Responsibility of Recipients

EdsonNascimento

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.

EmBleve

Blockhead wrote:

How do you not understand this simple concept.
Its amazing how AMT views getting off work for a few hours or getting someone to pick up your shift.
Hell all women have to do is tell their boss they are having women "issues" and they get the day off.

OMFG!!!!!!!!!

_

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Oh my good God, man! You are living in a COMPLETELY alternate reality with ABSOLUTELY ZERO understanding of the situations of "these people" you keep talking about!! It's absolutely mind-boggling how little you understand & yet how much you judge. I mean, really, I think my head is going to explode after reading such an asinine comment!

You actually believe that everyone has the same work experience as you and your dad, don't you? Where no one works at 7:30 and everyone's bosses let them off work whenever they want and everyone can afford to lose money?!? Sure, SOME people have that experience, but MANY, MANY don't.

It must be nice to have lived a life of such motherfucking privilege. :roll: (But please pull your head out of your ass before you continue to judge.)

Why don't you just excuse them out of all responsibility since thats what you are doing. Should be abolish PT conferecnes in poor areas because none of them can make it at any time???
Please find where I said they all have the same work experience as my dad, Ill be waiting...
But I find it extremely hard to believe if you went up to your boss (at any job) and said hey in a month I have a PT conferene could I leave work early that day or have someone pick up my shift , they would not work with you.
Great job though. You have just excused these people into not having any responsibilty in your eyes.
TO me it sounds like they don't even have time to parent, how unfair, lets just keep giving them more money.
Sorry but I live a life of responsibily and don't make excuses for everthing that dosen't go my way. We are now living in a world that is giving our GIFT CARDS to get parents to go to PT conferences. OHHHHH POOR PARENTS, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN GIVE YOU...

No one is making excuses; we are just explaining reality. Have whatever opinions you want, but I just ask that they are based in reality, please.

You implied that everyone has the same work experience by saying that they should be able to make it because your dad was able to make it. No sense in trying to back-peddle now.

You find it extremely hard to believe that not everyone's boss is understanding & not everyone's job is flexible because you are living in an alternate, privileged reality where people have more control over their lives than many other people do. As someone who is very flexible & understanding & has managed businesses that employee people at minimum wage, I can tell you that there are MANY times when I just couldn't let people off work for whatever reason. And, with availability being the primary requirement of the job, people who ask for too much time off lose their jobs. That's just the way it is. And as someone who has worked those jobs, I have had the same experience.

Yes, yes there is something else we can give parents: RESPECT

gimmesometruth27

blockhead, apparently you did not watch bowling for columbine where they profiled the single mom working 2 jobs, 18-19 hour days to try to provide for her sons. there are people in this world who try to support their kids by any means necessary, by taking that second or 3rd shift job at white castle or mopping floors in a factory. not everyone works 9-5 and not everyone can get off work for anything like conferences. i work with a physician, and if that physician is here in the office seeing patients, I am here. there is no way around it. i do not get days off because there is nobody here to cover for me that does my job. i do not get sick days and have only missed 2 days of work in 4.5 years and those were due to a family funeral. if i am out of the office, the doctor is 1/2 as efficient and can see less than 1/2 of the case load he sees when i am here. the only days off i get are when he goes out of town. i am single and have no kids, but i have missed out on a lot of things because of this job. i don't know what kind of cushy job your dad did, or what your engineering job allows you to do as far as ease of getting time off, but some people in this world are job slaves.

to quote an old friend of mine, any similarity between your reality and mine is purely coincidental. just because your job allows you to do x and y and z and allows you to get off work for whatever does not mean that that is the case for everyone. in fact, that is the exception and not the rule.

_

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

You are talking about breaking the law. That is not what we are talking about here.

Why do you support putting regulations on what they do with food stamp but not their money?

I'm not really even sure what you are talking about.

_

Blockhead wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

The first day of school you are given a school schedule of events and on that are PT conferences... OMG how do you not get that, my daughter is in pre-school and they manage to do that, they do it in my wifes school. They did it in my school. Its a pretty universal concept.

Really?? Seriously?? Is this a joke?

How do you not understand this simple concept.
Its amazing how AMT views getting off work for a few hours or getting someone to pick up your shift.
Hell all women have to do is tell their boss they are having women "issues" and they get the day off.

I have known plenty of patients who couldn't get off work for a fucking abortion. Or for prenatal care. Or for surgery. Not being able to get off work is a HUGE problem in the medical field too, not just in education.

gimmesometruth27

Blockhead wrote:

Its amazing how AMT views getting off work for a few hours or getting someone to pick up your shift.
Hell all women have to do is tell their boss they are having women "issues" and they get the day off.

WOW...now apparently we are making SEXIST and or MISOGYNISTIC comments as well????

pathetic.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but did you just essentially say that children who aren't good in school shouldn't be fed??

EmBleve

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Its amazing how AMT views getting off work for a few hours or getting someone to pick up your shift.
Hell all women have to do is tell their boss they are having women "issues" and they get the day off.

WOW...now apparently we are making SEXIST and or MISOGYNISTIC comments as well????

pathetic.

omg that was really just unfkngbelievable.

_

EmBleve wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Its amazing how AMT views getting off work for a few hours or getting someone to pick up your shift.
Hell all women have to do is tell their boss they are having women "issues" and they get the day off.

WOW...now apparently we are making SEXIST and or MISOGYNISTIC comments as well????

pathetic.

omg that was really just unfkngbelievable.

Yes, it was. And yet, still somehow believable given the source. On that note, I'm outta here!

EmBleve

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento

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.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

"EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

EmBleve

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

"EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento

EmBleve wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

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.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

Also, I take issue with this statement:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

But, at some point someone has to step in and teach responsibility that is obviously not being taught at home.

This is obvious how, exactly?

Blockhead

_ wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

Also, I take issue with this statement:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

But, at some point someone has to step in and teach responsibility that is obviously not being taught at home.

This is obvious how, exactly?

The extremely high graduation rates...

Jeanwah

Blockhead wrote:

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.