After 5 years, then what? Cut off? What's to keep someone from moving from state to state? Make it a Federally tracked program


So, while mom is at work for 8 hours, what happens to the child once day care ends? What happens if mom is working 2 shifts? 3? That is where the people ON welfare come in, they provide the childcare for the people that are actually working!



This is already happening for the hourly workers (former recipients now working for the government), but many supervisors need at least some college, if not a four-year degree. Expecting someone with a less-than-stellar scholastic record to try to finish a four year degree, while not impossible, may require more support than just letting them fail. Then keep them the hourly employe, until it is proven that they can do college. Then work them slowly through a community college and towards a 2 year degree. Then if they do well, make it a 4 year degree. Slow and steady wins the race


More to the point about job creation; a lot of people work at Wal-Mart, and barely make ends meet. Even then, service/consumer sector jobs can only go so far. Are there any other unskilled worker jobs that can be created when labor costs in the U.S. are still relatively high (for a global economy)? Look, I worked 12 hour shifts as a waiter and bartender to do what I had to do. So did a lot of other peole. You gotta do what is important.



Collect welfare, loose your rights. Nice. If you want free money, FUVK yes!! Don't like it, FUVK off and go without. There has always been rules in life, and this should be no different. These people need money to survive, then we need to make sure they use it for the right things. Like clothes, food, and heat! If you buy drugs or alcohol, cut them off of all funding. Everything! No sympothy and no exceptions!! You wanna get high, get a job!!



This statement is built upon bad assumptions:

1. That the generational poor see work as a means to feel better about themselves. If welfare = $$ and underemployment = $, it behooves people to be on welfare. Scot's original post says it all: if you bottom out; you get stuff. If you work, you have to be wise enough to save to get stuff. And it's time to take that saying away from the bottoms out people!!!


1a. That pride>stuff to the generational poor. From where MANY (not just the poor) sit; pride=stuff. Change to the fair tax, and only tax the stuff we buy. Then it should make people think about buying that new 62" Plasma.


2. That it's in everybody's interest to really allow a lot of people to succeed.

 

When you ask for my money, then I think there should be some rules.
Do you think they should be able to sit around and get high, while collecting a check and spacing out?

 

Exactly the point I was trying to make when I said "Everyone may have the right to abuse themselves with intoxicants I guess, but the place you're getting the handout money from has every right to have you agree to spend it only in approved places."

You cut to the point

 

Good idea. National ID cards are the way to go!

[QUOTE]
So, while mom is at work for 8 hours, what happens to the child once day care ends? What happens if mom is working 2 shifts? 3?

 

America equals entitlement.

Parents own cool stuff so kids should too.

Save for nice things, nope it's easier to buy on credit. Buy real estate within your means, naw the government will bail you out.

Educate yourself regarding money ? What's a 401K? I need Mugen parts.

Don't earn enough, retrain yourself? Naw that's too hard.

This is America I shouldn't have to take a job that is beneath me.

BS. No sympathy for those who do nothing to improve themselves. Life ain't fair, sucks to be those who aren't willing to improve their lot in life, but people make their own choices.

 

NO WAAY!

 

Good idea. National ID cards are the way to go! I honestly have no problems with the National ID program. It isn't much different from a hybrid of your drivers license and a passport. It would stay in my wallet 99.9% of the time. It really isn't much different than a high tech SS card, except it would have a microchip and not be easy to replicate!



And your training requirements for these child care workers are? How would you rectify differences in present requirements for care workers? (yes, I'm leading) I think that you move the current care workers into supervisor and training roles, and allow them to train the next batch of workers. This gives the old ones a reward for working hard, and allows the next generation to learn from their experiences. Allow the system to work for us.


I have no qualms with the second half of your proposal; many public sector state jobs make some (if not a 4 year degree) training available. Where I'm still rubbed is letting the hourly employee still stay; while good in principle, if you allowed ongoing financial education for the hourly workers, I'd probably be on board. I think that the hourly workers would already qualify for state and federal assistance in college, so that part should be in play. I think that making this a spring board towards other employement is important too. Get companies that recieve state and federal assistance on board to hire people who have worked hard through the system, so there will always be room for more to enter the program.


Where does the need for bartenders and waitstaff (service sector jobs) come from? Not everybody in the U.S. can process paperwork. I think most people can learn to process paperwork. It is usually a set process, and once learned can be a easy job. Or are you saying there isn't enough paperwork to be processed? If we used the welfare system to put more workers towards projects that need help, then it would be a win win situation. Take public housing for example. Teach people to do technical jobs, like heating and cooling and handywork, and let them work to improve the current housing projects. I know they would need supplies which are expensive, but it would allow for pre-paid labor. Again, I think it comes back to helping people want to do better and see it affect where they live. Arm them with the knowledge and training to improve the areas where they live.


If you want to circumvent the 4th Ammendment, go right ahead. Your liability in this one was drug testing all the family members. That said, if you were to just attach reasonable enforcement, I'm game. I'm not against the principle, but you crossed over to the wrong side of the slippery slope. You don't have to test all of them, if you don't want extra funds from them on the application. Again, I'm looking for ways to make this a truely rewarding system. It soundn't be a free ride! Anytime you get a loan from the private sector, there are rules. Granted they don't ask for drug tests and such, but the rules need to change for each situation. If you need money for survival, then making rules that help your survival rate aren't a bad thing in my mind.


How do you propose to make people wise? Once again, if you provide ongoing education, I'm game. I will always say that education is the key! Figuring out how to achieve this is the true key, and I agree with you on that. I think it is going to take drastic changes to make this happen. Like filing for bankruptcy is now tougher on the people who do so. Your getting bailed out of your current situation, but they made it a tough choice to make. Getting on welfare should be the same. Do I really need this hassle? If your situation is so, then it will be an easy choice and easy to follow the rules. If not, then maybe it will weed some of those people out.


"Hey, wanna buy some tax-free milk?" 31% sales tax is a tough pill to swallow, and if you can figure out how the proposed 31% increase in COGS isn't passed on to me as lower wages, I'm all ears. Also, if you can figure out how lower wages for highly skilled workers develops into a broad sustainable consumer base (to allow the sales tax to work), I'm also game. I know there are problems with this idea, but I think that taxing what you make is less fair than what you buy. I'm sure they would make concessions for people on welfare to avoid taxes on basic living items. But this should only be for things that they really need. No tax-free fast food, luxury items, alcohol, or cars < a certain $ amount.


Scot will be disappointed if Boost mobile goes out of business. Debt collection agencies will be even more disappointed. I bet he wouldn't mind Boost going out of business, but Debt Collectors would definetly hate it!

In a lot of ways, I'm busting your chops. Ultimately though, you only reinforce the problems I found which I discussed in my first post. The present solutions to the war on poverty are completely inadequate, and it requires a mindset change on OUR (the Middle Class) part to create something effective. I agree and think true discussion is the way to achieve this!

 

The only things I can see to rid poverty are:

Incentives and tangible goals.

The double irony is that the poor are mimicking the middle class with our lust for things we can't afford.

Since we can't rid ourselves of want, we have to focus the want onto something else.

Perhaps a guaranteed job out of high school. Put back and keep ROP Drafting and Design, Homebulding, Ironworking, or tradeskills, or whatever you want to call it back in to high school.

I think with the chronic poor, we have to give more opportunities to the kids, so that they realize their self worth and unique abilities.

We have to create the motivation which will lead to responsibility, it just doesn't come naturally for all people.

It really sucks that some people EXPECT others to behave in a certain way.

I think we'd be amazed what we'd be like if we reformed our education system.

 

I think that would have the opposite effect, as it would just be another thing handed to people that required no effort of their own to obtain.

One of the problems we face in trying to correct something like this is the millions of people milking the system that continue to vote the politicians into office that promise to increase their benefits. And we all know how those 'benefits' are paid. I would love to see those people denied voting privileges, but I'm sure the media would be in a frenzy claiming everyone has the 'right' to vote.

 

"Guaranteed" meaning they would have to meet certain criteria in order to establish the forementioned "goal". The point was, something that is readily attainable for those who never had direction to begin with: a appetizer, not a full course meal.


And I'm willing to guess that "those people" don't vote in strong numbers, and if they did it wouldn't matter much anyway, either to them or to us.

I seriously hope you are kidding about the whole no voting thing, in fact, I would like to see a mandatory vote where the police break down one's door and stuff a ballot in their mouth; pre-chosen.