" "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better," Bauer said."
I am trying to find his response to the outrage... it was even classier. The daily show capped it pretty well the other night.
Basically, he rescinded his previous comment, then... said the same thing again... super classy, classiness to the max.
It is important to note that he is talking about in the region of 50% of students across the board. I suspect that his message was a cloaked metaphor for black-stereotypes, but that is really neither here nor there, when you take his sentiment as a generic statement. This guy really doesn't like poor people from the look of it. Socioeconomic disadvantages be damned, these people are all irresponsible whippersnappers... apparently.
*Think of the children by punishing them through lack of sustenance*
I hadn't seen the guy before you posted that clip, and I have to admit I'm a little underwhelmed. I was expecting a guy in a top hat, with a black cape and twirly moustache.
Our state's issue is Poor kids! Not the wide spread curruption or horrible lack of education, out super unhealthy population, wanky tax laws, bad infostructure, unwillingness to let new companies in to spur competition. Blame everybody but purselves. Southern states like these (I'm looking at you alabama) will continue to do bad as long as instead of fixing a problem they can redirect anger to one group or another.
Sure is great. A few tax cuts here and there for the upper class he so obviously favors and bam, he'll be able to tie little kids to railway tracks again.
Of course he might have invoked the infinite rage of the soccer mums with too much spare time.
Orkeosaurus wrote:We must fight THE POPULATION BOMB!
you have no knowledge of how a society works, if you have a society with low birth rates then you have an aging society, what happens when every one is over 70 with only 20% of the population able to work.
this Lt Governor is a fine example of a rich person forgetting that their money was made by poorer people.
States like south Carolina have problems due to poor education, lifestyle, lack of bettering their own society, not because of kids, South Carolina has been part of a vicious circle for a long time, uneducated children go on to be poor people that produce poor children that will be poorly educated an so on
Da Boss wrote:Wow, though- starving children to encourage them not to be poor.
Uh. Yeah. What?
"Hunger can be a positive motivator."
That's not me giving that piece of wisdom, that's Cynthia Davis, a Republican State Representative from Missouri, she was talking about giving lunch to poor kids over the summer break.
This is akin to one japanese former minister talking about how the Tokyo homeless were very well off because charities were setting up some soup kitchens for them and they had hamburgers to eat.
Orkeosaurus wrote:We must fight THE POPULATION BOMB!
Agreed.
There should be mandatory sterilization of poor and indigent peoples.
Yeah I agree! Mandatory eugenics, first we start with the politicians
M.
I was thinking retroactive abortions for all lawyers...
No, no, no we need those to make sense out of the crap the other ones legislate.
M.
You know, the vast majority of politicians are lawyers by trade and/or training...
They are worse. They are failed lawyers.
Extreme quote pyramid!
Dude, it is amazing...and epic...but mostly epically amazing!
Watch that pyramid grow!
What pyramid?
I like to feel included in things!
You need to get out more!
Mainly, I like the logic that it is clearly kids on free lunches wgo get crap test scores. I'd love to see the data he's drawing that correlation from.
Orkeosaurus wrote:We must fight THE POPULATION BOMB!
Agreed.
There should be mandatory sterilization of poor and indigent peoples.
Yeah I agree! Mandatory eugenics, first we start with the politicians
M.
I was thinking retroactive abortions for all lawyers...
No, no, no we need those to make sense out of the crap the other ones legislate.
M.
You know, the vast majority of politicians are lawyers by trade and/or training...
They are worse. They are failed lawyers.
Extreme quote pyramid!
Dude, it is amazing...and epic...but mostly epically amazing!
Watch that pyramid grow!
What pyramid?
I like to feel included in things!
You need to get out more!
Mainly, I like the logic that it is clearly kids on free lunches wgo get crap test scores. I'd love to see the data he's drawing that correlation from.
It doesn't matter, because this is all good for Jon Stewart.
I am ignoring the post above, because its not good for business.
While how he put it is bad, his point is right. He is saying that the parents of the students on free lunches are not involved with their kids.
There should be strings attached to government aid. Like having to pass drug test, or showing up to your kids PTA meetings, or parent teacher conferences. One of the best weapons against poverty in America is education.
jbunny wrote:While how he put it is bad, his point is right. He is saying that the parents of the students on free lunches are not involved with their kids.
There should be strings attached to government aid. Like having to pass drug test, or showing up to your kids PTA meetings, or parent teacher conferences. One of the best weapons against poverty in America is education.
jbunny wrote:While how he put it is bad, his point is right. He is saying that the parents of the students on free lunches are not involved with their kids.
There should be strings attached to government aid. Like having to pass drug test, or showing up to your kids PTA meetings, or parent teacher conferences. One of the best weapons against poverty in America is education.
No. He's not right on so very many levels.
Do you care to explain why he is wrong on so many levels so we can discuss. I at least explained why I thought he was right.
jbunny wrote:While how he put it is bad, his point is right. He is saying that the parents of the students on free lunches are not involved with their kids.
There should be strings attached to government aid. Like having to pass drug test, or showing up to your kids PTA meetings, or parent teacher conferences. One of the best weapons against poverty in America is education.
No. He's not right on so very many levels.
Do you care to explain why he is wrong on so many levels so we can discuss. I at least explained why I thought he was right.
1. comparing the poor to small animals.
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
So in this paragraph the senator states a. the poor are like stray animals (ie. valueless). b. the poor are dumb and c. dumb things (people or animals) will breed if fed.
so which point do you wish to defend? I'm willing to concede his first point. His granny probably wasn't highly educated.
But my final question is regardless of any other factor his goal is taking food away from children whose families cannot afford it. He is scum.
Actually I said how it put it was wrong. I said he was right on the following points.
1. You get assistance from the government you should have to do something. Like Drug testing
2. There is as strong coralation between parents being active with their childs schools and the sucess of the child.
I have no prolbem limiting free lunches to children whose parents make the time to show up for a parent teacher conference once a year.
If you read the whole article you would have seen the context of the quote. Which I did say was not the best choice of words.
As a very lefty liberal. but also as a school teacher, I am happy to say the guy is an arse, but he does make one good point.
If a kid misbehaves, but the parents try to help, great.
If a kid misbehaves, and we can't even get the parents in to the school, let's just cut the damn parents out of the equation altogether.
Some of our kids have great parents, great older siblings, everything that could want, and they are gaks. To be honest, I'd like to spare the parents the misery of raising the little bastards and pack the little gaks off to Borstal. (Or, if you are American, you might call it "Juvey"?)
Some of our kids are basically nice kids with all sorts of emotional issues who don't deserve the crap they have had in their lives. Some of them, we'd almost want to adopt them ourselves, because their parents are basically evil, incompetent, or both.
The stories I could tell you are genuinely horrifying - houses where families of 6 gak in the bath because the only toilet has been smashed, a 4 year old younger brother of one of my pupils I found walking around in traffic outside of school while his Dad was in the local shop, a 13 year old I referred to social services because there was no parent at his home, he stank and was running wild, 13-year oldboys shoplifting, one of the same boys riding a motorbike along a canal tow-path, a boy who goes mental every time his family is even mentioned, even positively, a girl who was on the game at 12 years old, 13 year old pregnancies and abortions, gang violence leaving a 14 year old in perpetual fear, one 17 year ex-pupil murdered by another current 13-year old pupil, a pupil inside on the most serious drug dealing charges ever faced by someone as young as him, and I don't even get to hear all of the worst stuff as I am only in charge of one year group...
Okay, so some kids with good parents turn bad, but it is about time parents are held to account for some of the failures they have committed whilst supposedly raising their children.
The school lunch in the Jr and Sr HS that I went to wasn't fit to feed bears. Allowing your child to eat the school lunch should have in and of itself being considered child abuse.
In HS I went to the ala carte` line (the fancy lunch line that had real homemade desserts and the pizza and chicken weren't made in huge vats and wrung out of grease like a mop before being served).
sexiest_hero wrote:Our state's issue is Poor kids!
Not just poor kids, but poor kids breeding because they're given a school lunch.
Soylent Green is made of PEOPLE!
You know, Ive known how that movie ends for years, but never saw it. I literally said screw it and watched it online because of you Frazz lol. It was a pretty good movie
jbunny wrote:Actually I said how it put it was wrong. I said he was right on the following points.
1. You get assistance from the government you should have to do something. Like Drug testing
2. There is as strong coralation between parents being active with their childs schools and the sucess of the child.
I have no prolbem limiting free lunches to children whose parents make the time to show up for a parent teacher conference once a year.
You're not actually thinking before you type are you? Because if you were, you'd have realized you just said, 'If the parent doesn't participate, the kid doesn't eat.' What exactly do you think punishing the child is going to achieve, especially when making them miss a meal on top of whatever else is going on is only going to make their educational performance worse?
Orkeosaurus wrote:We must fight THE POPULATION BOMB!
Agreed.
There should be mandatory sterilization of poor and indigent peoples.
Yeah I agree! Mandatory eugenics, first we start with the politicians
M.
I was thinking retroactive abortions for all lawyers...
No, no, no we need those to make sense out of the crap the other ones legislate.
M.
You know, the vast majority of politicians are lawyers by trade and/or training...
They are worse. They are failed lawyers.
Extreme quote pyramid!
Dude, it is amazing...and epic...but mostly epically amazing!
Watch that pyramid grow!
What pyramid?
I like to feel included in things!
You need to get out more!
Mainly, I like the logic that it is clearly kids on free lunches wgo get crap test scores. I'd love to see the data he's drawing that correlation from.
It doesn't matter, because this is all good for Jon Stewart.
I am ignoring the post above, because its not good for business.
The data is from the "making it up" file that all politician like to get their facts from (I got that from the file as well, although I'm no politician)
Grow pyramid grow! Until we are asked nicely to give up on it though.
Nurgleboy77 wrote:No government support will not make the child go hungry, it will make the parent have to supply food for it.
Have you ever dealt with the truly poor?
There is a point where you simply can't afford to make the investment in everything that you need. Where the choice between good food (or food at all), shelter and clothing becomes 2 of 3 or even 1 of three.
I deal with people on the edge of that every day. It doesn't take a lifetime of bad choices to reach that point either. Too many people are a pink slip away from that decision, and many others are a great deal closer to it than they think. Mortgage+debt servicing and taxes eats through the average reserve within about 3 months if that of the smart employees reserve, even shorter if they were already living paycheque to paycheque. Getting sick peels that reserve even quicker.
Once the reserve is gone even if they achieve subsequent employment in a lower paying job they are still going to have trouble paying everything. Helping feed the children for the poor, which includes the working poor, should be a no brainer.
Actually I did think before I typed. Personally I do not believe it is the role of the government to feed it's population. There are plenty of non government charities that help in this situation.
Quite frinkly if you cannot care for your childern then maybe you should think about letting a relative care for them. If no relative then maybe a non-relative should be considered.
The first thought should not be "I can't feed my kids, I know I'll have the government do it."
jbunny wrote:Actually I did think before I typed. Personally I do not believe it is the role of the government to feed it's population. There are plenty of non government charities that help in this situation.
Quite frinkly if you cannot care for your childern then maybe you should think about letting a relative care for them. If no relative then maybe a non-relative should be considered.
The first thought should not be "I can't feed my kids, I know I'll have the government do it."
How old are you?
Do you really think the first thought is I should get the government to feed my kids? It's the last thought for most first is self, then family and as desperation increases food banks and charities. Food stamps and welfare are the last stop in the cycle of despair, as even the last hopes are dashed against the rocks.
1. Those private charities are stretched to the breaking point in the current cycle.
2. The idea of breaking apart families is not one anyone who loves their kids will willingly consider until all other options have been lost. I have serious trouble believing that anyone who has kids could even suggest this to be a possibility.
jbunny wrote:Do you care to explain why he is wrong on so many levels so we can discuss. I at least explained why I thought he was right.
He's wrong because his statistical argument is stupid. While I have no problem believing that the schools with the lowest parent/teacher night attendances test the worst, his assumption of that the correlation of the two grants a causative relationship is a grade school error. It's extremely likely that the lowest parent/teacher night attendances are going to be among poor schools, as their parents are the most likely to have both parents working (harder for someone to attend), the most likely to be shift workers (less likely to be free in the evening) and countless other factors. Poor schools also test the worst, as they have the least funding and the least educated parents. There are so many complex factors involved that to pick out parent teacher nights as a powerful factor is simply stupid.
More than that, his idea basically is to identify the kids with the worst parents and then remove government support from those kids. Think about that for a second, he wants to pick out the kids with the least parental support, and then give those specific kids even less help. This is a serious proposal from a guy in state level politics. It boggles the mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurgleboy77 wrote:Am I a terrible person because I was nodding along with that whole video?
Not necessarily. You've likely got a poor understanding of poverty and child development, but they aren't hanging offences.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fifty wrote:Okay, so some kids with good parents turn bad, but it is about time parents are held to account for some of the failures they have committed whilst supposedly raising their children.
Sorry, I get worked up about this stuff.
Absolutely, and knowing so many stories from my own teacher friends I understand why you get so worked up. The problem with the proposed solution is that a parent isn't held accountable by holding a meal back from the kid. The only one punished by that is the kid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurgleboy77 wrote:No government support will not make the child go hungry, it will make the parent have to supply food for it.
That has simply no relation to how things actually work. If a parent is screwed up enough that they're happy to miss a parent teacher night even if it means their kid stops getting meals, it's ludicrously unlikely they'll then turn around and start providing homecooked meals. Or if the parent is poor its likely the meal will some basic fix that'll satisfy hunger but won't provide anything the kid actually needs to develop.
Nurgleboy77 wrote:No government support will not make the child go hungry, it will make the parent have to supply food for it.
That is so far from correct it should be funny. If a parent is so crap at your job as to not turn up to meetings, parents evenings, etc, then you can be sure they will let their child go hungry.
Re-read some of the horror stories I posted. If a parent will let their kids gak in the bath, do you think they care if it is hungry? If they are so strung out on drugs they let their 4 year old wander in the road and don't even react when I reunite them, will they care about feeding it? If the kid hasn't had clothes washed in months, will they bother feeding it? How would this work with the mother who was charging her 15 year old son rent?
efarrer wrote:truly poor?
There is a point where you simply can't afford to make the investment in everything that you need. Where the choice between good food (or food at all), shelter and clothing becomes 2 of 3 or even 1 of three.
I deal with people on the edge of that every day. It doesn't take a lifetime of bad choices to reach that point either. Too many people are a pink slip away from that decision, and many others are a great deal closer to it than they think. Mortgage+debt servicing and taxes eats through the average reserve within about 3 months if that of the smart employees reserve, even shorter if they were already living paycheque to paycheque. Getting sick peels that reserve even quicker.
Once the reserve is gone even if they achieve subsequent employment in a lower paying job they are still going to have trouble paying everything. Helping feed the children for the poor, which includes the working poor, should be a no brainer.
This is not an issue of the truly poor. The truly poor still turn up to parents evenings, and if they can't make it due to work commitments, they arrange another appointment. I know this, because I am the person they are mostly seeing. Hell, I've helped those people out as much as I am able to, by taking their kids on revision weekends that other families are paying for, and the like.
The issue here is with NOT the truly poor, it is the truly neglectful. These are the people who need dealing with, and it needs to be in ways that do not have consequences for their children.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an addendum - I grew up in a middle class world, attended a middle-class grammar school, went to a middle class university and then did another middle class job (civil service).
I am still regularly astounded by the things I see living in Hackney.
Some of you are still in middle-class worlds not realising how truly awful and selfish human beings can be, even towards their own children.
Now, middle-class people can be equally awful, but they do it in very different ways.
Fifty wrote:
This is not an issue of the truly poor. The truly poor still turn up to parents evenings, and if they can't make it due to work commitments, they arrange another appointment. I know this, because I am the person they are mostly seeing. Hell, I've helped those people out as much as I am able to, by taking their kids on revision weekends that other families are paying for, and the like.
The issue here is with NOT the truly poor, it is the truly neglectful. These are the people who need dealing with, and it needs to be in ways that do not have consequences for their children.
The person in that video wasn't just talking about the neglectful, he was talking about the poor in general. He made a blanket series of statements to justify his desire to cut off funding for paying for student lunches for the poor. You can try to redirect it to say it was just for the neglectful but it wasn't. He was targeting the poor and his manner of the targeting the poor was to aim for the children.
I must say if a woman/couple can't afford to feed their kids without getting welfare than don't have any.
Sure it's a right to have kids but welfare isn't a right, it's a privilege. If a woman who makes $500k a year wants 4 kids good on her as I know my tax dollars won't go to feeding their ass. If a woman makes $12k a year as a waitress and wants 4 kids then I say "stop the train". Stop at 1 kid or don't have any and feed and clothe them herself, not expect the government to help her out.
Since it is the feckless and undeserving poor who are being characterised, what mechanism of testing and coercion do you think would achieve this goal.
(I assume you do not advocate the culling of children of honest poor people who by bad luck lose their jobs.)
Sebster@ Thank you for writting out a well thought out response on why you disagree with him. While I cannot fully disagree with your comments. I don't agree with everything.
I believe regardless of how much a parent works they will make time for the important things. As someone else said, most teachers are willing to make arrangements for a time that will work for all parties.
Atman@ I did not learn any of this from a leaflet. I learned it by talking to people I grw up with, or worked with. I knew lots of people that did everything in their power to cheat the system.
I will say this is not every poor person, just an extremely large portion of people I have first hand knowledge of.
I'd be all for some sort of financial aid for people who had the ability to feed and clothe their children BEFORE they got into a spot they were unable to BUT it should be temporary and it shouldn't entitle them to everything.
I got laid off my job a year ago. People living on welfare live better than I do and I live decent. I still am able to pay rent, eat, pay insurance on my car but that is all I have. I don't have health insurance so if I get sick or hurt the bill is all mine. I won't get larger UI payments if I decide to have a kid before I get another job.
The current welfare system in the US is a joke and a sham. Free money for doing nothing, increased as the number of kids goes up; free MA; heating assistance which means basically heat is paid for through the winter months; WIC (which is damn good as WIC now gives you access to name brand foods, not just generic crappy food it used to give).
I get none of that unless I apply for welfare and unlike the majority of welfare leechers in this country I have too much pride to expect the government to help me (and before anyone says anything UI is NOT welfare).
Jbunny is right. Leftists like to pretend the welfare system is good and perfect and that nobody is a welfare queen but that's only because it's their idea and they support it and they don't want to be known to support something that is a bs policy so they look past those things and say that it's only in peoples minds welfare trash live better than someone working 40 hours a week for minimum wage. A single mom of 5 kids has a better lifestyle than a single guy working housing or road construction 50 hours a week.
Fateweaver wrote:I'd be all for some sort of financial aid for people who had the ability to feed and clothe their children BEFORE they got into a spot they were unable to BUT it should be temporary and it shouldn't entitle them to everything.
I got laid off my job a year ago. People living on welfare live better than I do and I live decent. I still am able to pay rent, eat, pay insurance on my car but that is all I have. I don't have health insurance so if I get sick or hurt the bill is all mine. I won't get larger UI payments if I decide to have a kid before I get another job.
The current welfare system in the US is a joke and a sham. Free money for doing nothing, increased as the number of kids goes up; free MA; heating assistance which means basically heat is paid for through the winter months; WIC (which is damn good as WIC now gives you access to name brand foods, not just generic crappy food it used to give).
I get none of that unless I apply for welfare and unlike the majority of welfare leechers in this country I have too much pride to expect the government to help me (and before anyone says anything UI is NOT welfare).
Jbunny is right. Leftists like to pretend the welfare system is good and perfect and that nobody is a welfare queen but that's only because it's their idea and they support it and they don't want to be known to support something that is a bs policy so they look past those things and say that it's only in peoples minds welfare trash live better than someone working 40 hours a week for minimum wage. A single mom of 5 kids has a better lifestyle than a single guy working housing or road construction 50 hours a week.
Yet you still have the money to go online and bitch about leftists.
And the funny thing, is your Ui is the result of the same leftists you hate, it's a social program that is designed to let someone who can't find work survive.
I see you whine and whine and whine about how bad things are because of everyone but you. It's the immigrants, it's this, it's that.
Put up or shut up. If it's not your fault your unemployed, whose is it?
Who is it that's stopping you from moving to a place where there is work?
Who is it that's stopping you from finding work?
jbunny wrote:
I believe regardless of how much a parent works they will make time for the important things.
Right, well, even if we assume that (and its an extremely poor assumption) you still cannot derive a point which renders the punishment of children as a positive action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:
(and before anyone says anything UI is NOT welfare).
Yes it is. You've just constructed an emotional barrier which will allow you to accept one, while impugning the other.
Fateweaver wrote:
Jbunny is right. Leftists like to pretend the welfare system is good and perfect and that nobody is a welfare queen
No, if they're intelligent they simply recognize that welfare queens are not of sufficient significance to justify removing the program altogether.
The economy keeps me from finding work. Even gas stations in my area aren't hiring. Moving is not an option. It takes money to move and relocate.
UI is not social in the US. My old company pays extra tax to ensure that if they have to lay me off I'm taken care of. You don't pay for it, neither does dogma or Frazz or Shuma or any other poster on here. I know none of the dakkaites owns the company that laid me off so nobody on this site can claim "they are paying for me to survive".
Internet is free and or cheap. I can take my laptop anywhere and get free wireless. The internet is the one luxury I have at home.
Like I said I live decent but people who never make an effort to work live better. I HAVE to work to get UI payments. Welfare leechers DON'T. THAT is the difference between me and them.
To dogma: Perhaps you missed the point where if you had kids and were suddenly unable to provide for them you should get temporary assistance (and if you work somewhere that isn't a shithole and get laid off you are sort of covered by UI). If you have kids knowing you don't HAVE to work because you will get free assistance than you shouldn't have kids.
Welfare won't disappear though because the Liberals see nothing wrong with drug-addicted moms with 4 kids getting everything handed to them in life.
Yeah... I'm pretty torn on the whole welfare thing. Kids should never have to pay for the sins of the parents. Especially at the hands of the government that is charged with protecting its citizens. The problem is how do you have accountability and still accomplish that goal. If you try a carrot and stick approach in the cases that it's actually needed the parents probably get the carrot and the kids get the stick.
I agree that welfare is a busted system that is prone to abuse. However, there are people out there who genuinely work hard and need it. The failure of the economy has made that abudantly clear if you look around at what used to be the middle class. Too many people bust their humps all their lives and due to circumstances beyond their control (illness, layoffs, etc) get put behind the 8-ball. How do you help them while not subsidizing the freeloaders? If any of us internet gurus figure it out, I think the Nobel Committee in the area of Economics would be interested to hear it.
jbunny wrote:
I believe regardless of how much a parent works they will make time for the important things.
Right, well, even if we assume that (and its an extremely poor assumption) you still cannot derive a point which renders the punishment of children as a positive action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:
(and before anyone says anything UI is NOT welfare).
Yes it is. You've just constructed an emotional barrier which will allow you to accept one, while impugning the other.
Fateweaver wrote:
Jbunny is right. Leftists like to pretend the welfare system is good and perfect and that nobody is a welfare queen
No, if they're intelligent they simply recognize that welfare queens are not of sufficient significance to justify removing the program altogether.
Show me how UI is welfare. One is paid for by the Federal government TOTALLY. One is paid for by taxes on employers over a certain size. Your Federal taxes you pay Dogma do not cover my UI payments but they do cover the payments made to Welfare recipients. It's not an emotional barrier. Leftist and humanitarians saying that welfare living is a crappy lifestyle are constructing emotional barriers to hide the fact that people living on welfare have it better than most workers working blue collar jobs.
Fateweaver wrote:
UI is not social in the US. My old company pays extra tax to ensure that if they have to lay me off I'm taken care of. You don't pay for it, neither does dogma or Frazz or Shuma or any other poster on here. I know none of the dakkaites owns the company that laid me off so nobody on this site can claim "they are paying for me to survive".
Its still social. Companies are composed of people, and taxes that they pay towards social programs are socialist.
Fateweaver wrote:
To dogma: Perhaps you missed the point where if you had kids and were suddenly unable to provide for them you should get temporary assistance (and if you work somewhere that isn't a shithole and get laid off you are sort of covered by UI). If you have kids knowing you don't HAVE to work because you will get free assistance than you shouldn't have kids.
And if you do have kids? What do we do with them? You haven't responded to my criticism, you're simply pretending to moral superiority in order to console an opinion which you probably know to be foolish.
Fateweaver wrote:
Welfare won't disappear though because the Liberals see nothing wrong with drug-addicted moms with 4 kids getting everything handed to them in life.
No, that has nothing to do with it. Its simply an acceptable negative. Needs of the many trumping the excesses of the few.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:
Show me how UI is welfare. One is paid for by the Federal government TOTALLY. One is paid for by taxes on employers over a certain size. Your Federal taxes you pay Dogma do not cover my UI payments but they do cover the payments made to Welfare recipients. It's not an emotional barrier.
Yes it is. What you're describing is a socialist program. You simply don't want it to be true. Unfortunately truth does not turn on desire.
Fateweaver wrote:
Leftist and humanitarians saying that welfare living is a crappy lifestyle are constructing emotional barriers to hide the fact that people living on welfare have it better than most workers working blue collar jobs.
Welfare is a crappy lifestyle. Working blue collar jobs is also, often, a crappy lifestyle. You might not believe it, but I've worked quite a few blue collar jobs. They suck, and I would never want to do it again. That said, the relevant statistics disagree with you sentiment. Your particular case does not overrule they're authority.
dogma wrote: Needs of the many trumping the excesses of the few.
Do we really know which is the "many" and which is the "few" though? I've always wondering how many of the welfare horror stories are true. Is the abuse widespread or limited? I don't honestly know.
Gornall wrote:
Do we really know which is the "many" and which is the "few" though? I've always wondering how many of the welfare horror stories are true. Is the abuse widespread or limited? I don't honestly know.
Well, its relatively easy to dig up statistics regarding the duration of welfare payments to segments of the population. I'll have to go hunting through JSTOR, but if I recall correctly the percentage of constant recipients is somewhere around twenty. Certainly not laudable, but low enough that any major reform must go through an arduous cost benefit analysis.
I've seen how "crappy" these single moms with 4 kids live.
Out at the bars every night, 2-3 carts of groceries paid for with a swipe of the card while her 4 kids scream and run around the store, than taking all 3 carts of groceries to her SUV that is 2 years old.
Ah yes, sounds crappy to me. I must realize I have it so lucky that I can buy my 1/2 cart of groceries with my UI payments that also need to go to heating my house this winter and actually having to pay for my groceries and than pushing my 1/2 cart of groceries to my 12yo car that isn't worth the insurance I'm paying on it.
Yeah, I feel sorry for that single alcoholic mom with 4 kids and her 2yo SUV. I wish my life was that rough (well I could do without 4 kids but that's beside the point).
Okay. UI is a social program but my point still stands that it is not welfare in the sense that I have to look for work while I'm laid off, I get NOTHING other than 2/3rds of my highest paid quarter spread out over 26 checks. If I want such luxuries as heat and medical care I need to pay for them myself. I don't get those "free". Those are all part of the busted welfare system.
Fateweaver wrote: (well I could do without 4 kids but that's beside the point).
No it isn't. Its a question of lifestyle, and the presence of 4 children certainly affects lifestyle.
Fateweaver wrote:
Okay. UI is a social program but my point still stands that it is not welfare in the sense that I have to look for work while I'm laid off, I get NOTHING other than 2/3rds of my highest paid quarter spread out over 26 checks. If I want such luxuries as heat and medical care I need to pay for them myself. I don't get those "free". Those are all part of the busted welfare system.
Of course its not welfare, they're different programs. Why would you ever equate them in any sense other than a socialist one?
The finances part was particularly depressing, i think they got about $60,000 dollars a year. They had way more disposable income than the nice middle class family they swapped with, both chain smokers, drank 80 cans of beer a week, the whole usual stereotypical shebang!
Fateweaver wrote:The economy keeps me from finding work. Even gas stations in my area aren't hiring. Moving is not an option. It takes money to move and relocate.
UI is not social in the US. My old company pays extra tax to ensure that if they have to lay me off I'm taken care of. You don't pay for it, neither does dogma or Frazz or Shuma or any other poster on here. I know none of the dakkaites owns the company that laid me off so nobody on this site can claim "they are paying for me to survive".
Internet is free and or cheap. I can take my laptop anywhere and get free wireless. The internet is the one luxury I have at home.
Like I said I live decent but people who never make an effort to work live better. I HAD to work to get UI payments. Welfare leechers DON'T. THAT is the difference between me and them.
Youre Ui premiums amounted to about 5.00 per cheque, right?
Then your company put in about 5.00 per cheque as well, right?
Into a program administered by your government, right?
Well then that money which was submitted to you're government (state level I believe) is then sent out to people who become unemployed. That means that if there is a Dakkite who lives in your state, then, yes petunia, there is a dakkite who is co-paying for you to be on UI.
You are being subsidized by the government to live at home while you cannot find work. Now here's where those numbers get sad you see. UI doesn't last forever, then it is down to the Welfare line.
Oh, and I fixed your tense in the final sentence.
While it's obvious that their are problems within the welfare/social programs systems,the idea of "endless hordes of welfare freeloaders" lounging in luxary,waiting on the "free money" to roll in forever is extreamly niave.
I've known 3 "welfare moms",and according to them they recived between $230 and $380 dollars a month (that's welfare checks),along with this they recieved about $250 to $300 dollars in food stamps a month.
In order to recieve these benifits all of them were required to attend employement classes through the dept of labour and make 30 work contacts a week (job aplications).
On top of this, there " assistance",meaning the money they were getting, only last for 48 months,after that their cut off...permently.
It's not broken down. I pay State, Federal and Social Security. I typically lost 70-80 per check for SS so it might have been 5, it might have been 60.
You feel how you want efarrer. Morally UI is not the same as welfare.
Dogma, you said yourself UI payments are welfare. You reached that conclusion for me. I don't agree with your conclusion and now apparently you contradict yourself.
The point of my statement was that financially welfare moms with a certain number of kids live better than some of the pipeliners I know who work a dangerous, dirty crappy job 50 hours a week. Blue collar jobs might suck from a prestige sense and maybe a safety sense but making $30/hour to lay pipe into ground all day, pay wise, isn't that crappy. Moms with 3+ kids collecting welfare get nearly as much per month in pay PLUS free assistance with heat and medical care + WIC + they can go out and drink and party and get high and not lose any of that.
Show up to work drunk and you get sent home and lose a days pay, do it too often you get fired.
That is the problem with the welfare system. That is why as it stands it needs to go away. Better for the country that way no mater what anyone says.
Fateweaver wrote:The point of my statement was that financially welfare moms with a certain number of kids live better than some of the pipeliners I know who work a dangerous, dirty crappy job 50 hours a week. Blue collar jobs might suck from a prestige sense and maybe a safety sense but making $30/hour to lay pipe into ground all day, pay wise, isn't that crappy. Moms with 3+ kids collecting welfare get nearly as much per month in pay PLUS free assistance with heat and medical care + WIC + they can go out and drink and party and get high and not lose any of that.
Show up to work drunk and you get sent home and lose a days pay, do it too often you get fired.
That is the problem with the welfare system. That is why as it stands it needs to go away. Better for the country that way no mater what anyone says.
Anecdotal evidence much?
Is there a way to determine how much welfare pays in benefits to the average "welfare mom"?
Fateweaver wrote:
Dogma, you said yourself UI payments are welfare. You reached that conclusion for me. I don't agree with your conclusion and now apparently you contradict yourself.
I assumed you were using the word welfare in the general sense, in which it refers to any social program that subsidizes the poor. When it became clear that you were referring to a specific program I changed my stance.
Fateweaver wrote:
The point of my statement was that financially welfare moms with a certain number of kids live better than some of the pipeliners I know who work a dangerous, dirty crappy job 50 hours a week. Blue collar jobs might suck from a prestige sense and maybe a safety sense but making $30/hour to lay pipe into ground all day, pay wise, isn't that crappy. Moms with 3+ kids collecting welfare get nearly as much per month in pay PLUS free assistance with heat and medical care + WIC + they can go out and drink and party and get high and not lose any of that.
They also have to deal with three children, which is certainly not easy. It seems to me that you have a bit of gender prejudice in your argument.
Fateweaver wrote:
Show up to work drunk and you get sent home and lose a days pay, do it too often you get fired.
Mistreat your children, and social services takes them away; depriving the welfare mom of income.
Fateweaver wrote:
That is the problem with the welfare system. That is why as it stands it needs to go away. Better for the country that way no mater what anyone says.
No, it actually matters a great deal what other people say; especially when they say things based on reason, rather than personal chagrin.
I don't know where your getting your figures from man,but I've never ever heard of any welfare recipient getting $6,000.00 dollars a month.
As I said,from the 3 welfare moms I've known,it's closer to $700.00.
I doubt the three child welfare queens you describe are representative, Fateweaver. Most
likely, if they're living that way, they're doing so on supplemented income and/or
credit card debt. You would probably be justified reporting them to child protective services.
I don't know where your getting your figures from man,but I've never ever heard of any welfare recipient getting $6,000.00 dollars a month.
As I said,from the 3 welfare moms I've known,it's closer to $700.00.
I do not know exactly how the system works, but the actual chances of a person being able to recieve 6 grand a month, are slim to none. There is a very slight possibility that there may be a few individuals that can manage to work that kind of money out of the government, but a possibility so slight, as to be considered substantially lacking in any real substance.
He is pulling numbers out of his butt, and waving them around like they actually mean something... in short.
Anyone with children knows how expensive it is to raise one, I could tally up the generic cost to around a minimum of 500$ a month, and that is if you are a serious penny-pincher. Subtracting the cost of raising just one child, that leaves in the region of 200$ for other expenses, and not eating is not an option for a human being. Welfare, is notoriously hard to survive on, and I know people that choose to live on the street, because living in an apartment, eats up their entire check due to the fact that they get less while living indoors.
I don't know where your getting your figures from man,but I've never ever heard of any welfare recipient getting $6,000.00 dollars a month.
As I said,from the 3 welfare moms I've known,it's closer to $700.00.
The 'welfare queen in her shiny new caddy' was a myth popularized during the Reagan presidency, and it still gets a lot of play because it's a powerful image, even if there's no truth to it. It makes a really easy platform for people who want to argue that the 'welfare is bad!' to climb up on, without them actually having to think about the subject and come up with an actual defensible stance, because when presented with an opposing argument all they have to do is rant about, 'she got four screaming kids and a two year old SUV!!!!!!' That lets them ignore any opposing viewpoints, while still hitting hot buttons, because those are our tax dollars filling that brand new car.
efarrer wrote:The person in that video wasn't just talking about the neglectful, he was talking about the poor in general. He made a blanket series of statements to justify his desire to cut off funding for paying for student lunches for the poor. You can try to redirect it to say it was just for the neglectful but it wasn't. He was targeting the poor and his manner of the targeting the poor was to aim for the children.
I am not defending the personn the video, I am stating my own position.
Fateweaver wrote:I must say if a woman/couple can't afford to feed their kids without getting welfare than don't have any.
Sure it's a right to have kids but welfare isn't a right, it's a privilege. If a woman who makes $500k a year wants 4 kids good on her as I know my tax dollars won't go to feeding their ass. If a woman makes $12k a year as a waitress and wants 4 kids then I say "stop the train". Stop at 1 kid or don't have any and feed and clothe them herself, not expect the government to help her out.
Thing is, same problem applies. Of course a person should not have kids if they cannot afford them, but it is not the fault of the child that their parent had no self-restraint, so it is not fair to punish the child.
If our desire is to make sure that welfare benefits children to the greatest extent possible - and to their parents (personally) the least - wouldn't free school lunches be a good way of going about this? After all, the parents won't be able to get free school lunch. It would seem the more services the school provides the children with taxpayers' money the less taxpayers should need to provide their parents with money (that is supposed to go to providing services for the children, but often does not).
Fateweaver wrote:True that but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
And who has the moral authority to draw that line?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:If our desire is to make sure that welfare benefits children to the greatest extent possible - and to their parents (personally) the least - wouldn't free school lunches be a good way of going about this? After all, the parents won't be able to get free school lunch. It would seem the more services the school provides the children with taxpayers' money the less taxpayers should need to provide their parents with money (that is supposed to go to providing services for the children, but often does not).
Yup. Free school lunch is probably the least likely to be abused program ever... That food is terrible.
On a serious note, I love the programs that sends a sack lunch home with kids on weekends.
Gornall wrote:And who has the moral authority to draw that line?
There is no need to draw any line.
Effectively dealing with the issues that children from low-income families, is the real issue. I have seen no evidence that their is a large issue that would point to a need for such drastic measures to be taken, as to put that many children in harms way.
Help the kids, don't gamble on a hunch, because you (not you specifically, Gornall) think their parents are bad people.
On a serious note, I love the programs that sends a sack lunch home with kids on weekends.
I would love to see more community-based activities, designed around helping children. I do not doubt that most parents of a low-income, try as hard as they can to provide for their children. There is a problem when the community that they are a part of, puts that hardship squarely on their shoulders alone though.
"It takes a village to raise a child", is a very appropriate term in this instance.
Community gardens, Community child-care (through various programs), Tutoring for school, etc... these are all great ways to help overcome the hardships that would otherwise be relatively unattainable by one or two individuals.
Respectfully, some sort of line must be drawn. We can't have poor kids sent to Disney World every couple of years on public expense, it would get ridiculous.
We are, in a sense, discussing on what side of "the line" various programs are on already.
I would hardly call that any kind of metaphorical line in the sand, that can be adjusted to personal philosophies and morals, though.
What I think this sub-conversation (main conversation? I dunno...) is going towards, is the practical limitations to what can be provided; not the moral lines that people like to draw with sticks in dirt.
I'm not sure if I see a difference; to me the practical reason that poor kids can't go to Disney World is that it represents an unjust burden on the nation's taxpayers. And after all, what "practical" reason is there to feed poor children without making a moral judgement as to the importance of protecting minors when their parents refuse to do so?
I suppose the simplest way to put it, would fall well within your reasoning. By that, I would have to consider all spending morally biased, which I suppose is true, at least to a degree.
Maybe I am being pedantic, but it does seem that there are reasons that extend well beyond the realm of morals, and into the region of pragmatism. If we have x amount to spend on anything, at any given time, the actual need of any of those examples, could be boiled down mathematically to simple cost effectiveness. Not that I am trying to explicitly say that children are worth more than a missile or a tank, but that is basically what I am saying.
The question here is one of efficacy. Justice, fairness, and all those other emotional notions are irrelevant; outside of individual willingness anyway. A useful line is a good line, and that should be our barometer of choice.
Sending kids to Disney World accomplishes nothing, but feeding them does. This is one of those lines that is really quite clear.
Well, one could argue that feeding poor children only achieves the need to feed them again the next day, whereas if you leave them hungry for long enough, then eventually the need to feed them is a problem that goes away...
Before drawing a line it would be useful to decide what is the objective of having welfare and establishing a line in it.
For instance, some right wingers like the Governor think there shouldn't be any welfare because withdrawing it would force lazy spongers to get off their arses and find a job. It would also reduce the taxes people pay. This might work if there are jobs to be found, of course.
However, an increase in poverty would also cause an increase in crime, which would cause an increase in expenditure on the criminal justice system, thus raising taxes. So perhaps a modicum of welfare is completely justified and cost effective.
From that viewpoint, there are practical social reasons for welfare payments.
A long term solution needs to include education and training for poor people so they can get better jobs, and the development of an economy which provides good quality jobs for people to take. More and better jobs also increases the amount of money to be taxed by government, so the rate of taxation can be set lower and achieve the same numerical result.
Whatever happens, there will always be a few truly lazy or selfish people who would rather sponge off society as a whole than get a job even if there are jobs available. That does not make it fair to tar all poor people with the same brush.
You can't have efficacy without assigning some things as positive (contributing to efficacy) and others as negative (detracting from efficacy). In the context of social desirability this necessitates assigning value to things, doesn't it?
Kilkrazy wrote:A long term solution needs to include education and training for poor people so they can get better jobs, and the development of an economy which provides good quality jobs for people to take.
But how does, say, a Bachelor's Degree make a janitor more productive? Or a garbageman, or a truck driver? Not everyone can be a middle manager, after all.
Orkeosaurus wrote:But how does, say, a Bachelor's Degree make a janitor more productive? Or a garbageman, or a truck driver? Not everyone can be a middle manager, after all.
Don't you know... that's what the illegal immigrants are for.
TBH, I'm not really following Orkeosaurus's discussion. To many big words that I cannot process.
Orkeosaurus wrote:You can't have efficacy without assigning some things as positive (contributing to efficacy) and others as negative (detracting from efficacy). In the context of social desirability this necessitates assigning value to things, doesn't it?
Yes, but it isn't an emotional, or preferential sort of value. Feeding children has a positive effect which can be noted, and described using traditionally physical terminology; whereas notions of fairness and justice are essentially attempts to 'transcend' reality by discussing existence.
You can't have efficacy without assigning some things as positive (contributing to efficacy) and others as negative (detracting from efficacy). In the context of social desirability this necessitates assigning value to things, doesn't it?
Kilkrazy wrote:A long term solution needs to include education and training for poor people so they can get better jobs, and the development of an economy which provides good quality jobs for people to take.
But how does, say, a Bachelor's Degree make a janitor more productive? Or a garbageman, or a truck driver? Not everyone can be a middle manager, after all.
Quite true, however unless we cull the lower orders they have to be allowed to earn a decent wage.
dogma wrote:Yes, but it isn't an emotional, or preferential sort of value. Feeding children has a positive effect which can be noted, and described using traditionally physical terminology; whereas notions of fairness and justice are essentially attempts to 'transcend' reality by discussing existence.
I don't follow you here.
If you're using positive as a synonym for "good", then how can tell something is positive without assigning it preferential value?
If you're using positive in contrast to "normative", then you can measure the positive effect of any action, but you still can't determine efficacy without declaring some result to be desirable (i.e. to contribute towards efficacy). I still don't see how you can decide what public policy ought to be on purely positive grounds; you would have to say "policy ought to be X if you desire Y as an outcome (because it is the most efficacious way of attaining Y)".
Kilkrazy wrote:Quite true, however unless we cull the lower orders they have to be allowed to earn a decent wage.
Hmm. Well, the training of others could help with an untrained person's wages; if a potential janitor has more options for career paths, someone who needs a janitor will have to pay a higher wage to convince janitors to continue working for them. (Of course, making land or physical capital available to the poor would have much the same effect as making education more readily available, I should think.)
Orkeosaurus wrote:
If you're using positive in contrast to "normative", then you can measure the positive effect of any action, but you still can't determine efficacy without declaring some result to be desirable (i.e. to contribute towards efficacy). I still don't see how you can decide what public policy ought to be on purely positive grounds; you would have to say "policy ought to be X if you desire Y as an outcome (because it is the most efficacious way of attaining Y)".
I am using it in contrast to normative, and you are correct that any action can be measured in that sense. That said, efficacy is independent of desire. Stabbing someone in the heart remains an efficacious way of killing a person even when the desire to kill is not present.
You are right that preference is a prerequisite when determining a future course (classic is/ought problem), and my use of the word 'preferential' was poor. I'm attempting to make a distinction between issues which are purely cognitive (justice, fairness, etc.) and those that possess a more tactile quality (food, shelter, drink, etc.) in order to illustrate the way such things can obfuscate a social problem; ie. people frequently refuse an excellent solution of moral grounds rather than material ones.
dogma wrote:I am using it in contrast to normative, and you are correct that any action can be measured in that sense. That said, efficacy is independent of desire. Stabbing someone in the heart remains an efficacious way of killing a person even when the desire to kill is not present.
"Desire" wasn't the best word; I only meant that whatever was "desirable" was what one was using as the standard for whether or not something is effective.
You are right that preference is a prerequisite when determining a future course (classic is/ought problem), and my use of the word 'preferential' was poor. I'm attempting to make a distinction between issues which are purely cognitive (justice, fairness, etc.) and those that possess a more tactile quality (food, shelter, drink, etc.) in order to illustrate the way such things can obfuscate a social problem; ie. people frequently refuse an excellent solution of moral grounds rather than material ones.
Ah, I see; it's not so much a matter of absolutes so much as it is avoiding poor decision making by relying on too abstract of concepts.
