Rebel Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I thought I made it clear that I hold the republicans to blame for not coming up with a better approach. They've had 40+ years and still have nothing to offer but to spend less on the same failed programs that the democrats want to spend more on. In the process they've punted the African-American vote and they're in the process of punting the Hispanic vote. If they continue on this path, in 20 years the red states will all be blue too.

40 years? Republicans only took control of Congress in 1994, after about 60 years of being out of power.

You don't have to be in control to have ideas. Having good ideas is how you get in control. Contract With America = 1994 congressional takeover.

It's been over 40 years since LBJ began the War on Poverty/Great Society. Other than welfare reform, which was more of a tweak than a change, they've not come up with an alternative approach to what has clearly been an enormously expensive failure.

The failures of the current program are on the democrats. It was their plan. Other than guaranteeing them 90% of the black vote it hasn't accomplished anything. Hmmm, maybe that was the goal all along.

The failure to come up with a viable alternative is on the republicans. If they want to have a future, they need to change that.

If you punish the woman for having another child, you end up punishing the child... one way or another...

My mother is a nurse, volunteered at the county health department. Most of the women she offered condoms to said "my man won't wear one... he doesn't like how it feels"... selfish spoiled repugnant a$$

When I take a job, I lose some of my liberties. I cannot come and go as I please... I must conform to dress standards, speech standards, you name it. I LOSE MY RIGHT TO WELFARE!! I cannot have sex on the job... I might lose my tenure/job/check if I get sick or pregnant (at least temporarily). I lose my right to be politically incorrect... I exchange my rights temporarily for a paycheck. Why are welfare recipients exempt from most of these?? It seems to me that the moment you ask for public support, I (the public) have a right to dictate some of your behaviour... including whether or not you have to use a condom/other form of birth control. You don't want my rules?? Don't ask for my support.

WHAT is wrong with that... seriously

smn1256 Wrote:I think people who are on Welfare should perform some sort of work to earn that money. It can be cleaning parks, working in animal shelters, cleaning graffiti, ...whatever. They need to do something so they can equate getting money to actually doing something to get it. Once they figure out they're working for less than minimum wage they'll at least try to get real jobs.

And another thing, someone on welfare should be penalized for having more children instead of getting more money. If a person consciously choses to increase the load to his/her financial burden then the tax payers who had no say in that decision shouldn't be the ones to finance it.

I personally would follow the Republican lead on this one.

A company hires a person on welfare they automatically get a tax break. As the welfare participant works, their benefits from the government decrease until they have no more. I would put this period at about 2 years. During this same period, the company that hires the welfare recipient get's a write off on their taxes equal the reduction of benifits for recipiant.

This way we get someone off of welfare without them getting immediately penalized and we encourage our businesses to hire welfare recipients and hopefully assist them in getting a lifelong skill.

uhmump95 Wrote:I personally would follow the Republican lead on this one.

A company hires a person on welfare they automatically get a tax break. As the welfare participant works, their benefits from the government decrease until they have no more. I would put this period at about 2 years. During this same period, the company that hires the welfare recipient get's a write off on their taxes equal the reduction of benifits for recipiant.

This way we get someone off of welfare without them getting immediately penalized and we encourage our businesses to hire welfare recipients and hopefully assist them in getting a lifelong skill.

There are any number of other things that can be done to further this objective. Some party (republicans?) needs to come up with a comprehensive alternative to the current system. And it needs to be sold to the people on welfare.

Suppose instead of voting 80-90% democrat, the welfare class voted 50% republican, or even 40% republican. That would enough to give the republicans victory in any election over the next few years. If they want to get there, they have to push it. So far, they haven't.

dfarr Wrote:Often stolen and sold by other blacks. Sure, the way that slaves got over here was terrible, but the benefits that their ancestors are reaping far outnumber the costs. Seriously, would any current black person in America rather go back and live in Africa?

How do you know the benefits outweigh the costs? I believe that's beyond your judgment. Unless you were enslaved, you have no right to say someone's abuse was beneficial. Would you argue to a Jewish person that the Holocaust was beneficial because it led to the creation of Israel?

Quote:Once again I recommend reading Freakanomics about this issue. Your assertion about the power of the KKK is proven wrong in the book. Jim Crow & segregation have been over for almost 50 years. Time to stop beating that drum. You're right about welfare and other social services, but they were started in the mid-60s by LBJ with the intention of righting the wrongs of segregation.

The KKK and white supremacy groups intimidated and oppressed Southern blacks. If anything, I underestimate their power because I did not witness it personally. Jim Crow and segregation have been dead for 40 years, but their legacy still leaves its mark. Many blacks were at such an economic and educational disadvantage that it won't be repaired in just one generation.

Quote:You'd be wrong about your last sentence. I went to a public high school that was 60% black and they didn't drop out to work. This isn't the 1940s. They dropped out b/c they were lazy and didn't want to go to school anymore. I've had both white and black friends do it.

I'm wrong because of your perception from your high school days? I didn't make a definitive statement; I was making a guess. Neither of us know with any kind of certainty why kids drop out. I will admit that many kids, of all colors, dropout because of laziness though.

Quote:Jena was a hoax on both sides. For black people to go out and protest like they did over a noose is ridiculous, and for white people to charge the black kid for attempted murder was ridiculous.

I agree, but that doesn't make it a hoax. A hoax is a deception of some kind, this was just overreaction and immaturity.

Quote:Well, I wasn't born 40 years ago, and neither were the black people my age who still spout the same crap about segregation. People who are 50+ can complain about Jim Crow then, but most people younger can't complain. I grew up going to public schools all my life, and I'm pretty sure most of them were majority black. Everything you list I see as just an excuse. Every black kid I went to school with had the same educational opportunities as I did.

I'm not saying they are oppressed still and I agree that blacks who didn't endure segregation have no right to complain about it. The racial injustices should neither be dismissed like many whites tend to do nor should they used as a crutch like many blacks tend to do.

Hambone10 Wrote:If you punish the woman for having another child, you end up punishing the child... one way or another...

True, but eventually people will get the word that having kids they can't afford is counter productive. Tough love, maybe? And what about child support and all that stuff? I'd bet a goodly amount of welfare recipients are single mothers - where are the fathers and why ain't they paying their fair share? Until there's a downside to having kids while on Welfare no one will give a crap about having them.

If you think about it if you can't afford your kids and they are malnourished, or have no clothes or are sick due to a lack of health care then that is child abuse and the kids should be taken from the mother/family. If a welfare family has another kid while on welfare do they have a right to expect the tax payers to subsidize their mistakes and/or poor choices?

uhmump95 Wrote:I personally would follow the Republican lead on this one.

A company hires a person on welfare they automatically get a tax break. As the welfare participant works, their benefits from the government decrease until they have no more. I would put this period at about 2 years. During this same period, the company that hires the welfare recipient get's a write off on their taxes equal the reduction of benifits for recipiant.

This way we get someone off of welfare without them getting immediately penalized and we encourage our businesses to hire welfare recipients and hopefully assist them in getting a lifelong skill.

This is a good start, but that might cause a company to hire people who are on Welfare rather than the most qualified applicant. Your idea is not a bad one but like with anything else it has the potential for abuse.

There are no easy answers. The Bowling for Columbine documentary had a great argument from the left. A second grader went into his classroom and shot another girl because he was mad at her. He got the gun from his crack dealing uncle. The mother had to drop off the kid at 5 a.m. so she could get to work at her "get off welfare program". She had a 2 hr. bus ride both ways. She would get home at 7 p.m. pick up the kid and the cycle would start again. So you know she was dead tired and what kind of parenting did the kid recieve? Do we bring back the orphan trains? Seriously, let's remove the financial incentive for having kids. If you can't afford to raise your child. You give them up. My dad always talked about the football team at the Tiffin Boy's Home. Best football in the area. It was probably a great place to coach!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.flatrockhomes.org/Our_History.asp


I'm dead serious about this. Read the history here. They ran a farm. 500 boy's and later girl's too. They put in a good's day work and probably learned many fine lessons along the way. Dave Thomas the Wendy's guy was an orphan. I gaurantee you they would be better off in a place like this than in a city project.

http://www.legends.ca/orphanages/orphanTypes.html


History of the orphan train. They phased out in the 60's. Probably right along the time welfare came about.

Another Study

Orphans are happier, better educated, and richer then the general population.


Only drawback they had a higher divorce rate.


"What is particularly intriguing about the findings is that the length of stays in orphanages does not appear to have adversely affected the measured outcomes, contrary to what may be conventional professional positions on the issue. Indeed, the length of stay appears to positively impact the respondents' level of "happiness" and their overall assessments of their stays.

Clearly, the respondents in this survey report that they have done better on a variety of economic and social measures than might have been expected, given the sweeping criticisms of institutional care. The findings should, at the least, cause some critics to reexamine their conclusions and to extend their research. Certainly, not all orphans were helped by their orphanage experience. No doubt, some orphans were actually "damaged" in one way or another. "Very unfavorable" assessments were given by slightly more than 1 percent of the respondents. At the same time, one conclusion seems to stand out: For a high percentage of the respondents, orphanage care seemed to "work." That conclusion is supported by the high percentage of respondents who attest that they have done well in life and who attribute at least some of their success to their orphanage experience. "



http://www.merage.uci.edu/~mckenzie/nine.htm

smn1256 Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:I personally would follow the Republican lead on this one.

A company hires a person on welfare they automatically get a tax break. As the welfare participant works, their benefits from the government decrease until they have no more. I would put this period at about 2 years. During this same period, the company that hires the welfare recipient get's a write off on their taxes equal the reduction of benifits for recipiant.

This way we get someone off of welfare without them getting immediately penalized and we encourage our businesses to hire welfare recipients and hopefully assist them in getting a lifelong skill.

This is a good start, but that might cause a company to hire people who are on Welfare rather than the most qualified applicant. Your idea is not a bad one but like with anything else it has the potential for abuse.

Now thats is just paranoia speaking. A welfare recipient is not going to be able to walk off the street and do most skilled jobs. They will most likely start off in the fileroom or some other menial task. I do not see too many risks in doing that. A company usually can't hire a welfare recipient to take the place of an accountant or some other skilled employee.

uhmump95 Wrote:

smn1256 Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:I personally would follow the Republican lead on this one.

A company hires a person on welfare they automatically get a tax break. As the welfare participant works, their benefits from the government decrease until they have no more. I would put this period at about 2 years. During this same period, the company that hires the welfare recipient get's a write off on their taxes equal the reduction of benifits for recipiant.

This way we get someone off of welfare without them getting immediately penalized and we encourage our businesses to hire welfare recipients and hopefully assist them in getting a lifelong skill.

This is a good start, but that might cause a company to hire people who are on Welfare rather than the most qualified applicant. Your idea is not a bad one but like with anything else it has the potential for abuse.

Now thats is just paranoia speaking. A welfare recipient is not going to be able to walk off the street and do most skilled jobs. They will most likely start off in the fileroom or some other menial task. I do not see too many risks in doing that. A company usually can't hire a welfare recipient to take the place of an accountant or some other skilled employee.

Like you I don't see welfare recipients applying for jobs as lawyers, doctors or college professors but there are plenty of jobs that require no special skills. Somebody has to clean the streets, drive garbage trucks, pick crops, etc. Let's say UPS has to hire 2000 truck drivers nationwide - how much money would they save in tax breaks if they hired only welfare recipients? I'm saying any of this will happen, only that it could happen.