of sense...
i think that perhaps you would be better off on some deserted island somewhere where you and your family can be by themselves and have all the personal responsibility you want so you don't have to worry about anybody else, because fuck everybody else. just continue to look out for number one, but don't step in number two.
clearly some of us are not grasping this whole "we live in a society" thing...
ignorance is bliss... Because I want peoople to have responsibility and consequences for their actions makes me not care for other people??? Great job addressing the post... Do you even have a family??? children?
All I have ever asked for was more regulations Money/time when it comes to welfare recipiants, thats all... Yet you make it seem like I am against social services, just because you disagree with me does not make you any more correct on this issue...
something that is completely lost on this site is personal responsibility - If you can't take care of your self don't worry well force someone to, you can have everything they have for free or reduced cost and don't worry about taking responsibility for your children/homes, well take other peoples money to ensure you don't have to make any sacrifices of your own.
Thats just ridiculous. It isnt lost man. Some of us are upset that some people cant be responsible, but we actually care more that their kids are starving, wearing rags, or cant get medical help.
Yes... You clearly care so much about the kids... If you care so much about children then why do you support people who can take care of their own food/shelter/clothes having children. Not only that but they get PAID / Rewarded...
And actually kids aren't staving/ wearing rags and they most certinly do get medical help.
My wifes school gives out Power Packs (weekend meals) to students, Clothes through multiple programs (crayons to computers)... If their starving its because their parents aren't being parents and providing for their children with the gov. food stamps and monthly checks. But your right, its all about the kids, why allow a family who has starving kids to have more kids... That makes alot of sense...
I think your mentality that they get 'paid' and 'REWARDED' for being poor is just warped man. Yes, there are some abusers of the system, but not ALL. Point is, many kids would be starving IF someone didnt help. We cant make this a perfect place man, there are always going to be people who need help. I was pointing out that you said "personal responsibilty is lost here", and it simply isnt lost here. Do you expect the four year old kid whose single Mom lost her job to take responsibility? Some people affected by it cant take responsibilty, that is all I was pointing out. You seem to forget about them every time you bring this up.
I think your mentality that they get 'paid' and 'REWARDED' for being poor is just warped man. Yes, there are some abusers of the system, but not ALL. Point is, many kids would be starving IF someone didnt help. We cant make this a perfect place man, there are always going to be people who need help. I was pointing out that you said "personal responsibilty is lost here", and it simply isnt lost here. Do you expect the four year old kid whose single Mom lost her job to take responsibility? Some people affected by it cant take responsibilty, that is all I was pointing out. You seem to forget about them every time you bring this up.
You also seem to forget that, that woman who lost her job will recieve unemployment, not welfare.
Also getting more money when you have another child is being REWARDED... It is certinaly not a deterrent, and The gov. is not regulating how they spend that money so they can provide their children with absolutly nothing and buy whatever they want.
ALso everybody seems to foget about that 20% that is on welfare for over 5 years.
Comments
The worst part is this is that these kids are just 6th graders and many that get all this assistance have 3 or 4 sibilings. I just want regulation/consequesnces on the parents. I would gadly pay double in taxes to help this happen because its only effecting the children in the schools future.
Maybe the best idea for you is to write your congressman...
I believe the whole point was that he is NOT building a belief system about this group of people as a whole. He is acknowledging - and asking you to acknowledge - that poor people cannot be generalized into one homogenous group, that each family has an individual story. To deny/disregard the individualism of people, opting instead to categorize them as one group (worthy of condemnation), is dehumanizing (and is often the first step in the process of harming others).
Let's take those good educations we received because our middle-class parents had enough sense of personal responsibility to ensure that we worked hard... and do some math here. I don't know how big your wife's school is but, just for the sake of argument (and so you can't accuse me of under-estimating), let's say it has 10,000 students. Now let's give you the benefit of the doubt & assume that a full 85% of these students are poor - and that your wife - and you, by proxy - have personal experience with every single one of them. Let's even go further to say your wife has been working there for 10 years & every kid is new every year.
10,000 students X 0.85 of them living in poverty X 10 years = 85,000 students that make up your personal experience (which is likely at least 1000 times the real number).
Your experience would still account for less than 1% of the population of kids living in poverty in this country. Do you really think that's a representative sample, one that can be used to make accurate sweeping generalizations about an entire population of 13 MILLION kids? I'll just tell you now - since your good education has already taught you this - that the answer is NO.
Wait, so only 85% of the school is poor, but fully 99% of your wife's students have the EXACT same story as that one kid? :? :roll: (Does your wife know you're making these assertions about all her students?)
Let me be sure I understand your logic here: Trees necessarily & independently cause a sense of community, which necessarily & independently causes a decrease in crime. So all you have to do to remain safe in your neighborhood is plant a tree? You should take that revolutionary piece of information over to the crime thread on the AET!
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS (so-called) EXPERIENCE WITH POVERTY, CRIME, OR "THE INNER CITY"!!!!!
You keep talking about all this reading & lack of interaction, yet you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO knowledge Of Go Beavers or his experience. Right? Again with the sweeping, uninformed generalizations!
Huh? :?
Attention, Your Honor, Judge Jeanwah.... I would like to note for the record that blockhead thinks being "mean" is okay, given historical context.
Can you please express this as a percentage of the federal poverty level?
My initial educated guess is that your numbers are incorrect, which would invalidate this point.
Don't those two statements contradict each other? :?
(1) As we've discussed on numerous occasions, you don't really know where every person gets every thing in his/her house.
(2) I would like to know the total number of extravagant possessions you have really seen in the homes of poor welfare recipients whose children don't have enough clothes, and what exactly those possessions are. Honestly. Once & for all.
This is also great advice -- since you are obviously very concerned about the situation that is unique to your particular school district/wifes school. Because it is seriously not a nationwide thing that you are describing. You might need to look more local.
Yes, I respond emotionally when people - who presumably vote - say we should take food away from hungry children. That is not, in fact, the definition of hypocritical.
Again, just so I'm clear here (because you suggested that I need to be clear on your ideas)... What exactly would be the criteria for removing children from the custody of their parents? Income? Are you saying that all people who are or become poor should have their kids taken away?
http://jfs.ohio.gov/factsheets/owf.pdf
please read
You have got to be kidding. You have said many times in many different threads that you think welfare funds (which feed hungry children) should be cut off for many people. Most people who discuss this topic with you have seen this.
Are you now saying that I misunderstood your ideas, since you believe not only that welfare should be cut off, but also that children should be removed from the home? If so, do you believe that welfare should never be cut off for needy families if the children remain in the home?
Again I never said welfare should be CUT. I have always argued for restriction/regulation/consequences.
Please define needy family? If they have an able body, they should be able to find work and if still below poverty level SHOULD be given VOUCHERS (not cash) for food/clothing. Giving people that don't have/havent had money a ATM card with money on it, is not the way to ensure the money is going to the right place (children).
So none of these "consequences" or "punishments" for which advocate ever involve cutting off or decreasing welfare benefits?? :?
I define "needy families" as whoever meets the financial requirements for benefits.
My belief system is based on a balance of knowledge and personal experience. These are facts, research, historical trends, combined with what I'm experiencing with my 5 senses interacting with my surroundings and community. 99% are "abusing the system"? How did you come up with that number? Did you do a scientific research experiment that included interviews, surveys, and income/expenditure analysis?
"If innercities have such a great sense of community then why does the murder and crime rate increase every year? I am not sure how that is a generalization. Would you say that the areas in the US that have the highest crime and murder rate are areas with a good sense of community? Simple community service will bring on a sense of community. It has been proven that just adding vegetation to innercity areas has reduced/will reduce crime. So a conclusion I draw from that is that "If" they actually took care of their public/own housing then you will see a better community with reduced crime/murder.
Clearly, to the people reading this, we're finding out who needs to learn more about the world."
The violent crime rate doesn't increase every year and, instead, it's been going down steadily across the country. This is an example of where you need to read facts because facts like these can change how you view things.
"Yes clearly, you draw your conclusions from a book and I draw mine from interaction witht he people :roll: "
"What are you building your constructs on? I don't know anything where reading trumps interaction. "
An example of this is your proposal in another post where you said: "Yes I think in the best intrest (sic) of the child that if a couple have a child they can't provide the basic needs for, then there should be a program that takes care of that child until the parents can adequately provide for that child."
Here you are advocating the removal of the child from the home because the parents can't provide for the child. This is a clear example of your ignorance on this whole topic. Based on research (reading), consultation with experts, and my own personal experience, interventions that work best are ones that keep the family intact. You're advocating for the dismantling of the family and the traumatizing of the children, and yet you said that you care for kids as much or more than anyone else here. Your concern should manifest in better thought out ideas, because it sounds more like resentment and hostility toward poor families.
I don't need to look this one up on Google because I work for a major public university (enrollment 26,000+). At my university, at least, the number of enrolled students has nothing to do with the amount we charge in tuition fees. If that were true, the enrollment and tuition fees would increase at approximately the same rate, which they don't.
If I follow your theory correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) then you're assuming more students = more expenses from adding classes and hiring more professors; and more students using buildings = more money spent on maintenance for those buildings? That isn't how it works. More students would lead to more classes being taught by the same number of professors, and the money received from tuition fees does not go into the fund that building maintenance draws from (there are different budgets for different things). It may be different for private universities, but at the public university I work for the two are unrelated.
great idea,
if they live below the poverty line we should force them to have abortions
:roll:
"something that is completely lost on this site is personal responsibility - If you can't take care of your self don't worry well force someone to, you can have everything they have for free or reduced cost and don't worry about taking responsibility for your children/homes, well take other peoples money to ensure you don't have to make any sacrifices of your own. ALso don't worry there is no punishment for abuse and you can recieve these benefits for an unlimited ammount of time. Also don't worry about taking care of your communities, once they get destroyed well make laws and force nice communities to allot land for more housing so you can live in a nicer areas. Also you don't have to worry about parenting, thats what the gov is here for. Well proivde your kids with clothes, shelter, food, schooling, healthcare, all you have to do is... nothing... We'll even have the schools provide weekend food for your family."
My recall was that people that disagree with you aren't saying that no one should be responsible for their situation, family, or community. What they were saying was that there is more to each individuals situation and that solutions are more difficult than just lecturing someone about responsibility. Part of the problem with AET is that people start threads, and respondents are mostly respectful and disagree with facts, but the person who starts the thread just quits the discussion. Just like you did in this thread.
I should have stated it more clearly, stating that I see a larger group of people disagreeing with conservatives and using facts to back up their position. I didn't see anyone making excuses. You were overgeneralizing about welfare recipients and your belief system is based on anecdotal evidence and not based in facts. Often, when facts are used to disagree with conservatives, they don't respond to it. The same goes when they are asked a good question about their belief system. I don't expect them to go on forever, but if someone starts a thread, they should probably respond to it.
funny... Because as a gay man, I pay the same taxes that you do but I have many fewer rights and protections for my marriage. I also have fewer spousal tax shelters and credits. So I actually pay more.
I also am not allowed to adopt kids in many states but I have to pay taxes that go to schools and programs for kids.
Seems like I'm carrying your sorry ass.
Does that mean you support lower taxes for gay couples?
I'm kinda surprised that Blockhead didn't have an answer for that.
Yeah, he doesn't like having to help other people but doesn't seem to mind when other people are helping him.
WHen did I say I don't like having to help other people... Please show me.
What are you helping me pay for? Please explain
Look two posts up.
ANyways you don't have to get married... I pay taxes that fix roads that I never use, should I start complaining about that...
We all Pay taxes for children programs... school/education/food/etc... How do you figure your carrying my sorry ass???
What the hell are you talking about...
I'm talking about where you were blubbering about how someone else's kids shouldn't be your responsibility and I pointed out that as a gay man... I have to pay into a lot of programs that do me no good at all.
I mean, why should I - a guy who isn't legally allowed to adopt kids in many states - have to pay into school lunch programs? Or pay for child protective services? Or to build playgrounds?
Why should I, a gay man, have to help fund planned parenthood? I mean, I'm not gonna be a parent any time soon.
Why should I have to fund a war when I'm not legally allowed to fight in it?
Now... I don't actually believe all those things. Being American means we need to work together for the greater good and stop acting like Veruca Salt when she didn't get her way. Which is what you're doing.
Welfare may be open to abuse and that should be addressed but the solution isn't to just do away with the social safety net and let the homeless starve. It isn't to eliminate medicare and let the elderly die. And it certainly isn't to treat people who've paid into that system who now need it like they're prisoners on a chain gang. Being unemployed and unable to find work is bad enough without being forced to scrub toilets and clean road sides. There are few jobs in this country and it's time to start punishing the people who caused that problem, not the people left behind by it.
Thats just ridiculous. It isnt lost man. Some of us are upset that some people cant be responsible, but we actually care more that their kids are starving, wearing rags, or cant get medical help.
And actually kids aren't staving/ wearing rags and they most certinly do get medical help.
My wifes school gives out Power Packs (weekend meals) to students, Clothes through multiple programs (crayons to computers)... If their starving its because their parents aren't being parents and providing for their children with the gov. food stamps and monthly checks. But your right, its all about the kids, why allow a family who has starving kids to have more kids... That makes alot of sense...
clearly some of us are not grasping this whole "we live in a society" thing...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
All I have ever asked for was more regulations Money/time when it comes to welfare recipiants, thats all... Yet you make it seem like I am against social services, just because you disagree with me does not make you any more correct on this issue...
I think your mentality that they get 'paid' and 'REWARDED' for being poor is just warped man. Yes, there are some abusers of the system, but not ALL. Point is, many kids would be starving IF someone didnt help. We cant make this a perfect place man, there are always going to be people who need help. I was pointing out that you said "personal responsibilty is lost here", and it simply isnt lost here. Do you expect the four year old kid whose single Mom lost her job to take responsibility? Some people affected by it cant take responsibilty, that is all I was pointing out. You seem to forget about them every time you bring this up.
Also getting more money when you have another child is being REWARDED... It is certinaly not a deterrent, and The gov. is not regulating how they spend that money so they can provide their children with absolutly nothing and buy whatever they want.
ALso everybody seems to foget about that 20% that is on welfare for over 5 years.