Next in NY. Paying fat people to exercise.

6/20/2007 10:46:18 AM

Quote :

"statistics show that males of working age living in poverty work an average of 10 hours a week"

source?

6/20/2007 11:41:41 AM

Quote :

"concept that people seem completely unwilling to face it. As a parent, you have a responsibility for the welfare of your child INCLUDING being able to afford the necessities of raising the child."

Exactly. I made a conscious decision not to even think about kids until I can provide them with the life that I would want for them. I don't see any reason that I shouldn't hold other people to the standard of at least being able to provide for their kids before they reproduce.

It may sound like a good idea to provide food and pay people to come to PTA meetings, but the reality is that it will just attract the most unruly and ignorant bastards to the meeting. They'll show up, complain about the food, fix a to-go plate, and ask how long they have to stay to get paid. They won't contribute anything useful. Anything they do contribute will be disruptive and ignorant. People who are genuinely interested and have something to contribute don't need to be enticed by a free dinner.

6/20/2007 11:51:22 AM

Quote :

"but the reality is that it will just attract the most unruly and ignorant bastards to the meeting. They'll show up, complain about the food, fix a to-go plate, and ask how long they have to stay to get paid. They won't contribute anything useful. Anything they do contribute will be disruptive and ignorant. People who are genuinely interested and have something to contribute don't need to be enticed by a free dinner."

Yes, there will be some people that do this and these are the people that need to be cut off, and face the reality that the government shouldn't be their crutch. But there are plenty of people that have to slave away to feed 2 mouths (their own and their kid after pops abandoned them) that this program would help.

6/20/2007 12:37:00 PM

Our government doesn't allow you to cut anyone off which is why we're better off not having the program in the first place. It's a waste of money.

6/20/2007 12:47:18 PM

Quote :

"I grew up off of florida street in greensboro, first in a condemned apartment building and then in a roach-infested rental house, after a construction crew showed up with a wrecking ball. Anyone from greensboro will tell you how fucked up that area is. Nobody gave us any handouts because we were poor, and my parents didn't ask or expect it. My parents worked their asses off to support our family and broke out of poverty on their own. It takes nothing more than a strong will and good work ethic. But it's always somebody else's fault. Fuck that."

Rich doesn't always mean wealthy. One could be rich in parenting, will or determination. You were rich in parenting as your parents weren't "poor". All of you came up rich in something and have no room to judge people who started with nothing and just because one person has made it from nothing does not mean everyone should. Its the equivalent of saying you should be a billionaire since some people have started off average and ended up billionaires you have no excuse

Congradulations if you or your parents climbed everest but everybody can't be expected to walk on water.

6/20/2007 1:19:24 PM

Instead of paying the poor to achieve in school, how about we make the money we're already paying them contingent on achievement?

6/20/2007 1:20:49 PM

^Something like that might work. The way government programs are structured now the lower classes basically have an incentive to do nothing except be lazy. So why not give them an incentive to actually perform better? Why not give the parents more money if their children do better in school? And maybe that could work for other things, like giving welfare recipients some kind of bonus if they can manage to both find and keep a job. Obviously they would cease to qualify for these hand-outs at some point, though.

Although I don't agree with income redistribution, we've at least got to give people an incentive to get up off of their asses. Ideally we wouldn't have to in the first place and people would just take care of themselves, but with so many people dependent upon free hand-outs to the point that they refuse to do anything for themselves, our only option is to basically ween them off of the system, and the most effective way to do that, ironically enough, would be to give them a little bit more as a reward for performing better. Then once they can take care of themselves, cut them off.

6/20/2007 1:46:30 PM

Quote :

"source?"

This is just the first source google came up with:
"In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work each year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm
They reference:
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance, p. 8.

6/20/2007 1:49:50 PM

^ Way to quote your sources accurately. Here's the whole paragraph out of which your quote came

Quote :

"The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work each year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.11 "

Edit: Interesting how when you click on the link they provide for their own original research, it doesn't work
Scrolling down we see that source 11 is

Quote :

"11. Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 27, 2003, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm. "

In other words, the heritage foundation is quoting it's own data on this one. What's wrong with that you ask? The fact that the mission statement of the Heritage Foundation reads

Quote :

"Our Mission Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. "

http://www.heritage.org/about/

Bias much?

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : see above]

6/20/2007 2:59:28 PM

^^ that is easily realistic. If you think about it a person making $10/hr 40 hours a week will have a gross income ~ $20000. The poverty line for a family of four is $20000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

If both parents are working full time theoretically it would be impossible for the family to be below the poverty line unless they were illegally making below the minimum wage at $5/hour.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 3:00 PM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 3:00:01 PM

^^ How about attack the data collection method if you have a problem with the data, and not automatically attack the source because you perceive it may have some bias.

6/20/2007 3:03:27 PM

^ How about you read my post, including the part where it says the link to the data collection method doesn't work

6/20/2007 3:05:03 PM

Well, until you see the data collection method, I guess the only thing you can do is jump to the conclusion that it was wrong since the source may be biased. Right?


And, is this the link you say isn't working, but is working fine for me

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 4:06 PM. Reason : durr]

6/20/2007 4:03:53 PM

Quote :

"Our government doesn't allow you to cut anyone off which is why we're better off not having the program in the first place. It's a waste of money."

Bingo. The bennefit of having private charities and individual donations instead of government run systems is that a private organization can do what the government is unable or unwilling to do: cut off the dead wieght to help everyone else.

Quote :

"Rich doesn't always mean wealthy. One could be rich in parenting, will or determination. You were rich in parenting as your parents weren't "poor". All of you came up rich in something and have no room to judge people who started with nothing "

Such a load of crap. Will and determination are what you make of them. If you want to change your life, you will do it. If you don't, why should anyone else change your life for you?

Quote :

"Congradulations if you or your parents climbed everest but everybody can't be expected to walk on water."

Getting your life together isn't walking on water, it's basic survival. It's recognizing that because you are poor you don't get to live a middle class life, which means cut off the damn cable, throw out the smokes, give up the booze, just say no to fast food and bust your ass.

There's nothing magical about rising out of poverty. It doesn't take an act of God or an act of congress. What it takes is determination and some smart decision making. It takes a real desire to improve your life, and the patience to see those improvements through. The problem is everyone wants it now now now. You get a 25¢ raise and the first thing people do is break out the cable ads. Instead, you could dump that 25¢ into a savings account. You lived this long without cable, a few more years won't kill you.

Quote :

"Instead of paying the poor to achieve in school, how about we make the money we're already paying them contingent on achievement?"

Mostly because it leads to two points of failure. You have family A and B. A gets an extra 100 / month when little Johnny makes Bs. Family B earns a thousand dollars more a year. They get diddly squat when little Suzie makes As. So you have a system where by you are paying the poor more for doing the same thing the not so poor are doing already. You also have a situation where you engourage staying still. If you make higher rewards for better achievement, when you reach the cutoff point, there's no incentive to go beyond that point because you will actually lose money rather than gain it.

6/20/2007 4:07:21 PM

Giving poverty stricken families money for their kids getting good grades will put those kids in a bad position. I can see situations of threats and abuse on kids who don't earn their parents booze money for the month. I can see parents threatening/harassing teachers to give children As.

What about corruption of teachers? Teachers who just give out As so families can get money, not because little Shaniqua actually earned the A.

Ugh. This is just as bad of an idea as paying the poor to goto school and pta meetings.

6/20/2007 4:37:20 PM

Quote :

"Rich doesn't always mean wealthy. One could be rich in parenting, will or determination. You were rich in parenting as your parents weren't "poor". All of you came up rich in something and have no room to judge people who started with nothing and just because one person has made it from nothing does not mean everyone should. Its the equivalent of saying you should be a billionaire since some people have started off average and ended up billionaires you have no excuse Congradulations if you or your parents climbed everest but everybody can't be expected to walk on water."

That's the biggest load of horseshit i've ever read.

You live in a fucking fairy tale land, kid.

6/20/2007 4:45:31 PM

i wanna get paid for not shitting all over the sidewalk

6/20/2007 7:02:07 PM

CA is providing daycare for teenagers that have babies to go to school(provided at the school).

6/20/2007 7:35:22 PM

Quote :

"I too am a firm believer that some people need help from time to time, but I don't think we should put them on a permanent support system. If poor person/family X gets cut off from the government programs, they have to turn to friends, family, and church for support. These organizations don't have blank checks to give to them like the government does (thanks to you and I as taxpayers) and they will demand more return on their investment or else they'll be cut off. "

GG Blind Hate, well said

6/20/2007 8:21:43 PM

Quote :

"I don't think we should put them on a permanent support system"

i agree. the point of welfare should be to get people off of it.

6/20/2007 8:28:10 PM

19th century england had a good idea with debtors prison. I am tired of people living off the system and once we cut them off by eliminating welfare as a crutch in society something needs to done with them. Lazy hungry people with nothing to lose are just going to increase crime and cause problems. We need to force them to work or throw their asses in debtors prison.

The gov't should be making people work for there welfare check anyway

6/20/2007 9:32:49 PM