I wanted to see some thoughts before I gave my opinion, but these are my initial basic requirements in no particular order (not an exhaustive list):
1) Restriction on grocery store items that must be purchased before "optional" items are purchased (i.e. if you can get a decent meal on the table every day and still afford ice cream - excellent. But, you can't buy the ice cream first). Mechanisms are already in place for this. Health Flexible Spending Account debit cards already restict what you can buy with them. That can be easily transfered to other things due to the bar coding system.
2) Drug/alcohol testing. This is a tricky one. Some folks have necessary scripts, and I'm not 100% sure we can figure out how to exclude those (e.g. how to test for codeine when it's in certain scripts). So, I don't think it's a question of if we need this, but how? Unfortunately, that's a pretty big question that I have no suggestion for.
3) Aptitude testing. To incentivize less cheating here allow other restrictions to be lighter relative to how you score here. Obviously, more would be expected of you as well. But, that seems like a fair trade off.
4) Random home checks for living situations. eg Are you really living with an unmarried father of one of your children or not? That is not the only example. That's why it needs to be more general than that. But, it should be unannounced. Obviously, very strict guidelines would have to be set in place so folks aren't taken advantage of by unauthorized visits and/or fake visits.
5) School attendance and grades (C average? simply passing?) for all children (job could also be applicable after a certain age as an alternative to school). This is put on the parents. Maybe, we reduce the base payments, and then add a "school bonus."
I also believe all of these should be tempered by length of time on the program. Maybe, the first few months, there's very little restrictions on some items. Then, as we move along increase. This serves a few purposes. First, it makes it less attractive to stay on assistance to those that are "lingering." Second, those that really need to stay on longer probably need a lot more guidance in life than not (this is very general, and obviously does not cover everyone. But, you have to create some criteria). And finally, reduce administrative cost associated with those brief "transient" recipients.
I would fully support #4. #1 is good, too. I'm not so sure about the grades and the aptitude testing.
Ok. Can we get back on topic? PLEASE! Block - I'm with you on most of your thinking, and I do think there are folks that decide to simply not bother with their kids' schooling. But, there are also folks who have limitations, as some of these folks are trying to describe. I only step in to try to get back on topic. Again if you think that something related to this should be a requirement, please state that, but understand that there does exist people and jobs that do not allow for getting off.
Now, that being said, I think others have to equally admit that block's wife's experiences do exist and are also relevant. I think the trick is - how do we create something to compensate for that? OR can we? I'd like to move away from generalities because they are both correct AND both wrong. And none of that addresses the issue.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
5) School attendance and grades (C average? simply passing?) for all children (job could also be applicable after a certain age as an alternative to school). This is put on the parents. Maybe, we reduce the base payments, and then add a "school bonus."
Perhaps I misunderstood, but did you just essentially say that children who aren't good in school shouldn't be fed??
[/quote]
I do enjoy how folks interpret things how they want to. Please point out how that interpretation is what I said. What that point is for is - kids should be required to go to school. Perhaps, we reduce payments home and force them to have meals at school unless they meet these items. You can use some mind opening yourself. You point at block, and then interpret things how you see the world. Yes, there should be some requirement with schooling. But, that does not then leap to - no school, no food.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Ok. Can we get back on topic? PLEASE! Block - I'm with you on most of your thinking, and I do think there are folks that decide to simply not bother with their kids' schooling. But, there are also folks who have limitations, as some of these folks are trying to describe. I only step in to try to get back on topic. Again if you think that something related to this should be a requirement, please state that, but understand that there does exist people and jobs that do not allow for getting off.
Now, that being said, I think others have to equally admit that block's wife's experiences do exist and are also relevant. I think the trick is - how do we create something to compensate for that? OR can we? I'd like to move away from generalities because they are both correct AND both wrong. And none of that addresses the issue.
I am signing out to go to work--yes, second shift, imagine that :roll: . Anyway, just to say I'm not skipping out and I shall return at another time. Good discussion until it turned Twilight Zone.
5) School attendance and grades (C average? simply passing?) for all children (job could also be applicable after a certain age as an alternative to school). This is put on the parents. Maybe, we reduce the base payments, and then add a "school bonus."
Perhaps I misunderstood, but did you just essentially say that children who aren't good in school shouldn't be fed??
I do enjoy how folks interpret things how they want to. Please point out how that interpretation is what I said. What that point is for is - kids should be required to go to school. Perhaps, we reduce payments home and force them to have meals at school unless they meet these items. You can use some mind opening yourself. You point at block, and then interpret things how you see the world. Yes, there should be some requirement with schooling. But, that does not then leap to - no school, no food.[/quote][/quote][/quote]
I'm just trying to understand how your suggestion would play out in reality, since you said the reality of how things really work out is important. Since no one has answered my question about the consequences of not meeting these requirements, I am left to assume that the consequence is for benefits to be withheld. So here's how got to no school, no food:
1. You said there should be a GPA requirement.
2. People who don't meet the requirements don't receive benefits.
3. Benefits are used to feed children.
Therefore, the families of kids who don't get decent grades have the assistance used to feed said kids withheld.
Doesn't seem like much of a leap to me. But if you meant something else with your GPA requirement, please do explain what you meant and how it would play out in reality.
I would fully support #4. #1 is good, too. I'm not so sure about the grades and the aptitude testing.
For the aptitude testing, what I'm thinking is after say 6 months (or whatever time frame that balances administration with reasonableness) you are required to take an aptitude test. The results will then determine what you can be expected to do. So, aptitude would not just include intelligence test, but dexterity, etc.
As I stated in the original post, if you score low, more requirements as far as oversight would be required (i.e. drug testing?), but you might only be required to check in and do a and b, instead of being expected to find a job in 3 months. So, on and so forth. As you can see, I haven't thought of all the aspects of this. I'm just trying to give creedance to the ideas (that honestly before this thread I haven't given much thought to) that folks might be living up to their expectations, but still can't meet their basic necessities vs. folks that are lingering because they don't want to take a certain job because it only pays slightly more than welfare and why bother (other than self respect and the greater good to society).
So, yeah. Not a perfect idea (yet - I hope - maybe you can help me!)
As for grades - I would want some sort of school requirement for kids and it has to be something more than just be there. Otherwise, it's more disruptive to other students than it's worth. So, maybe there's a school/community service aspect to it and maybe passing is enough. Again, not fully germinated. But, I do think there should be reprecussions. Again, as someone else pointed out, I don't want it to be starving the child. But, at some point someone has to step in and teach responsibility that is obviously not being taught at home. It just has to be balanced with the knowledge that there are more nefarious alternatives that kids are turning to, and we have to make this somehow more attractive to them (as silly as that sounds) or the cycle continues.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I'm just trying to understand how your suggestion would play out in reality, since you said the reality of how things really work out is important. Since no one has answered my question about the consequences of not meeting these requirements, I am left to assume that the consequence is for benefits to be withheld. So here's how got to no school, no food:
1. You said there should be a GPA requirement.
2. People who don't meet the requirements don't receive benefits.
3. Benefits are used to feed children.
Therefore, the families of kids who don't get decent grades have the assistance used to feed said kids withheld.
Doesn't seem like much of a leap to me. But if you meant something else with your GPA requirement, please do explain what you meant and how it would play out in reality.
I think I somewhat answered your question while you were posting, but if the above does not provide clarity, let me know, and I'll try to elaborate.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I'm just trying to understand how your suggestion would play out in reality, since you said the reality of how things really work out is important. Since no one has answered my question about the consequences of not meeting these requirements, I am left to assume that the consequence is for benefits to be withheld. So here's how got to no school, no food:
1. You said there should be a GPA requirement.
2. People who don't meet the requirements don't receive benefits.
3. Benefits are used to feed children.
Therefore, the families of kids who don't get decent grades have the assistance used to feed said kids withheld.
Doesn't seem like much of a leap to me. But if you meant something else with your GPA requirement, please do explain what you meant and how it would play out in reality.
I think I somewhat answered your question while you were posting, but if the above does not provide clarity, let me know, and I'll try to elaborate.
Yes, you did. Thank you.
The thing is, though, we're still back at square one since no one has really spelled out how there could be repercussions that wouldn't result in negative consequences for the child.
I'm just trying to understand how your suggestion would play out in reality, since you said the reality of how things really work out is important. Since no one has answered my question about the consequences of not meeting these requirements, I am left to assume that the consequence is for benefits to be withheld. So here's how got to no school, no food:
1. You said there should be a GPA requirement.
2. People who don't meet the requirements don't receive benefits.
3. Benefits are used to feed children.
Therefore, the families of kids who don't get decent grades have the assistance used to feed said kids withheld.
Doesn't seem like much of a leap to me. But if you meant something else with your GPA requirement, please do explain what you meant and how it would play out in reality.
I think I somewhat answered your question while you were posting, but if the above does not provide clarity, let me know, and I'll try to elaborate.
Yes, you did. Thank you.
The thing is, though, we're still back at square one since no one has really spelled out how there could be repercussions that wouldn't result in negative consequences for the child.
I will try to find the stat on my wifes school but since it pales in comparrison to the poorer areas of the Nation I doubt I am generalizing. You seem to have an opinion based on nothing... As least my opinion comes from someone actually working with these people and seeing the abuse first hand.
Quick funny story: A child in her 6th grade calls we being examined for being ED (emotionally Disturbed) and some other ADHD "disease" She was in the meeting with the Mother and Middle school principal. The school was offer ways to help the child, the mother was pushing for him to be diagnosed as ED as she explained she needed more money, and if the child is diagnosed then the GOV will give her more assistance (money). The school agreed to this (not sure of process) and the mother said to the child after walking out of the meeting "I am proud of you boy, we are now going to get more money and I will get you that Android (phone) we've been talking about".
We're really supposed to believe this? That would mean I would be receiving some sort of pay because my daughter has Down syndrome. You FAIL.
I didn't read through all this but just want to say we can't, as a country, afford this anymore.
Pretty much that simple...spend spend spend and time is running out.
When I go to the grocery store the majority of people now have food stamp cards or the baby care cards.
A recent investigation in our area by a news team tracking the welfare debit cards and came up with 30,000 dollars spent at one liquor store in one month and cards used at strip clubs golf courses etc. The cards are sold on the street for cash for drugs... more fraud.
The Feds need to tighten the restrictions of use.
I think most want to help those who really need it but working Americans are being taken advantage of and too many are milking the system.
Whats the deficit now? 17 trillion... did I hear that... holy crap
also community service is a good thing for the able bodied .. it promotes goodwill all around.
When I go to the grocery store the majority of people now have food stamp cards or the baby care cards.
about 6 months ago or so, I was in line behind a couple using food stamps at the grocery store. After I checked out, I saw them getting into a new model Mercedees SUV.
you should probably read through the thread when you get time.
well I read through page 5 then did a hit and miss
did I miss much...?
I really just wanted to make my point which is.... its out of control!
and everyone can talk but lets write the Feds and tell them no more... we need tighter restrictions on the use of welfare debit cards
my kids are approached regularly by young people with food stamps to sell for half price... this done on the grounds of the grocery stores :?
thats people working the system and my kids in their 20's are fed up with paying oodles in tax dollars for this kind of crap going on... while they are pinching pennies and live on ramen noodles
they won't of course buy these food stamps they are already paying for them thats the icing on the cake to have someone offer to sell them to you!
Its just wrong to abuse the working people that way.
to quote a peace loving young person....."oh and they wonder why people snap"
I didn't read through all this but just want to say we can't, as a country, afford this anymore.
Pretty much that simple...spend spend spend and time is running out.
When I go to the grocery store the majority of people now have food stamp cards or the baby care cards.
A recent investigation in our area by a news team tracking the welfare debit cards and came up with 30,000 dollars spent at one liquor store in one month and cards used at strip clubs golf courses etc. The cards are sold on the street for cash for drugs... more fraud.
The Feds need to tighten the restrictions of use.
I think most want to help those who really need it but working Americans are being taken advantage of and too many are milking the system.
Whats the deficit now? 17 trillion... did I hear that... holy crap
also community service is a good thing for the able bodied .. it promotes goodwill all around.
And how much has your Govt. spent in Iraq alone? Compare that to the cost of food stamps and welfare. Then come back and tell me how much you are really bothered by people selling their food stamps for cash.
I didn't read through all this but just want to say we can't, as a country, afford this anymore.
Pretty much that simple...spend spend spend and time is running out.
When I go to the grocery store the majority of people now have food stamp cards or the baby care cards.
A recent investigation in our area by a news team tracking the welfare debit cards and came up with 30,000 dollars spent at one liquor store in one month and cards used at strip clubs golf courses etc. The cards are sold on the street for cash for drugs... more fraud.
The Feds need to tighten the restrictions of use.
I think most want to help those who really need it but working Americans are being taken advantage of and too many are milking the system.
Whats the deficit now? 17 trillion... did I hear that... holy crap
also community service is a good thing for the able bodied .. it promotes goodwill all around.
And how much has your Govt. spent in Iraq alone? Compare that to the cost of food stamps and welfare. Then come back and tell me how much you are really bothered by people selling their food stamps for cash.
2 wrongs don't make a right last time I checked
its all waste
just like individual families, just like small biz we as a country need to stop spending... stop the waste
and people taking advantage of our working class needs to stop!
Pandora, you are right that two wrongs don't make a right. But what I am saying is that maybe one effects the other. If all that money spent on defence that I believe is wrongly spent, was instead spent at home, Maybe we would have a much better welfare system. We would certainly have the funds to properly maintain it. Which would include funds for policing it. Including making sure those that are on it, should be on it.
Pandora, you are right that two wrongs don't make a right. But what I am saying is that maybe one effects the other. If all that money spent on defence that I believe is wrongly spent, was instead spent at home, Maybe we would have a much better welfare system. We would certainly have the funds to properly maintain it. Which would include funds for policing it. Including making sure those that are on it, should be on it.
For me it seems to be an overall waste problem and also how America is perceived in the world. We buy our "friends" and they are never our true friends. Everything in the world that happens is our fault and we think we have to solve everything with the taxpayers hard earned money.
We've taught generations of our people it's ok to not give back to society..
it will take care of you.
People used to be too proud for that... like I have taught my children you work for what you need/ get
this as the working class teaches their children.
We have let business bring in cheap labor in the form of illegal workers taking jobs from our citizens
and bogging down the welfare system with more people on aid.
Iraq, no of course we shouldn't be there, but what about the bailing out of the banks ...
Trumps what we spend there I'm sure.
The super wealthy making fools out of the working class.
Endangering the fragile economy we have with a deficit that is out of control.
Just borrow some more money just print some more.
The gas pump before I got my 20$ worth of gas to last a week was $98.45 for a tank of gas.
:wtf: maybe just charge that on a credit card? Why is everyone just grinning and bearing that?
Placid sheep.
We are failing... we are a young country and we are going down. Greed will do us in.
Who's that going to hurt... not the super rich it will be the working class and we will see what our parents and grandparents went through.
Hope we are tough enough.
I'm not seeing much backbone these days.
I hate to keep doing this, but could we please stay on topic. Non/Waste in Iraq is irrelevant to the question.
It's a very simple, pointed question (with admittedly no easy asnwer) - what responsibility do receivers of government assistance have? If you think fighting a war in Iraq is one of them, please elaborate. Otherwise, take it to another thread.
Thank you.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I would fully support #4. #1 is good, too. I'm not so sure about the grades and the aptitude testing.
For the aptitude testing, what I'm thinking is after say 6 months (or whatever time frame that balances administration with reasonableness) you are required to take an aptitude test. The results will then determine what you can be expected to do. So, aptitude would not just include intelligence test, but dexterity, etc.
As I stated in the original post, if you score low, more requirements as far as oversight would be required (i.e. drug testing?), but you might only be required to check in and do a and b, instead of being expected to find a job in 3 months. So, on and so forth. As you can see, I haven't thought of all the aspects of this. I'm just trying to give creedance to the ideas (that honestly before this thread I haven't given much thought to) that folks might be living up to their expectations, but still can't meet their basic necessities vs. folks that are lingering because they don't want to take a certain job because it only pays slightly more than welfare and why bother (other than self respect and the greater good to society).
So, yeah. Not a perfect idea (yet - I hope - maybe you can help me!)
As for grades - I would want some sort of school requirement for kids and it has to be something more than just be there. Otherwise, it's more disruptive to other students than it's worth. So, maybe there's a school/community service aspect to it and maybe passing is enough. Again, not fully germinated. But, I do think there should be reprecussions. Again, as someone else pointed out, I don't want it to be starving the child. But, at some point someone has to step in and teach responsibility that is obviously not being taught at home. It just has to be balanced with the knowledge that there are more nefarious alternatives that kids are turning to, and we have to make this somehow more attractive to them (as silly as that sounds) or the cycle continues.
I'm not sure what to say about this yet, Edson. It's a good idea theoretically, to give some sort of incentive for school performance improvement, but I think in some cases it might in turn put more pressure on the kids; in some cases it may not encourage parental involvement any further than a parent saying "you better do good in school because we are all going to suffer if you don't". I'm not really sure this would weed out the lingerers.
I'm not sure what to say about this yet, Edson. It's a good idea theoretically, to give some sort of incentive for school performance improvement, but I think in some cases it might in turn put more pressure on the kids; in some cases it may not encourage parental involvement any further than a parent saying "you better do good in school because we are all going to suffer if you don't". I'm not really sure this would weed out the lingerers.
Yeah. I agree. You also don't want to create a disruption for other students that are trying to do the right thing. That's why I put ? next to C average. Maybe, it's just passing (if you're not even passing, it's not even worth it).
Yes, there's pressure. But, maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe, a parent actually talking to their kids about school is a good thing. Yes, kids shouldn't have the weight of the family on them. But, even without this, in a lot of ways they would anyway (in that type of situation). At least this way, maybe a few more are motivated to achieve at school, etc.
One thing that's clear is that it would be a much more complex set up than simply - pass or no money. But, there has to be reprecussions or there's no incentive. For those that are doing ok, the reprecussions are meaningless. So, I do think there is something you could do to incentivize the type of behavior that will set children up better for the long term (and thus, benefit society). So, even if it does impact the kids somewhat negatively in the short run, it might not be a terrible thing. The question is how do we create a situation where the long term good for everyone involved (the kid and society, in that order) that makes it palatable.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I've participated in a few and read a bunch of other threads that gets into what we think should be done regarding welfare and such. As I've read them, one thing struck me as being mentioned occassionally, but almost always ignored. And that is - if we assume that we all agree that we want to help those in need (because, honestly, I haven't seen one poster that has said they don't - it's the measure of extent that folks are discussing), then:
What is the responsibility of those on the receiving end?
I know it's tough, but I would rather stay away from the tax/don't tax the rich and such. I would really like to know people's thoughts from both sides of the tax/spend issue as to what they think those that receive should/should not be expected to do in order to receive their subsidy.
I'm pretty sure your topic has been raised before
the responsiblity of those on aid
what they should have to do etc to collect.
If there was not waste and abusers of the system we wouldn't have the problem we do
and the working class would not feel so incredibly screwed.
Its obvious to me, as far as your question goes...responsibility is a case of morality.
We as working people feel responsible to share and help those less fortunate due to falling on hard times... not due to having kids they know they can't afford and having kids to stay in a country illegally
or providing for people who are just not sincere about being a part of a working society.
In a perfect world the responsibility of recipients is also based in morality....
Do not take what you do not deserve or need.
Give back to society by community service of any kind... nothing comes free in this world.
Have a conscious and don't abuse the working class.
And get a job, any job if you are able bodied.
Here again there would be more jobs if the illegals were discouraged from being here....
all the problems of our country are intertwined.
Not sure kids should suffer for the sins of the adults but that is what always seems to happen.
I can't help but think that people who are pushing requirements (performance tests, home visits, drug tests) have a desire to shame/humiliate welfare recipients in the hopes that this humiliation will somehow help things.
I can't help but think that people who are pushing requirements (performance tests, home visits, drug tests) have a desire to shame/humiliate welfare recipients in the hopes that this humiliation will somehow help things.
I don't think so some people are selling food stamp cards and welfare debit cards on the street
to buy crack, liquor etc. and not using the help as it was intended. Drug tests need to be mandatory if they already are not.
This system has gotten to be a given and that is not the way it was meant to be.
The lying and fraud that goes on is a complete crime against our country and the working class.
I live in a small world ... still I know of many who are blatantly lying to get aid... it is appalling.
I can't help but think that people who are pushing requirements (performance tests, home visits, drug tests) have a desire to shame/humiliate welfare recipients in the hopes that this humiliation will somehow help things.
maybe it is a way to validate themselves and reinforce their beliefs that they are better and more noble than everyone else.
being able to afford things makes you no more or less human than anyone else...
that should ALWAYS be kept in mind when the haves are bitching about the have nots.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I can't help but think that people who are pushing requirements (performance tests, home visits, drug tests) have a desire to shame/humiliate welfare recipients in the hopes that this humiliation will somehow help things.
maybe it is a way to validate themselves and reinforce their beliefs that they are better and more noble than everyone else.
being able to afford things makes you no more or less human than anyone else...
that should ALWAYS be kept in mind when the haves are bitching about the have nots.
I think some haves should take off their rose colored glasses
Because someone needs aid does not make them less,
to imply that anyone feels that way is insulting....
but when someone cheats, steals, and lies it does make them less.
We need restrictions and criteria in place to stop this from happening.
To deny it is happening is to have your head in the sand
I can't help but think that people who are pushing requirements (performance tests, home visits, drug tests) have a desire to shame/humiliate welfare recipients in the hopes that this humiliation will somehow help things.
maybe it is a way to validate themselves and reinforce their beliefs that they are better and more noble than everyone else.
being able to afford things makes you no more or less human than anyone else...
that should ALWAYS be kept in mind when the haves are bitching about the have nots.
I think some haves should take off their rose colored glasses
Because someone needs aid does not make them less,
to imply that anyone feels that way is insulting....
but when someone cheats, steals, and lies it does make them less.
We need restrictions and criteria in place to stop this from happening.
To deny it is happening is to have your head in the sand
we have been through this time and again in other threads. yes there is abuse of the system, but it is nowhere near the the degree that some of the posters on here say it is.
pandora are you advocating getting rid of aid for everyone because a single digit percent of those people are abusing it?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
and yes the attitudes of several posters on this forum are that they are better and above everyone else that has less than they do. for evidence of that look at a few threads on the front page of the train. how else could their responses be defended, let alone justified?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I can't help but think that people who are pushing requirements (performance tests, home visits, drug tests) have a desire to shame/humiliate welfare recipients in the hopes that this humiliation will somehow help things.
maybe it is a way to validate themselves and reinforce their beliefs that they are better and more noble than everyone else.
being able to afford things makes you no more or less human than anyone else...
that should ALWAYS be kept in mind when the haves are bitching about the have nots.
As long as we need money people shouldn't be equal. As it largely amounts to theft from those who have put some sort of effort in for their money.
Our lower class does not invest in themselves, whether their education or their earned money. The majority of their efforts are concentrated into cheap and meaningless goods and entertainment that are a path to mediocrity.
I think some haves should take off their rose colored glasses
Because someone needs aid does not make them less,
to imply that anyone feels that way is insulting....
but when someone cheats, steals, and lies it does make them less.
We need restrictions and criteria in place to stop this from happening.
To deny it is happening is to have your head in the sand
we have been through this time and again in other threads. yes there is abuse of the system, but it is nowhere near the the degree that some of the posters on here say it is.
pandora are you advocating getting rid of aid for everyone because a single digit percent of those people are abusing it?
And you know this is single digit how? Just the act of them not activly looking for jobs everyday is abuse of the system. Do you think they put in 40 hours a week looking for jobs?
Comments
Now, that being said, I think others have to equally admit that block's wife's experiences do exist and are also relevant. I think the trick is - how do we create something to compensate for that? OR can we? I'd like to move away from generalities because they are both correct AND both wrong. And none of that addresses the issue.
I'm just trying to understand how your suggestion would play out in reality, since you said the reality of how things really work out is important. Since no one has answered my question about the consequences of not meeting these requirements, I am left to assume that the consequence is for benefits to be withheld. So here's how got to no school, no food:
1. You said there should be a GPA requirement.
2. People who don't meet the requirements don't receive benefits.
3. Benefits are used to feed children.
Therefore, the families of kids who don't get decent grades have the assistance used to feed said kids withheld.
Doesn't seem like much of a leap to me. But if you meant something else with your GPA requirement, please do explain what you meant and how it would play out in reality.
For the aptitude testing, what I'm thinking is after say 6 months (or whatever time frame that balances administration with reasonableness) you are required to take an aptitude test. The results will then determine what you can be expected to do. So, aptitude would not just include intelligence test, but dexterity, etc.
As I stated in the original post, if you score low, more requirements as far as oversight would be required (i.e. drug testing?), but you might only be required to check in and do a and b, instead of being expected to find a job in 3 months. So, on and so forth. As you can see, I haven't thought of all the aspects of this. I'm just trying to give creedance to the ideas (that honestly before this thread I haven't given much thought to) that folks might be living up to their expectations, but still can't meet their basic necessities vs. folks that are lingering because they don't want to take a certain job because it only pays slightly more than welfare and why bother (other than self respect and the greater good to society).
So, yeah. Not a perfect idea (yet - I hope - maybe you can help me!)
As for grades - I would want some sort of school requirement for kids and it has to be something more than just be there. Otherwise, it's more disruptive to other students than it's worth. So, maybe there's a school/community service aspect to it and maybe passing is enough. Again, not fully germinated. But, I do think there should be reprecussions. Again, as someone else pointed out, I don't want it to be starving the child. But, at some point someone has to step in and teach responsibility that is obviously not being taught at home. It just has to be balanced with the knowledge that there are more nefarious alternatives that kids are turning to, and we have to make this somehow more attractive to them (as silly as that sounds) or the cycle continues.
I think I somewhat answered your question while you were posting, but if the above does not provide clarity, let me know, and I'll try to elaborate.
Yes, you did. Thank you.
The thing is, though, we're still back at square one since no one has really spelled out how there could be repercussions that wouldn't result in negative consequences for the child.
Also, I take issue with this statement: This is obvious how, exactly?
We're really supposed to believe this? That would mean I would be receiving some sort of pay because my daughter has Down syndrome. You FAIL.
Pretty much that simple...spend spend spend and time is running out.
When I go to the grocery store the majority of people now have food stamp cards or the baby care cards.
A recent investigation in our area by a news team tracking the welfare debit cards and came up with 30,000 dollars spent at one liquor store in one month and cards used at strip clubs golf courses etc. The cards are sold on the street for cash for drugs... more fraud.
The Feds need to tighten the restrictions of use.
I think most want to help those who really need it but working Americans are being taken advantage of and too many are milking the system.
Whats the deficit now? 17 trillion... did I hear that... holy crap
also community service is a good thing for the able bodied .. it promotes goodwill all around.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
about 6 months ago or so, I was in line behind a couple using food stamps at the grocery store. After I checked out, I saw them getting into a new model Mercedees SUV.
did I miss much...?
I really just wanted to make my point which is.... its out of control!
and everyone can talk but lets write the Feds and tell them no more... we need tighter restrictions on the use of welfare debit cards
my kids are approached regularly by young people with food stamps to sell for half price... this done on the grounds of the grocery stores :?
thats people working the system and my kids in their 20's are fed up with paying oodles in tax dollars for this kind of crap going on... while they are pinching pennies and live on ramen noodles
they won't of course buy these food stamps they are already paying for them thats the icing on the cake to have someone offer to sell them to you!
Its just wrong to abuse the working people that way.
to quote a peace loving young person....."oh and they wonder why people snap"
And how much has your Govt. spent in Iraq alone? Compare that to the cost of food stamps and welfare. Then come back and tell me how much you are really bothered by people selling their food stamps for cash.
its all waste
just like individual families, just like small biz we as a country need to stop spending... stop the waste
and people taking advantage of our working class needs to stop!
We've taught generations of our people it's ok to not give back to society..
it will take care of you.
People used to be too proud for that... like I have taught my children you work for what you need/ get
this as the working class teaches their children.
We have let business bring in cheap labor in the form of illegal workers taking jobs from our citizens
and bogging down the welfare system with more people on aid.
Iraq, no of course we shouldn't be there, but what about the bailing out of the banks ...
Trumps what we spend there I'm sure.
The super wealthy making fools out of the working class.
Endangering the fragile economy we have with a deficit that is out of control.
Just borrow some more money just print some more.
The gas pump before I got my 20$ worth of gas to last a week was $98.45 for a tank of gas.
:wtf: maybe just charge that on a credit card? Why is everyone just grinning and bearing that?
Placid sheep.
We are failing... we are a young country and we are going down. Greed will do us in.
Who's that going to hurt... not the super rich it will be the working class and we will see what our parents and grandparents went through.
Hope we are tough enough.
I'm not seeing much backbone these days.
It's a very simple, pointed question (with admittedly no easy asnwer) - what responsibility do receivers of government assistance have? If you think fighting a war in Iraq is one of them, please elaborate. Otherwise, take it to another thread.
Thank you.
Yeah. I agree. You also don't want to create a disruption for other students that are trying to do the right thing. That's why I put ? next to C average. Maybe, it's just passing (if you're not even passing, it's not even worth it).
Yes, there's pressure. But, maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe, a parent actually talking to their kids about school is a good thing. Yes, kids shouldn't have the weight of the family on them. But, even without this, in a lot of ways they would anyway (in that type of situation). At least this way, maybe a few more are motivated to achieve at school, etc.
One thing that's clear is that it would be a much more complex set up than simply - pass or no money. But, there has to be reprecussions or there's no incentive. For those that are doing ok, the reprecussions are meaningless. So, I do think there is something you could do to incentivize the type of behavior that will set children up better for the long term (and thus, benefit society). So, even if it does impact the kids somewhat negatively in the short run, it might not be a terrible thing. The question is how do we create a situation where the long term good for everyone involved (the kid and society, in that order) that makes it palatable.
I'm pretty sure your topic has been raised before
the responsiblity of those on aid
what they should have to do etc to collect.
If there was not waste and abusers of the system we wouldn't have the problem we do
and the working class would not feel so incredibly screwed.
Its obvious to me, as far as your question goes...responsibility is a case of morality.
We as working people feel responsible to share and help those less fortunate due to falling on hard times... not due to having kids they know they can't afford and having kids to stay in a country illegally
or providing for people who are just not sincere about being a part of a working society.
In a perfect world the responsibility of recipients is also based in morality....
Do not take what you do not deserve or need.
Give back to society by community service of any kind... nothing comes free in this world.
Have a conscious and don't abuse the working class.
And get a job, any job if you are able bodied.
Here again there would be more jobs if the illegals were discouraged from being here....
all the problems of our country are intertwined.
Not sure kids should suffer for the sins of the adults but that is what always seems to happen.
to buy crack, liquor etc. and not using the help as it was intended. Drug tests need to be mandatory if they already are not.
This system has gotten to be a given and that is not the way it was meant to be.
The lying and fraud that goes on is a complete crime against our country and the working class.
I live in a small world ... still I know of many who are blatantly lying to get aid... it is appalling.
being able to afford things makes you no more or less human than anyone else...
that should ALWAYS be kept in mind when the haves are bitching about the have nots.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Because someone needs aid does not make them less,
to imply that anyone feels that way is insulting....
but when someone cheats, steals, and lies it does make them less.
We need restrictions and criteria in place to stop this from happening.
To deny it is happening is to have your head in the sand
pandora are you advocating getting rid of aid for everyone because a single digit percent of those people are abusing it?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Our lower class does not invest in themselves, whether their education or their earned money. The majority of their efforts are concentrated into cheap and meaningless goods and entertainment that are a path to mediocrity.