Abolish welfare now!
Bonnie Rubbert
Sounds like you got yout "propaganda" about private charities from the
"Heritage Foundation:" and they are not correct. Neitherm
Catholic Charities or kthe Salvation Army Could posssibly help poor
people. Upper Middle Class Women who use to work in charity now have no
maids and ofdten work. Who is going to do this charity work. You?>
and often work
Mr Smith
On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:08:57 GMT, Bonnie Rubbert <bon...@eskimo.com>
wrote:
The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
doing this.
Philippe Hajjar
}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
}doing this.
Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
Enjoy!
Philippe Hajjar
pnh...@psu.edu
"Fight crime, shoot back."
"Vote Democratic, it's easier than working."
Gail Thaler
sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:08:57 GMT, Bonnie Rubbert <bon...@eskimo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Sounds like you got yout "propaganda" about private charities from the
>>"Heritage Foundation:" and they are not correct. Neitherm
>>Catholic Charities or kthe Salvation Army Could posssibly help poor
>>people. Upper Middle Class Women who use to work in charity now have no
>>maids and ofdten work. Who is going to do this charity work. You?>
>> and often work
>>
>doing this.
>
mostly women with children and not many skills. You are going
to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
How expensive do you think that is?
--What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and
the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
Gail Thaler
sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:08:57 GMT, Bonnie Rubbert <bon...@eskimo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Sounds like you got yout "propaganda" about private charities from the
>>"Heritage Foundation:" and they are not correct. Neitherm
>>Catholic Charities or kthe Salvation Army Could posssibly help poor
>>people. Upper Middle Class Women who use to work in charity now have no
>>maids and ofdten work. Who is going to do this charity work. You?>
>> and often work
>>
>The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>doing this.
>
Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
William R. Discipio Jr
Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
: Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
: most women with children with not many skills.
Citation please?
: You are going
: to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
Why?
: How expensive do you think that is?
Who cares?
: --What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and
: the value of nothing.
: Oscar Wilde
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Plus Jim [Kennemur] does not call all blacks he disagrees with house
niggers Jim [Kennemur] calls house niggers that he disagrees with house
niggers. Big difference Dippy." -- Shawn Smith <ssh...@ccsi.com>
RHA
In article <4p6q77$d...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
Philippe Hajjar <pnh...@psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>
>}doing this.
>
>
How do you handle the problem of Allan Greenspan
wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
so to keep "inflation" low.
--
rha
Mr Smith
On Thu, 06 Jun 96 14:32:58 GMT, pnh...@psu.edu (Philippe Hajjar)
wrote:
>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>
>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>}doing this.
>
>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
>
Yeah, well lets wait and see how long that takes to happen. The first
step is getting the low lifes to work at all.
Philippe Hajjar
In article <4p7oes$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
}Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
}most women with children with not many skills. You are going
}to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
}
}How expensive do you think that is?
Yeah, just ask anyone who works his ass off to *pay* for these things himself.
Why can't welfare people be expected to do the same things diligent people do?
Philippe Hajjar
In article <4p80an$1...@praline.no.neosoft.com>,
}>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
}>
}>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
}>}doing this.
}>
}>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
}>
} wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
} so to keep "inflation" low.
Then why is the unemployment rate less than 6% if the rate is "supposed" to be
6-7%?
Mike Wooding
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>>The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>doing this.
>>
>Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
>most women with children with not many skills. You are going
>to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
Well, actually, I don't see why these women can't form collectives
and pool day care efforts. Perhaps some might even specialize in day
care ... isn't that work? I bet they could even pool things like
outgrown clothes, toys, laundry efforts, shopping, cooking, tutoring,
job hunt networking, ...
And look at the tremendous boost in their self-esteem from making
significant contributions to community instead of wathcing day time
TV and veging out? Think of the wonderful example they would be
setting for their children.
>How expensive do you think that is?
Not very.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> writes:
>Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>>>The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>>doing this.
>>>
>>Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
>>most women with children with not many skills. You are going
>>to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>
> Well, actually, I don't see why these women can't form collectives
> and pool day care efforts. Perhaps some might even specialize in day
> care ... isn't that work? I bet they could even pool things like
> outgrown clothes, toys, laundry efforts, shopping, cooking, tutoring,
> job hunt networking, ...
> And look at the tremendous boost in their self-esteem from making
> significant contributions to community instead of wathcing day time
> TV and veging out?
umm, have you ever run a household with kids in it?
>Think of the wonderful example they would be
> setting for their children.
Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
And once they take the bus to the burger flipping job are you going
to pick up the tab for health care (now that they have a job and are
ineligable for benefits)? And you are going to continue to provide
food stamps aren't you? Or do you think that the minimum wage is
a livable income?
Nothing wrong with burger flipping, especially as a first job to ingrain
the idea that you are supposed to show up on time and do the work...
Your idea DOES have some merit but your missing a lot of details.
> mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Dave Olson
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
} Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
} most women with children with not many skills. You are going
} to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
In other words, we either spend money on them or we spend money on them. Not
acceptable.
A few suggestions:
Training -- The've already gone through public education and are probably
sending their kids there as well. If they have few skills, the problem is
the type of education, not the lack of it.
Day-care -- Maybe their job can be opening up a day-care for themselves and
others who need it.
Transportation -- If they can't drive, let them walk, ride a bike, or take
a bus.
Just like the rest of us had to do.
--
David Olson d...@dr.att.com
"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone
collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is
someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking
of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand
Mike Wooding
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
> Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> writes:
>>Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>>>doing this.
>>>>
>>>most women with children with not many skills. You are going
>>>to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>>
>> and pool day care efforts. Perhaps some might even specialize in day
>> care ... isn't that work? I bet they could even pool things like
>> outgrown clothes, toys, laundry efforts, shopping, cooking, tutoring,
>> job hunt networking, ...
>> And look at the tremendous boost in their self-esteem from making
>> significant contributions to community instead of wathcing day time
>> TV and veging out?
>
>umm, have you ever run a household with kids in it?
Well, actually YES. And worked and went to school and ... and in
fact did a little day care swapping. Unless the IRS is reading this
post, in which case I'm just kidding. ;-)
>>Think of the wonderful example they would be
>> setting for their children.
>
>Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
>education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
>decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
Around here lots of kids get jobs before they even graduate. Of course
with the minimum wage rising, it might be even more difficult. Perhaps
a barter system ... i.e. underground, sort of out of the "official"
economy kinds of work. Sometimes a bit seedy, but then w/out Uncle
taking his cut, one can make out pretty well. Painting, cleaning, doing
all sorts of chores for working people who'd be happy to pay in return.
I do find it a little distressing that the poster seems to be trying
to find excuses for people to NOT work.
>And once they take the bus to the burger flipping job are you going
>to pick up the tab for health care (now that they have a job and are
>ineligable for benefits)? And you are going to continue to provide
>food stamps aren't you? Or do you think that the minimum wage is
>a livable income?
Who picks up those tabs now?
>Nothing wrong with burger flipping, especially as a first job to ingrain
>the idea that you are supposed to show up on time and do the work...
>Your idea DOES have some merit but your missing a lot of details.
I wasn't trying to fill in the details. Just suggesting that if its
excuses you're looking for, they are always available. If its ways to
get people to work, then for every obstacle there's a way around. But
it requires personal responsibility. Not excuses!
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Clayton E. Cramer
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
>most women with children with not many skills. You are going
>to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>
>How expensive do you think that is?
From my own experiences with AFDC-dependent relatives,
the first priority of the AFDC check is buying drugs,
sometimes for the mother, sometimes for the father of
the children that refuses to work. Whatever is left
over may buy some food for the kids. A brother-in-law
of mine once got so disgusted at the paperwork that he
had to fill out to get his wife back on AFDC that he
threw the papers in the gutter, and took their last
$5 to buy whiskey.
Average? I don't know. But he lived in a subculture
full of families like his own.
In any case, there are two things that the folks in
question know how to do without training. The fathers
who either can't or won't find a job can be given
plastic bags to fill with trash. We've already paid
for their labor by feeding their wives and kids; it's
now time for men that won't support their own families
to do a bit of work for it. If they don't like it,
we can bring back chain gangs until their attitude
improves.
The mothers know how to watch children. One AFDC mother
can watch kids for the other five while they go off to
work. I would prefer mothers to raise their own kids,
but if middle class families have to put their kids in
daycare, why should AFDC recipients be exempt?
Mr Smith
On 6 Jun 1996 20:23:35 -0500, ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA)
wrote:
>In article <4p6q77$d...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
>Philippe Hajjar <pnh...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>>
>>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>}doing this.
>>
>>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
>>
> How do you handle the problem of Allan Greenspan
> wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
> so to keep "inflation" low.
>
What on earth does supporting freeloaders have to do with that?
Philippe Hajjar
}Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
}education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
}decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it? Maybe
if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
}And once they take the bus to the burger flipping job are you going
}to pick up the tab for health care (now that they have a job and are
}ineligable for benefits)? And you are going to continue to provide
}food stamps aren't you? Or do you think that the minimum wage is
}a livable income?
Most states have plans that offer Medicaid benefits to people who work but
don't make a lot of money. In PA, we just passed a Medicaid overhaul that
provides benefits to people who work at least 100 hours a month and pay a $150
yearly premium. For someone working 40 hours a week, making minimum wage,
that's not *too* much to ask, especially when some families (like mine) pay up
to $150 *A day* for health care on top of 50% of our income in taxes to pay
for welfare bums who don't want to work and get *Free* healthcare.
ga...@sprynet.com
}Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
}education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
}decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it?
Maybe
if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
In these days a high school degree or even a college degree for that
matter does not guarantee a wage much higher than the minimum. Far
too many of are well paying manufacturing jobs are gone foreever. The
only bastian remaining is high tech and China is stealing what
productive work we are doing in that area. The good old days of the
'50's and '60's are probably gone for good.
gp
Dittoheads are educated beyond their intellectual
capacity
Philippe Hajjar
In article <31b97c8f...@buck.intelli-net.com>,
ga...@sprynet.com (ga...@dialnet.net) wrote:
}}Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
}}education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
}}decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
}
}Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it?
}Maybe
}if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
}
}In these days a high school degree or even a college degree for that
}matter does not guarantee a wage much higher than the minimum. Far
}too many of are well paying manufacturing jobs are gone foreever. The
}only bastian remaining is high tech and China is stealing what
}productive work we are doing in that area. The good old days of the
}'50's and '60's are probably gone for good.
But it is still your fault if you don't prepare yourself. Given that public
education is "free," and that you can get loans for college to get a degree in
a field which will make you some good money, you have no one to blame but
yourself if you don't prepare.
Einstein
William R. Discipio Jr wrote:
>
> Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
>
> : Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
> : most women with children with not many skills.
So give them jobs they can do in the house like stuffing envelopes!!!!
the same with the handicapped recipients (obvious exceptions)
>
> Citation please?
>
> : You are going
> : to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>
> Why?
>
> : How expensive do you think that is?
>
> Who cares?
--
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour.
Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
relativity."
-- Albert Einstein
spa...@vixa.voyager.net
Mr Smith (sh...@crl.com) wrote:
: On 6 Jun 1996 20:23:35 -0500, ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA)
: wrote:
You've got it backwards. Let me put the question this way:
If monetary policy is intended to render some job seekers
unemployed, for the sake of the larger economy, how do we deal with the
issue of people who are willing to work yet cannot find jobs as a result
of such monetary policy which has effectively determined that some must
be unemployed so that the rest of us can live free from high inflation?
If monetary policy creates a small group of losers (unemployed) and
a large group of winners (employed while protected from high inflation),
do the winners have any responsibility to prevent the losers from
starving? Would you prefer full employment with its attendant
inflationary risks?
Gail Thaler
disc...@crl.com (William R. Discipio Jr) wrote:
>Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
>
>: Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
>: most women with children with not many skills.
>
>
I already posted the entire article. But if you didn't see
it, or if you're too lazy to look up A.F.D.C on Alta Vista,
then here you go:
http://www.afreeman.com/Welfare.html
>: You are going
>: to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>
>Why?
>
>: How expensive do you think that is?
>
>Who cares?
>
Einstein
I think what was meant was that they are physically able to work .... I
think the idea behind a workfare program is a good one because it gets
rid of the incentive not to work.... Currently why should someone work
for $40 extra a week... that is only $1 and hour so if they dont work
they could be sitting home watching oprah or whatever ....
Mr Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Jun 96 14:32:58 GMT, pnh...@psu.edu (Philippe Hajjar)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
> >
> >}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
> >}doing this.
> >
> >Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
> >
>
> Yeah, well lets wait and see how long that takes to happen. The first
> step is getting the low lifes to work at all.
--
Synergy
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) writes:
>In article <4p6q77$d...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
>Philippe Hajjar <pnh...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>>
>>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>}doing this.
>>
>>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
>>
> How do you handle the problem of Allan Greenspan
> wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
> so to keep "inflation" low.
Ignore Mr. Greenspan. He can't do anything to keep you from applying
for as many jobs as you want to appy for. I have yet to see any
major newspaper that didn't have hundreds or thousands of jobs listed
each week.
Abolish welfare now!
--
<sig>
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
A welfare check should be harder to get than a building permit.
Annoy a Fascist: Just Say No to Gun Control!
Annoy a Liberaloon: Don't be dependent upon the government.
</sig>
Einstein
Yeah and I think they could share an apartment and stuff like that!!!
Mike Wooding wrote:
>
> Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> >>The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
> >>doing this.
> >>
> >Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
> >most women with children with not many skills. You are going
> >to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>
> Well, actually, I don't see why these women can't form collectives
> and pool day care efforts. Perhaps some might even specialize in day
> care ... isn't that work? I bet they could even pool things like
> outgrown clothes, toys, laundry efforts, shopping, cooking, tutoring,
> job hunt networking, ...
>
> And look at the tremendous boost in their self-esteem from making
> significant contributions to community instead of wathcing day time
> TV and veging out? Think of the wonderful example they would be
> setting for their children.
>
> >How expensive do you think that is?
>
> Not very.
>
> --
> mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
--
"Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift."
-- Albert Einstein
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>In article <4p6q77$d...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
>Philippe Hajjar <pnh...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>>
>>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>}doing this.
>>
>>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
>>
> How do you handle the problem of Allan Greenspan
> wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
> so to keep "inflation" low.
First, teach him some basic economics. Employment does not cause
inflation. Inflation can -- temporarily, before people catch on to
why they are getting more money for the same goods -- cause
employment, as companies increase production to match mythical demand.
Of course, this pushes their inventory up, so equally temporary
unemployment follows. The only possible cause of unemployment is
money becoming more abundant relative to other goods. This means that
the people who produce money -- the government, and agencies
authorized by the government, in a society with "legal tender" laws --
are producing money too rapidly.
Second, teach you some basics of work-force dynamics. Between people
entering the workforce, people changing jobs, companies failing, and
other clear and ongoing events, we should expect to see unemployment,
perhaps as high as 4%, quite normally. This does not mean that anyone
is unemployed for any significant period of time.
Marc Ely-Chaitlin
GROW A CONSCIENCE! You apparently have ignored history and decided to
just focus on the last fifty years. How convenient. The only problem is
that this country was made into a great power on the backs of hardworking
common people, especially after 1776 when the slavemasters set up their
little government in opposition to thousands of years of law, which
enabled them to exploit their slaves and indentured servants without
limitations. (That's what controlling the government lets you do).
As a fascist you should appreciate the fact that the welfare is not being
provided for the benefit of the poor, but for the safety of the state. I
guarantee you, as someone who is actually acquainted with the condition
of the street culture in America, if welfare was abolished today, and the
money was cut off, (the money that is printed by the Government, and
distributed to its favorites due to corrupt deals), this country would be
dripping in blood; and I am sorry to say, it would probably include a
fair measure of your blood and mine. If you intend on making comments on
public policy, do everyone a favor and get a decent education first.
Do your country a favor, and stop taking your information off the news.
THE REGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
wa...@blarg.net (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>>In article <4p6q77$d...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
>>Philippe Hajjar <pnh...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>>>
>>>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>>}doing this.
>>>
>>>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
>>>
>> How do you handle the problem of Allan Greenspan
>> wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
>> so to keep "inflation" low.
>First, teach him some basic economics. Employment does not cause
>inflation. Inflation can -- temporarily, before people catch on to
>why they are getting more money for the same goods -- cause
>employment, as companies increase production to match mythical demand.
>Of course, this pushes their inventory up, so equally temporary
>unemployment follows. The only possible cause of unemployment is
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>money becoming more abundant relative to other goods.
I should have double-checked this before posting. It should read:
The only possible cause of >>>inflation<<< is money becoming
more abundant relative to other goods.
Sorry.
Michael Zarlenga
Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
: Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
: most women with children with not many skills. You are going
: to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
We can employ 20% staffing daycare for the other welfare moms' kids.
And another 5% helping transport the other welfare moms (who cannot
take the bus or local mass trans) to/from work)
And another 10% answering phones and running errands at various state
and local agencies.
And another 10% picking up litter.
This is where we could initially put 1/3rd to 1/2 of these single moms.
Eventually, they could be moved into more meaningful positions, once
they extablish a track record of actually showing up for work everyday
and sober.
First step is weeding out the "I want a job" talkers from those who
say it AND mean it. Attendance records should be able to do that
in most cases. And menial jobs like litter patrol could be used for
that process.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Bill Clinton is so hard up he's thinking about asking dead Incans out.
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP Public key and killfile
Gail Thaler
d...@francium.dr.att.com (Dave Olson) wrote:
>Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>} Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
>} most women with children with not many skills. You are going
>} to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>
>acceptable.
>
children.
>A few suggestions:
> Training -- The've already gone through public education and are probably
> sending their kids there as well. If they have few skills, the problem is
> the type of education, not the lack of it.
I've already published the true statistics and the web address
where you can find them. They, in fact, will need training.
> Day-care -- Maybe their job can be opening up a day-care for themselves and
> others who need it.
>
Being a parent does not necessarily mean that you are trained
to take care of either your own or other children. But if you
want to spend $150 a year to have welfare mothers exchange
their children with other welfare mothers, so be it.
> Transportation -- If they can't drive, let them walk, ride a bike, or take
> a bus.
>
How are they supposed to afford to be able to do this? Ride a
bike with babies on their handlebars.
>Just like the rest of us had to do.
>
What about the fathers? Why aren't they supporting the children?
Why are people always attacking the MOTHERS?
Gail Thaler
"Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@zippy.sonoma.edu> wrote:
>Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>>Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
>>most women with children with not many skills. You are going
>>to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>>
>
>the first priority of the AFDC check is buying drugs,
>sometimes for the mother, sometimes for the father of
>the children that refuses to work. Whatever is left
>over may buy some food for the kids. A brother-in-law
>of mine once got so disgusted at the paperwork that he
>had to fill out to get his wife back on AFDC that he
>threw the papers in the gutter, and took their last
>$5 to buy whiskey.
>
>Average? I don't know. But he lived in a subculture
>full of families like his own.
>
throwing the baby out with the bathwater!! Payments are
minimal to mothers.
>In any case, there are two things that the folks in
>question know how to do without training. The fathers
>who either can't or won't find a job can be given
>plastic bags to fill with trash. We've already paid
>for their labor by feeding their wives and kids; it's
>now time for men that won't support their own families
>to do a bit of work for it. If they don't like it,
>we can bring back chain gangs until their attitude
>improves.
>
Well, at least one person is talking about the men who
abandon the children. Thanks.
>The mothers know how to watch children. One AFDC mother
>can watch kids for the other five while they go off to
>work. I would prefer mothers to raise their own kids,
>but if middle class families have to put their kids in
>daycare, why should AFDC recipients be exempt?
>
Please. Raising children is a serious business that
requires training. Wouldn't you insist that your day-
care provider no something more about parenting than
just being one?
spa...@vixa.voyager.net
> <Pine.SUN.3.93.96060...@eskimo.com>
<31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com> <4p7oes$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net> <4pehps$b...@paperboy.ids.net>:
Distribution:
Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
: And another 10% picking up litter.
: This is where we could initially put 1/3rd to 1/2 of these single moms.
: Eventually, they could be moved into more meaningful positions, once
: they extablish a track record of actually showing up for work everyday
: and sober.
: First step is weeding out the "I want a job" talkers from those who
: say it AND mean it. Attendance records should be able to do that
: in most cases. And menial jobs like litter patrol could be used for
: that process.
The dirty little secret (for conservatives): most - perhaps the vast
majority - DO want jobs.
The dirty little secret (for liberals): they want good jobs, i.e.
jobs which are non-menial and which can they can adequately live on (i.e.
min wage jobs just don't cut it). That's probably why - along with
health care - so many return to welfare after getting off it: the ones
who return several times to welfare are probably those who get jobs but
don't advance, and are unwilling to do menial work indefinitely.
Morse
Concerning welfare mothers:
The repeated assertions and implications that welfare mothers do nothing
are preposterous.
If they do nothing, guys, the problem is solved. If you don't take
care of children, guess what guys, the kids die. Blowhard men
don't have the faintest idea that this is so, because they've never
taken care of children. They think babies feed themselves and change
their own diapers while mothers veg out and watch TV, because all the
guys know to do is mouth off, veg out, and watch TV.
Take care of a kid, and then talk.
As for the proposal that mothers form cooperatives for childcare,
I favor it, whenever it can be done without harm to the kids.
And so, I'll bet, would most mothers. The problems that prevent
*poor* mothers from forming cooperatives are numerous: where
will the kids stay (you have to have a certain number of kids
to make the cooperative work economically--a certain number of
mothers will have to work for wages and a certain number will have
to look after the kids--where are you going to get a space that
will accommodate the kids and the caretaking mothers?); the needs
of the wage-earning mothers for childcare are probably going to
be 24-hour (because they will work those twilight and night shifts
of low-income jobs) and this will overstrain the caretaking mothers.
Under these stressful circumstances, it's difficult to come up
with a quality of care for the child that is equal to what the
mother can give if she stays at home.
In general, women who do work for wages have not been able to
put together childcare cooperatives. Most daycare centers
are commercial enterprises. I do think that setting up
childcare cooperatives would be a great idea, and if
all income levels participated at the beginning, so that
good spaces could be found and there was enough funding
for the staff, then welfare mothers might find it easier to
go out to work for wages.
I do believe two points that I made in earlier posts are
unanswered by the anti-welfare vigilantes:
what happened to that old mourning for the fate of children
should married women get jobs outside the home?
why is it that you want just those women who have no one
to help them care for the children to go outside the home to
work? Did you know that children in daycare actually
continue to exist when they get out for the day? Did you
know that there is a lot of work to be done to maintain
existence besides getting a paycheck? Truthfully, I
believe a lot of you don't, because you are the ones who
don't do enough work. You don't do any child care.
Gail Thaler
>But it is still your fault if you don't prepare yourself. Given that public
>education is "free," and that you can get loans for college to get a degree in
>a field which will make you some good money, you have no one to blame but
>yourself if you don't prepare.
>
You don't know much about the real world, do you.
80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
When are you going to say something about the fathers,
instead of just punishing the mothers and taking food
out of children's mouths?
Rich Bernstein
sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jun 96 14:32:58 GMT, pnh...@psu.edu (Philippe Hajjar)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>>
>>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>}doing this.
>>
>>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
>>
>
>Yeah, well lets wait and see how long that takes to happen. The first
>step is getting the low lifes to work at all.
Cut their welfare first. They will work in some form, be funded by
charities, or will die. Some will get charities (optional by the
charities), some will work, and the rest will die.
Rich Bernstein (ri...@zipnet.net)
Gail Thaler
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
>: Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
>: most women with children with not many skills. You are going
>: to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>
>
do it full-time. I hope you don't pick a mother for your
children on that basis alone.
>And another 5% helping transport the other welfare moms (who cannot
>take the bus or local mass trans) to/from work)
>
I don't have a problem with that so much. But how did you come
up with the 5% figure?
>And another 10% answering phones and running errands at various state
>and local agencies.
>
Putting others out of work? Where will they get jobs?
>And another 10% picking up litter.
>
And their kids would be where?
>This is where we could initially put 1/3rd to 1/2 of these single moms.
>Eventually, they could be moved into more meaningful positions, once
>they extablish a track record of actually showing up for work everyday
>and sober.
>
What makes you think they are drunks? What about the Dads?
>First step is weeding out the "I want a job" talkers from those who
>say it AND mean it. Attendance records should be able to do that
>in most cases. And menial jobs like litter patrol could be used for
>that process.
>
So what happens if the kids get sick, transportation breaks
down.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you are being honest. I think
you don't want to support the children. I don't see you forcing
fathers to support the children. I see you attacking the mothers
and punishing the kids. In other words, I don't see this as a
serious plan to either reform "welfare" or to force fathers
to help.
Michael Zarlenga
Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
: You don't know much about the real world, do you.
Tell us, Gail, is a 20-year-old a child?
What exactly IS a child, as you've used the term?
Surely you asked that basic question before blindy repeating a
statistic, yes?
Kenneth Hebert
> zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote in article
<4phpuf$r...@paperboy.ids.net>...
> Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
> : You don't know much about the real world, do you.
> : 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
The question we must ask, IF the 80% is true, is WHY? Saying that 80% of
welfare recipients are children has got to make you think of the parents.
America was built on hard work and it cannot survive on the current
welfare system. Why should I work to pay taxes to a bunch of freeloaders!
I'm not saying to cut out welfare completely, some people are very needy
of it, but a non disabled person should be placed on a time limit to
either get a job or have benefits suspended. The bull about if you cut off
the parents the children will suffer is a load of crap. I have children
and when I ran across hard times I still had the obligation of taking care
of and providing for them. I found odd jobs to keep food on the table and
a roof over their heads WITHOUT drawing welfare. Taking the responsibility
for the children one brings into this world is called parenting not
Government Welfare. Federal welfare should be cut by at least 80%!
mor...@d0niu2.fnal.gov
My original post was (despite some sarcasm) an attempt to work out
some problems in a proposal to help women and children on welfare,
Philippe of course decides that rather than add positive input, an
attack (full of errors BTW) is in order.
pnh...@psu.edu (Philippe Hajjar) writes:
>In article <4pa9h0$l...@fnnews.fnal.gov>, mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>
>}Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
>}education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
>}decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
>
>Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it? Maybe
>if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
So we just let the kids starve to motivate the parents... but
Cramer will tell you that they're all druggies anyways and
don't give a shit.
>}And once they take the bus to the burger flipping job are you going
>}to pick up the tab for health care (now that they have a job and are
>}ineligable for benefits)? And you are going to continue to provide
>}food stamps aren't you? Or do you think that the minimum wage is
>}a livable income?
>
>Most states have plans that offer Medicaid benefits to people who work but
>don't make a lot of money. In PA, we just passed a Medicaid overhaul that
>provides benefits to people who work at least 100 hours a month and pay a $150
>yearly premium. For someone working 40 hours a week, making minimum wage,
>that's not *too* much to ask,
No, it is perfectly reasonable.
I assume that it pays for asthma medication, birth control and other minor
details? There is the problem that fewer and fewer doctors and
hospitals accept medicaid, but as long as a fair number do it'll have to
do.
>especially when some families (like mine) pay up
>to $150 *A day* for health care
$54,750/year?
$150/week I could believe
How many people in your family? With what medical conditions?
The typical total cost to employers and employees is around $5000/year,
I heard a farmer state their typical cost is $10000/year.
>on top of 50% of our income in taxes to pay for welfare bums
Oh! I didn't know you never rode on state or federal highways,
what in the world do you do with all that shit you produce? You don't
use the city sewers I hope? And do you have a citizenship with every
country in the world? (only way I could figure that you wouldn't
benefit from national defense. You DO have a 40 foot brick wall
around your house so that when it catches fire the fire department can
safely stay at the stationhouse...
Robert
Einstein
but 100% of the money goes to adults!!!!
Gail Thaler wrote:
>
> >But it is still your fault if you don't prepare yourself. Given that public
> >education is "free," and that you can get loans for college to get a degree in
> >a field which will make you some good money, you have no one to blame but
> >yourself if you don't prepare.
> >
> You don't know much about the real world, do you.
> 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
>
> When are you going to say something about the fathers,
> instead of just punishing the mothers and taking food
> out of children's mouths?
>
> --What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and
> the value of nothing.
> Oscar Wilde
--
"I want to know God's thoughts,..... the rest are details.."
-- Albert Einstein
mailto:eins...@mars.superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein
Einstein
OK the fathers and mothers need to provide the state with community
service in return for their welfare check! You will see how fast they
go out and get real jobs!
Einstein
> >} Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
> >} most women with children with not many skills. You are going
> >} to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
> >acceptable.
> >
> Fine. You don't want $150 a year to go to minimally maintaining
> children.
>
> >A few suggestions:
> > Training -- The've already gone through public education and are probably
> > sending their kids there as well. If they have few skills, the problem is
> > the type of education, not the lack of it.
>
> I've already published the true statistics and the web address
> where you can find them. They, in fact, will need training.
>
> > Day-care -- Maybe their job can be opening up a day-care for themselves and
> > others who need it.
> >
> Being a parent does not necessarily mean that you are trained
> to take care of either your own or other children. But if you
> want to spend $150 a year to have welfare mothers exchange
> their children with other welfare mothers, so be it.
>
> > Transportation -- If they can't drive, let them walk, ride a bike, or take
> > a bus.
> >
> How are they supposed to afford to be able to do this? Ride a
> bike with babies on their handlebars.
>
> >Just like the rest of us had to do.
> >
> What about the fathers? Why aren't they supporting the children?
> Why are people always attacking the MOTHERS?
Well if they knew who the father were we would attack them too. Sorry
to rain on your cry of sexism ..... but unfortunately for you it is much
easier to prove who is the mother of the baby then to prove who is the
father. But if we know who he is then he should be also made to do 40
hours of community service .... 40 for the mom 40 for the dad!
Einstein
You are absolutely right .... as I have said many times .... The deal is
this .... for a person on welfare to work they would need to get roughly
minimum wage plus what they get with welfare including all of their
benifits .....
Think about it if you were getting money from the state would you work
forty hours a week for $25 extra dollars? of course not ...
So what do we do? Well there needs to be some form of workfare! Both
mothers and fathers of a child should be made to do 40 hours community
service per week!
It is the least that they could do for the state to be raising their
kids!!!
spa...@vixa.voyager.net wrote:
>
> > <Pine.SUN.3.93.96060...@eskimo.com>
> <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com> <4p7oes$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net> <4pehps$b...@paperboy.ids.net>:
>
> Distribution:
>
> Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
>
> : And another 10% picking up litter.
>
> : This is where we could initially put 1/3rd to 1/2 of these single moms.
> : Eventually, they could be moved into more meaningful positions, once
> : they extablish a track record of actually showing up for work everyday
> : and sober.
>
> : First step is weeding out the "I want a job" talkers from those who
> : say it AND mean it. Attendance records should be able to do that
> : in most cases. And menial jobs like litter patrol could be used for
> : that process.
>
> The dirty little secret (for conservatives): most - perhaps the vast
> majority - DO want jobs.
>
> The dirty little secret (for liberals): they want good jobs, i.e.
> jobs which are non-menial and which can they can adequately live on (i.e.
> min wage jobs just don't cut it). That's probably why - along with
> health care - so many return to welfare after getting off it: the ones
> who return several times to welfare are probably those who get jobs but
> don't advance, and are unwilling to do menial work indefinitely.
--
Einstein
children ..... It is the responsibility of the parents ( dfather and
mother I know you will rag on me if I dont mention the father ..... oops
I hope the word rag isn't too sexist .... Oh well) anyway it is the
responsibility of the parents to support their children ... For the
ammount of time that many watch TV they could be working ..... They can
even work at home stuffing envelopes or something .....
No more free luch for people who are too lazy to work or to go to school
... too proud to learn because others might think you are trying to
blend in with society or whatever .....
Also $0 welfare for anyone caught with drugs ....
See the national party's stance on welfare
http://einstein.superlink.net/~tom/national
Gail Thaler wrote:
>
> "Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@zippy.sonoma.edu> wrote:
> >Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
> >>most women with children with not many skills. You are going
> >>to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
> >>
> --What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and
> the value of nothing.
> Oscar Wilde
--
Einstein
section on welfare reform!
for those of you who dont use netscape news the address is
http://einstein.superlink.net/~tom/national.html
Kenneth Hebert wrote:
>
> > zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote in article
> <4phpuf$r...@paperboy.ids.net>...
> > Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
> > : You don't know much about the real world, do you.
> > : 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
>
> The question we must ask, IF the 80% is true, is WHY? Saying that 80% of
> welfare recipients are children has got to make you think of the parents.
> America was built on hard work and it cannot survive on the current
> welfare system. Why should I work to pay taxes to a bunch of freeloaders!
> I'm not saying to cut out welfare completely, some people are very needy
> of it, but a non disabled person should be placed on a time limit to
> either get a job or have benefits suspended. The bull about if you cut off
> the parents the children will suffer is a load of crap. I have children
> and when I ran across hard times I still had the obligation of taking care
> of and providing for them. I found odd jobs to keep food on the table and
> a roof over their heads WITHOUT drawing welfare. Taking the responsibility
> for the children one brings into this world is called parenting not
> Government Welfare. Federal welfare should be cut by at least 80%!
--
Clayton E. Cramer
> >Average? I don't know. But he lived in a subculture
> >full of families like his own.
> >
> Any system is going to have some fraud. But talk about
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater!! Payments are
> minimal to mothers.
The money isn't the primary issue with AFDC. It's the destruction
of family structure and the resulting social chaos (crime, child
abuse by the boyfriend of the week, graffiti). But even several
hundred dollars a month adds up when you multiply by millions.
> >In any case, there are two things that the folks in
> >question know how to do without training. The fathers
> >who either can't or won't find a job can be given
> >plastic bags to fill with trash. We've already paid
> >for their labor by feeding their wives and kids; it's
> >now time for men that won't support their own families
> >to do a bit of work for it. If they don't like it,
> >we can bring back chain gangs until their attitude
> >improves.
> >
> Well, at least one person is talking about the men who
> abandon the children. Thanks.
That has ALWAYS been the problem. There's just some reluctance by
liberals to suggest that irresponsible fathers who seem to know how
to make babies but aren't willing to care for them are the big problem.
> >The mothers know how to watch children. One AFDC mother
> >can watch kids for the other five while they go off to
> >work. I would prefer mothers to raise their own kids,
> >but if middle class families have to put their kids in
> >daycare, why should AFDC recipients be exempt?
> >
> Please. Raising children is a serious business that
> requires training. Wouldn't you insist that your day-
> care provider no something more about parenting than
> just being one?
Are you suggesting that AFDC recipients aren't fit to watch
each others children? Then why are they fit to walk their
own children?
I'm sure that there are some wonderful daycare providers out there.
But there are plenty that are not so wonderful. I hear in your plaint
a request that the government provide better daycare for AFDC
mothers than a lot of working, non-dependent mothers currently
have. Wait! It's coming to me now! A giant bureaucracy of
government daycare centers with $60,000/year administrators
(with a BA in Psychology from institutions like Stanford), lots of
AFDC recipients to watch the children (who dropped out of high school
and therefore deserve $30,000/year to do what they do right now)!
Why didn't I think of it before? :-)
For all that liberalism talks about caring for children, I smell
a makework project for people with useless degrees.
Clayton E. Cramer
spa...@vixa.voyager.net wrote:
>
> Mr Smith (sh...@crl.com) wrote:
> : > How do you handle the problem of Allan Greenspan
> : > wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
> : > so to keep "inflation" low.
> : >
>
> : What on earth does supporting freeloaders have to do with that?
>
> You've got it backwards. Let me put the question this way:
>
> If monetary policy is intended to render some job seekers
> unemployed, for the sake of the larger economy, how do we deal with the
> issue of people who are willing to work yet cannot find jobs as a result
> of such monetary policy which has effectively determined that some must
> be unemployed so that the rest of us can live free from high inflation?
You don't seem to understand the issue of unemployment. The goal of
keeping inflation down means accepting a certain level of unemploy-
ment. This is frictional unemployment -- that fraction of the work-
force that is temporarily out of work between jobs. The long-term
unemployment, or structural unemployment, provides no advantage to
keeping inflation down. (It does help the labor unions, however,
to keep low-skilled workers unemployed, which is why the Democrats
are continually jumping through the "raise minimum wage" hoop that the
unions insist on.)
> If monetary policy creates a small group of losers (unemployed) and
> a large group of winners (employed while protected from high inflation),
> do the winners have any responsibility to prevent the losers from
> starving? Would you prefer full employment with its attendant
> inflationary risks?
Sure. But this is a strawman argument. Frictional unemployment is a
consequence of normal job losses. The number used to be assumed to
4%. There is considerable evidence that as high as 6% may constitute
reasonable frictional unemployment. Permanent, structural unemploy-
ment, is no win for controlling inflation, and it is bad for keeping
deficits under control.
Jim Zoes
In Article<4pdbqg$5...@peru.it.earthlink.net>, <marc...@earthlink.net>
writes:
Dear, Mr. Regent,
What you propose is the "Dangeld" option. Or, if you didn't understand the
allusion, it is also known as "extortion." Perhaps you have heard about it.
"Pay us or we'll burn down the city." What a rallying cry for defending the
status quo. Yep. It works for me.
As for your short recitation of US history, all one can say is that was then,
this is now. The crisis of welfare expenditures, and the damage it does to
society *and* the recipients, is real and proximate. It's too bad your only
contribution to this discourse, apparently, is to call those who oppose you
"fascists" and insult them.
I suspect it was different for you, but I got my education before the left
got its hands on the educational establishment, before the days of outcome
based education.
Jim Zoes
Gail Thaler
spa...@vixa.voyager.net () wrote:
>> <Pine.SUN.3.93.96060...@eskimo.com>
><31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com> <4p7oes$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net> <4pehps$b...@paperboy.ids.net>:
>
>
>Distribution:
>
>Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
>
>: And another 10% picking up litter.
>
>: This is where we could initially put 1/3rd to 1/2 of these single moms.
>: Eventually, they could be moved into more meaningful positions, once
>: they extablish a track record of actually showing up for work everyday
>: and sober.
>
>: First step is weeding out the "I want a job" talkers from those who
>: say it AND mean it. Attendance records should be able to do that
>: in most cases. And menial jobs like litter patrol could be used for
>: that process.
>
> The dirty little secret (for conservatives): most - perhaps the vast
>majority - DO want jobs.
>
> The dirty little secret (for liberals): they want good jobs, i.e.
>jobs which are non-menial and which can they can adequately live on (i.e.
>min wage jobs just don't cut it). That's probably why - along with
>health care - so many return to welfare after getting off it: the ones
>who return several times to welfare are probably those who get jobs but
>don't advance, and are unwilling to do menial work indefinitely.
I kind of agree with you about the dirty secrets on both sides.
But I think you are too easily reducing welfare recipients as
"they" instead of saying who they really are. That is abandoned
mothers with children. I don't think, personally, they have a
problem with menial work that would give them a living wage that
would feed their children and provide health insurance. I think
many women ARE on welfare to do just that. This, combined with
the fact that the children don't have fathers in the home (bad
policy to force fathers out, by the way) makes these women more
inclined to want to stay home to provide some parent for the child.
Then conservatives seem to think that middle-class women SHOULD
stay home (we worship motherhood, don't we) but not poor mothers?
Shouldn't conservatives truly want to preserve that bond?
I think conservatives are controlling the debate here and
should, at the very least, be honest about what we're talking
about.
Alan Bomberger
In article <4phpuf$r...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
Zarlenga) wrote:
> Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
> : You don't know much about the real world, do you.
> : 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
>
> Tell us, Gail, is a 20-year-old a child?
>
> What exactly IS a child, as you've used the term?
>
> Surely you asked that basic question before blindy repeating a
> statistic, yes?
>
The statement is false on its face. The government does not
mail out welfare checks to children. 100% of the welfare
recipients are "adults" who may have children.
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
Einstein <eins...@mars.superlink.net> writes:
>OK Gail if they got paid 20k per year would you agree???? The point is
>either get them doing some work
>or cut welfare all together .... Why
>should I pay for someone elses kids.... especially those with more then
>1! I can see one as being an accident I can see those people that need
>a few years because of a mistake that they made in their life but not
>when they continue to have children while on welfare!!!!! Forget that
"How do you REALLY not get pregnent?" quoth a young mom to the Nurse
Yes that is a real quote, ignorance is not bliss. Some know and
get pregnant anyways, but a lot simply don't know.
Reality check: A typical Homo Sapiens Sapiens is NOT going to abstain
from sex for years at a time.
Yes, I do have sympathy for your gut reaction
>.... It is funny also that when these people want to go out and party or
>go somewhere they seem to find babysitters easily but when it comes to
>work there seems never to be any alternatives
let see, I want to go out for a party, so I need to find somebody
for 4 hours on a Saturday night when 90% of the population does not
have anything that they MUST do.
I need to go to work, so I need to find somebody for 9-10 hours
a day 5 days a week 50 weeks a year during a time when most people
under 18 are suppposed to be at school and those over 18 at work.
BTW. it is NOT necessarily EASY to find a babysitter.
and you call yourself "Einstein"?
>.... We must have
>workfare for these individuals .... Or else they have economic
>incentives to stay on welfare!!!
Why not provide some economic incentives for them to get OFF welfare!
provide decent health benefits,
provide vouchers for babysitting worth $1/hr of work/kid,
by all means open a few babysitting centers, train women to be
child care professionals, encourage others to open quality private
centers
push mothers under the age of 18 to stay in school.
encourage everybody to go to school beyond H.S. (make damn sure
they don't get sucked into scam schools)
pursue fathers and make sure they are involved in their child's life,
finishing school and paying what support they can.
provide child rearing education (do you know what age a child should
be potty trained at? should start solid foods? ...)
encourage breastfeeding (reduces fertility, improves child's health...)
including at school and work, via pumping if necessary
provide sexuality and birth control education
provide decent schools (ok this comes under opportunity rather than
incentive)
>Gail Thaler wrote:
>>
>> zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>> >Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
>> >: Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
>> >: most women with children with not many skills. You are going
>> >: to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
>> >
>> >We can employ 20% staffing daycare for the other welfare moms' kids.
>> >
>> You have a poor view of child care if you think anyone can
>> do it full-time. I hope you don't pick a mother for your
>> children on that basis alone.
be generous Gail, assume they get some training first.
>> >First step is weeding out the "I want a job" talkers from those who
>> >say it AND mean it.
Too bad I can't upload that picture of the line outside the Hotel
in Chicago a couple of years back, 20 degrees F, wind blowing,
snowing, something like two thousand applicants for 100 jobs
that paid decent but hardly monumental wages.
There are plenty of examples of this.
People WANT jobs.
For a mother with one or more children to go out and find a job is
not a trivial task. You have to find somebody who is hiring (and who
is within reasonable travel distance) fill out the form, either wait
around for an interview or come back another time. This is generally
done during the day so getting baby-sitting is not trivial, 'course
you could bring your kids along, antsy kids make such a good impression
and certainly help your concentration while filling out forms...
It can be done, but encouragement and incentives would help enormously.
Get the neighborhood churches and Operation PUSH and whoever involved.
Morse
Einstein (eins...@mars.superlink.net) wrote:
: Problem solved!!!! Give welfare mothers work that they can do at home
: like stuffing envelopes!!!!
Why, Einstein, get to "giving." How many envelopes shall each mom
stuff a day? And what sort of money will that bring in? Where are these
unstuffed envelopes sitting around needing to be stuffed?
Let's see a post from somebody who stayed at home watching even one
kid and stuffed envelopes and made enough money to survive. After I
was widowed, and when my son was still young, I worked at home
as a technical translator. And that barely supported us. And
I found it very difficult to do two things at once--translate and
watch my son. If he vegged out on tv, I could work. But I
certainly didn't want him doing that 8 hours a day. And if there
were a quiet period during which I became absorbed in my translating,
there was always a possibility that my son had gotten into danger. For
him to have any opportunity to play outside, we had to take monetary
losses. His friends' mothers watched the kids when they played together,
but I had to reciprocate, and this again took time away from wage-earning
activiy.
Taking care of a young child alone is not an easy task. It takes
dedication and selflessness, and Mother Nature very often provides
that to the youngest of mothers. Unfortunately, Mother Nature also
seems to provide other people with a desire to attack the weakest
and most vulnerable, and to lie about them to excuse the attack.
j. tayloe emery-editor...http://jitter.com
The carriage house where Seattle
alterna-icon Kurt Cobain
committed suicide is set to be
torn down, despite the protests
of many Seattle kids. Cobain's
widow Courtney Love, lead
singer of the band Hole, has
said that she will have the
carriage house torn down to
restore her privacy.....more here http://jitter.com/cobain
Terry Shannon
In article <4pktrp$1d...@news3.realtime.net>,
morse@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Morse) wrote:
>
> Taking care of a young child alone is not an easy task. It takes
> dedication and selflessness, and Mother Nature very often provides
> that to the youngest of mothers. Unfortunately, Mother Nature also
> seems to provide other people with a desire to attack the weakest
> and most vulnerable, and to lie about them to excuse the attack.
Yep. I know 'bout that. Had two kids whilst wifey and I were relatively
"young and vulnerable." And guess what??? I PAID FOR BOTH OF 'EM! The
taxpayers did not.
For God's sake, instead of buying into the Daschle/Gephardt "weakest and
most vulnerable" mantra, why don't you look at economics and pragmatics:
If you can't afford to reproduce, use contraception. Remember, Mother
Nature did not create the offspring that must be supported at the
taxpayers' expense.
We taxpayers have no choice in the matter. But the "two who tangoed"
certainly had some degree of choice. Now might be a good time to consider
going after the **fathers** of these welfare children rather than the
taxpayers.
--
Terry C. Shannon, Editor & Publisher, Shannon Knows DEC
Shannon Knows DEC is a twice-monthly subscription-based
newsletter on all things Digital. For more details and
subscription info, send email to sha...@world.std.com.
Mike Wooding
Kenneth Hebert wrote:
> > zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote in article
> <4phpuf$r...@paperboy.ids.net>...
> > Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
> > : You don't know much about the real world, do you.
> > : 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
>
> welfare recipients are children has got to make you think of the parents.
Skeptic that I am, I doubt the above statistic. 80% ? Then of every
5 persons on welfare, 4 are children. That's an average of 4 children
per welfare mom. Isn't the average 2.1 kids per FAMILY. I.e. 1 adult
per child, almost! Would clearly dispells the notion that welfare moms
do nothing. If the above statistic is indeed true, then it would
suggest an added benefit of putting welfare moms to work ... it might
lower their fecundity by increasing their pre-occupation with their
occupation?
Einstein
Problem solved!!!! Give welfare mothers work that they can do at home
like stuffing envelopes!!!!
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned
my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him
the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization
should
be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality,
deplorable loce-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how
despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be
a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the
cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
Einstein
OK Gail if they got paid 20k per year would you agree???? The point is
either get them doing some work or cut welfare all together .... Why
should I pay for someone elses kids.... especially those with more then
1! I can see one as being an accident I can see those people that need
a few years because of a mistake that they made in their life but not
when they continue to have children while on welfare!!!!! Forget that
go somewhere they seem to find babysitters easily but when it comes to
workfare for these individuals .... Or else they have economic
incentives to stay on welfare!!!
Gail Thaler wrote:
>
> zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> >Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
> >: Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
> >: most women with children with not many skills. You are going
> >: to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
> >
> >We can employ 20% staffing daycare for the other welfare moms' kids.
> >
> You have a poor view of child care if you think anyone can
> do it full-time. I hope you don't pick a mother for your
> children on that basis alone.
>
> >And another 5% helping transport the other welfare moms (who cannot
> >take the bus or local mass trans) to/from work)
> >
> I don't have a problem with that so much. But how did you come
> up with the 5% figure?
>
> >And another 10% answering phones and running errands at various state
> >and local agencies.
> >
> Putting others out of work? Where will they get jobs?
>
> >And another 10% picking up litter.
> >
> And their kids would be where?
>
> >This is where we could initially put 1/3rd to 1/2 of these single moms.
> >Eventually, they could be moved into more meaningful positions, once
> >they extablish a track record of actually showing up for work everyday
> >and sober.
> >
> What makes you think they are drunks? What about the Dads?
>
> >First step is weeding out the "I want a job" talkers from those who
> >say it AND mean it. Attendance records should be able to do that
> >in most cases. And menial jobs like litter patrol could be used for
> >that process.
> >
> So what happens if the kids get sick, transportation breaks
> down.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you are being honest. I think
> you don't want to support the children. I don't see you forcing
> fathers to support the children. I see you attacking the mothers
> and punishing the kids. In other words, I don't see this as a
> serious plan to either reform "welfare" or to force fathers
> to help.
> --What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and
> the value of nothing.
> Oscar Wilde
--
Mr. Sam
Actually, making them work as a condition of a welfare can work equally well.
In New York City, Mayor Rudolph "Rudy" Giuliani successfully pushed through a
requirement that all able-bodied welfare recipients be given a broom and told
to go sweep up the streets, in neighborhoods arbitrarily assigned to them.
Well, a distant relative of mine's neighbor did nothing all day but jack off,
on welfare. After one day of being sent up to Harlem to sweep the streets, he
got off welfare and went to work at a gas station. Wonders never cease. You
never know how resourcefull you can be, until someone proverbially kicks you
in the ass.
--
Mr. Sam: member, talk.politics.misc troll patrol
channel operator, #Sci-Fi - Undernet IRC sci-fi/fantasy channel
http://www.cyberstorm.com/~rockd/sci-fi.html
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Government is not a solution to our | "First of all, keep in mind that most
problem, government IS the problem." | of our problem is with working
-- R. Reagan. | Americans." -- B. Clinton.
_____________________________________|_______________________________________
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
"Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@zippy.sonoma.edu> wrote:
>spa...@vixa.voyager.net wrote:
>>
>> Mr Smith (sh...@crl.com) wrote:
>> : > How do you handle the problem of Allan Greenspan
>> : > wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
>> : > so to keep "inflation" low.
>> : >
>>
>> : What on earth does supporting freeloaders have to do with that?
>>
>> You've got it backwards. Let me put the question this way:
>>
>> If monetary policy is intended to render some job seekers
>> unemployed, for the sake of the larger economy, how do we deal with the
>> issue of people who are willing to work yet cannot find jobs as a result
>> of such monetary policy which has effectively determined that some must
>> be unemployed so that the rest of us can live free from high inflation?
>You don't seem to understand the issue of unemployment. The goal of
>keeping inflation down means accepting a certain level of unemploy-
>ment.
REALITY means accepting a certain level of unemployment.
However, it is entirely irrelevant to inflation.
>> If monetary policy creates a small group of losers (unemployed) and
>> a large group of winners (employed while protected from high inflation),
>> do the winners have any responsibility to prevent the losers from
>> starving?
The winners, no. The policy-makers, yes.
However, the question is irrelevant, because monetary policy cannot
create a large group of winners -- and because creating unemployment
does absolutely nothing about inflation.
So, put the question in different terms.
If the government -- entirely on its own initiative -- poisoned your
neighbor and offered to permit you to move into your home, should you
be held accountable for the murders?
I think it's clear that the answer is no.
>> Would you prefer full employment with its attendant
>> inflationary risks?
Yes. Since "full employment" in practical terms means "frictional
unemployment only", and that poses NO risk of inflation...
(It doesn't destroy any other risk that may exist though. I observe
that the government still has a legal monopoly on the issue of
currency and control of the money supply, so I think we are at very
high risk of inflation.)
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
"Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@zippy.sonoma.edu> wrote:
>Gail Thaler wrote:
>>
>> "Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@zippy.sonoma.edu> wrote:
>> >Average? I don't know. But he lived in a subculture
>> >full of families like his own.
>> >
>> Any system is going to have some fraud. But talk about
>> throwing the baby out with the bathwater!! Payments are
>> minimal to mothers.
>The money isn't the primary issue with AFDC. It's the destruction
>of family structure and the resulting social chaos (crime, child
>abuse by the boyfriend of the week, graffiti). But even several
>hundred dollars a month adds up when you multiply by millions.
>
>> >In any case, there are two things that the folks in
>> >question know how to do without training. The fathers
>> >who either can't or won't find a job can be given
>> >plastic bags to fill with trash. We've already paid
>> >for their labor by feeding their wives and kids; it's
>> >now time for men that won't support their own families
>> >to do a bit of work for it. If they don't like it,
>> >we can bring back chain gangs until their attitude
>> >improves.
>> >
>> Well, at least one person is talking about the men who
>> abandon the children. Thanks.
>That has ALWAYS been the problem. There's just some reluctance by
>liberals to suggest that irresponsible fathers who seem to know how
>to make babies but aren't willing to care for them are the big problem.
Them, plus *responsible* fathers who, unable to find a job that
provides better for his family with him there than welfare would
provide with him absent, choose to place food above principle...
>
>> >The mothers know how to watch children. One AFDC mother
>> >can watch kids for the other five while they go off to
>> >work. I would prefer mothers to raise their own kids,
>> >but if middle class families have to put their kids in
>> >daycare, why should AFDC recipients be exempt?
>> >
>> Please. Raising children is a serious business that
>> requires training. Wouldn't you insist that your day-
>> care provider no something more about parenting than
>> just being one?
>Are you suggesting that AFDC recipients aren't fit to watch
>each others children? Then why are they fit to walk their
>own children?
Part of *my* plan for reducing, and possibly phasing out, the welfare
system, is deregulating day-care, changing the current don't-work
requirement into a work requirement (with a time limit on welfare to
the non-working), and declaring that providing day-care for other
current and recent welfare families (so that they can get jobs and/or
training) *is* work that meets the requirements -- even if it's free
to the parents served.
I've seen estimates that as many as 70% of children in day-care are in
*unlicensed* day-care. I don't see the lack of government regulation
as a problem per se... what I see as a problem is that these day-care
providers are, for the most part, criminals (guilty of providing
unlicensed day-care and operating unlicensed businesses) -- therefore,
out of necessity, they hide their operation, which reduces apparent
availability and provides protection to those few who deserve to be
considered criminals.
There is no better way to improve the quality of daycare available to
current and recent welfare recipients than to make it so common that
the average mother on welfare knows at least three or four legitimate,
legal providers PERSONALLY. When she has a choice of a dozen
providers by walking no further than the far side of the apartment
complex's parking lot, she isn't likely to leave her children in an
abusive or unhealthy day-care. But to achieve that, we have to stop
creating obstacles to day-care, and take down the ones already
created.
Gail Thaler
>: 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
>
>
>What exactly IS a child, as you've used the term?
>
>Surely you asked that basic question before blindy repeating a
>statistic, yes?
>
times and given the address where to find them six or seven.
But here we go again--and I'm e-mailing them to you as well.
In my business I see many statistics. Most are ambiguous, misleading or
just plain stupid. Then, in
the New York Times on Thursday 23 March 1995, I stumbled across the
chart below. To me it
represents a rare attempt to merely inform the reader, hence, I
reproduce it here.
WELFARE, WHO GETS IT? How Much it Cost?
Unless otherwise specified, the statsitics are for 1993, and the source
is the 1994 Green Book, a
compliation of data by the House Ways and Means Committee mostly from
Government reports
but occasionally from private academic surveys.
Who receives Welfare
Number of families on A.F.D.C.
................................................................. 5
million
% of recipients who are children
.......................................................................
..
67
% who are white
.......................................................................
..................
38.9
% who are black
.......................................................................
..................
37.2
% who are Hispanic
.......................................................................
..............
17.8
Average family size
.......................................................................
........ 2.9
people
Average monthly benefit
.......................................................................
........
$373
Average monthly benefit in 1970 in 1970 (1993 dollars)
...........................................
$676
Highest maximum benefit in the 48 contiguous states
...............................................
$703
Lowest maximum benefit*
.......................................................................
......
$120
Total Federal spending (billions)
......................................................................
$13.8
Total Federal/State spending (billions)
...............................................................
$25.2
Average cost for each American taxpayer**
..........................................................
$156
% of AFDC mothers under 18***
.......................................................................
1.2
% who are younger that 20
.......................................................................
.......
7.6
% who are older than 40
.......................................................................
.........
11.8
% who first became mothers at age 19 or younger****
.............................................
51.4
% of AFDC mothers with part-time job
.................................................................
4.2
% with full-time job
.......................................................................
................
2.2
% of school training
.......................................................................
..............
16.7
WHO STAYS ON WELFARE
Typical time on AFDC after first enrolling:*****
Less than 3 years
.......................................................................
.................
30%
3 to 4
.......................................................................
...............................
20%
5 to 7
.......................................................................
...............................
19%
8 years
.......................................................................
.............................
30%
At a particular point in time how long people have been on AFDC:*****
Less than 3 years
.......................................................................
.................. 7%
3 to 4
.......................................................................
...............................
11%
5 to 7
.......................................................................
...............................
17%
8 years or more
.......................................................................
...................
65%
Odds that an adult going on AFDC:
will be there 10 years later.
White
.......................................................................
............................. 1 in 5
Black
.......................................................................
............................. 1 in 3
Main reasons families go on welfare :
Divorce or separation
.......................................................................
............ 45%
Unmarried woman has child
.......................................................................
....
30%
Earnings of a single mother fall
.......................................................................
12%
Main reasons families leave welfare rolls:
Marriage
.......................................................................
...........................
35%
Earnings of single mohter increase
.....................................................................
21%
Rise in other benefits
.......................................................................
.............
14%
Children leave home
.......................................................................
..............
11%
% of children on AFDC by skin color
White 1973
.......................................................................
......................... 6.5
White 1993
.......................................................................
......................... 6.2
Black 1973
.......................................................................
........................
42.7
Black 1992
.......................................................................
........................
35.1
OTHER BENEFITS
% of AFDC families in public housing
................................................................. 9.2
% of who get Federal rent subsidies
...................................................................
12.1
Unmarried mothers about poverty
level who get child support from father.
.............................................................. 25%
Amount in child support
for each enforcement dollar spent
....................................................................
$3.98
Maximum monthly food stamp allotment family of 3
.............................................. $295
Average monthly food stamp allotment family of 3
.................................................. $68
% of families receiveing food stamps
1975
.......................................................................
................................ 7.6
1993
.......................................................................
...............................10.4
FOOTNOTES
* Excludes Alaska and Hawaii beacuse of the high cost of living in those
states.
** Based on an estimatedd 162 million payers of Federal income tax.
*** Source: Department of Health and Human Services 1992 data.
**** Tabulation by Kristin A, Moore of Child Trends Inc., based in 1990
data.
***** Based on 1983 study by Mary Jo Bane and David T. Elwood under
contract with the
Department of Health and Human Services.
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
Warrl writes:
>and because creating unemployment does absolutely nothing about inflation.
I am not going to argue that point BUT clearly the policy makers
believe that it does... or rather that full employment is a significant
warning sign for inflation and that measures should be taken to slow
down the economy (and cause unemployment)
I found myself either needing to leave the entire post in or chop it
to near nothing... I voted to save bandwidth, go back and read the previous
article if you are interested
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
sha...@world.std.com (Terry Shannon) writes:
>In article <4pktrp$1d...@news3.realtime.net>,
>If you can't afford to reproduce, use contraception.
see Gail's post, 45% of families that go on welfare do so
because of a divorce or separation
> Now might be a good time to consider
>going after the **fathers** of these welfare children rather than the
>taxpayers.
Many State and Federal programs do just that. Wisconsin has a very
interesting one that shepards those fathers into jobs (with the
threat of jail time otherwise)
Robert
Gail Thaler
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
>: You don't know much about the real world, do you.
>: 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
>
>Tell us, Gail, is a 20-year-old a child?
The child has to be under 18, usually (states can
waive if the teenager is still in school, for instance)
>What exactly IS a child, as you've used the term?
>
>Surely you asked that basic question before blindy repeating a
>statistic, yes?
>
For a breakdown of the states by age of child:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/afdc/reports/1994/overview/ovrvw28.htm
RHA
In article <4pd896$u...@guysmiley.blarg.net>,
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p6q77$d...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
>>Philippe Hajjar <pnh...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
>>>
>>>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
>>>}doing this.
>>>
>>>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
>>>
>> wanting to leave 6-7% of the population unemployed
>> so to keep "inflation" low.
>
>inflation. Inflation can -- temporarily, before people catch on to
>why they are getting more money for the same goods -- cause
>employment, as companies increase production to match mythical demand.
>Of course, this pushes their inventory up, so equally temporary
>unemployment follows. The only possible cause of unemployment is
>money becoming more abundant relative to other goods. This means that
>the people who produce money -- the government, and agencies
>authorized by the government, in a society with "legal tender" laws --
>are producing money too rapidly.
>
>Second, teach you some basics of work-force dynamics. Between people
>entering the workforce, people changing jobs, companies failing, and
>other clear and ongoing events, we should expect to see unemployment,
>perhaps as high as 4%, quite normally. This does not mean that anyone
>is unemployed for any significant period of time.
>
>
Good points; however, there is something else here and perhaps
I should have responded directly to Mr. Hajjar's query of
why is unemployment currently below 6%. My retort is that I
don't believe it is *really* below 6%. That, in my opinion, is
only the defined value. Over the last twenty years unemployment
has been defined downward. BusinessWeek recently suggested the
real rate is much closer to the current European average. Our
definition conveniently drops the oldest contingent, calling
them discouraged unemployed and by having been out of work
for so long they are no longer actively seeking work. I believe
the rule of thumb is that only people collecting unemployment
compensation are counted.
I think Mr. Greenspan understands this and that is why he isn't
responding to employment figures.
The reason business doesn't complain about current levels of
unemployment is that having a ready pool of unemployed and
underemployed discourages employees from demanding annoying
salary increases. Of course this shortsightedness leads to
lost sales...but hypothetical lost sales aren't as concrete
as a definite increase in a salary.
One issue a person like Mr. Hajjar doesn't grasp is that there
are new downward pressures on inflation. First is foreign
production, second is automation. That second pressure is
why I don't believe we'll see a classic wage-price spiral
again.
--
rha
ma...@engdns.bandley1.netmanage.com
Morse wrote:
[snip]
> why is it that you want just those women who have no one
> to help them care for the children to go outside the home to
> work? Did you know that children in daycare actually
> continue to exist when they get out for the day? Did you
> know that there is a lot of work to be done to maintain
> existence besides getting a paycheck? Truthfully, I
> believe a lot of you don't, because you are the ones who
> don't do enough work. You don't do any child care.
Hurm. Both my parents worked full time. In our neigborhood
the families got together and formed a babysitting co-op.
This involved no money, no fancy daycare centers, and only
a promise to either take a turn caring for us children or
performing some other work that needed to be done (for those
parents who had to work during the weekday "peak babysitting"
hours). This system was used by almost 100 families (the
"Montevedeo Improvement Association"), and worked like a charm.
It is not impossible to have both working parents and kids,
and it can be done without excessive daycare costs. All it takes
is some motivation, organization, and a committment among the
local families to help each other - in other words, a classic
community.
However, don't expect the 'urban blight' dweller to ever get to
this point. The problems among welfare recipiants and others living
in these areas of social cancer have nothing to do how much money they
have, or what work they can or can't find. Their problems lie in
their attitudes and perceptions of the world around them. Children are
raised to believe that the have no chance at becoming a true American
('as seen on TV'), so they don't even try. They join gangs and sell
drugs because they honestly believe that is the most viable option
available to them. It is this whole belief structure that must be
destroyed before any real improvement can be sought.
-Matt
Einstein
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>
> Einstein <eins...@mars.superlink.net> writes:
> >OK Gail if they got paid 20k per year would you agree???? The point is
> >either get them doing some work
> >or cut welfare all together .... Why
> >should I pay for someone elses kids.... especially those with more then
> >1! I can see one as being an accident I can see those people that need
> >a few years because of a mistake that they made in their life but not
> >when they continue to have children while on welfare!!!!! Forget that
>
> "How do you REALLY not get pregnent?" quoth a young mom to the Nurse
>
> Yes that is a real quote, ignorance is not bliss. Some know and
> get pregnant anyways, but a lot simply don't know.
>
> Reality check: A typical Homo Sapiens Sapiens is NOT going to abstain
> from sex for years at a time.
>
> Yes, I do have sympathy for your gut reaction
Sorry but after a woman gets pregnant se will know what causes it
right??? Don't people in the hospital explain that?? I find it hard to
believe that a woman wih 3 kids doesn't know what makes her pregnant!
>
> >.... It is funny also that when these people want to go out and party or
> >go somewhere they seem to find babysitters easily but when it comes to
> >work there seems never to be any alternatives
>
> let see, I want to go out for a party, so I need to find somebody
> for 4 hours on a Saturday night when 90% of the population does not
> have anything that they MUST do.
>
> I need to go to work, so I need to find somebody for 9-10 hours
> a day 5 days a week 50 weeks a year during a time when most people
> under 18 are suppposed to be at school and those over 18 at work.
>
> BTW. it is NOT necessarily EASY to find a babysitter.
>
> and you call yourself "Einstein"?
Well then it will be easy to get a night job right????
--
"The highest principles for our aspirations and judgements are given to
us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal
which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but
which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one
were to take that goal out of out of its
religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state
it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so
that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all
mankind. ... it is only to the individual
that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve
rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any otherway."
Einstein
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>
> >.... We must have
> >workfare for these individuals .... Or else they have economic
> >incentives to stay on welfare!!!
>
> Why not provide some economic incentives for them to get OFF welfare!
>
> provide decent health benefits,
> provide vouchers for babysitting worth $1/hr of work/kid,
> by all means open a few babysitting centers, train women to be
> child care professionals, encourage others to open quality private
> centers
> push mothers under the age of 18 to stay in school.
In return for what???? Who will pay for this you??? Well I think you
should start your collection now!!!!
Einstein
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
> >Gail Thaler wrote:
> >>
> >> zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> >> >Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
> >> >: Think about this for a second. The people on welfare are
> >> >: most women with children with not many skills. You are going
> >> >: to have to provide training, day-care and transportation.
> >> >
> >> >We can employ 20% staffing daycare for the other welfare moms' kids.
> >> >
> >> You have a poor view of child care if you think anyone can
> >> do it full-time. I hope you don't pick a mother for your
> >> children on that basis alone.
>
> be generous Gail, assume they get some training first.
Training and university study are currently free for the poor!!!
>
> >> >First step is weeding out the "I want a job" talkers from those who
> >> >say it AND mean it.
>
> Too bad I can't upload that picture of the line outside the Hotel
> in Chicago a couple of years back, 20 degrees F, wind blowing,
> snowing, something like two thousand applicants for 100 jobs
> that paid decent but hardly monumental wages.
>
> There are plenty of examples of this.
>
> People WANT jobs.
Mc Donalds is always hiring by me!!!!!
The problem is that they want to make minimum wage plus their welfare
money!!!! Why should they work 40 hours for only $50/week more then
what they get on welfare doing nothing .....
>
> For a mother with one or more children to go out and find a job is
> not a trivial task. You have to find somebody who is hiring (and who
> is within reasonable travel distance) fill out the form, either wait
> around for an interview or come back another time. This is generally
> done during the day so getting baby-sitting is not trivial, 'course
> you could bring your kids along, antsy kids make such a good impression
> and certainly help your concentration while filling out forms...
>
> It can be done, but encouragement and incentives would help enormously.
> Get the neighborhood churches and Operation PUSH and whoever involved.
Well the incentive would be that they wont eat if they dont do it ....
But many would rather sit home and watch Oprah..... They could easily
sell their TV and get a baby sitter!!!!
But I like your Idea of getting churches and non-profit organizations to
help .... anyone but the government!!! Why force people to feed the
irresponsibility of another!!!! or even 10 irresponsibilities!!!! by
different men none-the-less.
Oh and no more welfare benifits for those who fail a manditory drug test
or at least for those caught with drugs / commiting a felony or those
working illegally!!!
And no benifits for Illegal immigrants!
Einstein
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
!!
>
> Why not provide some economic incentives for them to get OFF welfare!
>
> provide decent health benefits,
> provide vouchers for babysitting worth $1/hr of work/kid,
> by all means open a few babysitting centers, train women to be
> child care professionals, encourage others to open quality private
> centers
> push mothers under the age of 18 to stay in school.
> encourage everybody to go to school beyond H.S. (make damn sure
> they don't get sucked into scam schools)
> pursue fathers and make sure they are involved in their child's life,
> finishing school and paying what support they can.
> provide child rearing education (do you know what age a child should
> be potty trained at? should start solid foods? ...)
> encourage breastfeeding (reduces fertility, improves child's health...)
> including at school and work, via pumping if necessary
> provide sexuality and birth control education
> provide decent schools (ok this comes under opportunity rather than
> incentive)
My plan is posted on http://einstein.superlink.net/~tom/national.html
What it says is to get the people off of welfare we must have recipients
do community service for 40 hrs a week! If they are handicapped or have
a child under the age of 6 then give them work that they can do at home
like stuff envelopes .... If they dont do a satisfactory job then they
dont get their welfare check!!!!
Jeffrey N Woodford
On Sat, 08 Jun 96 11:58:44 GMT Philippe Hajjar (pnh...@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <4pa9h0$l...@fnnews.fnal.gov>, mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
: }Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
: }education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
: }decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
: Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it? Maybe
: if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
YOUR ASSIGNATION OF BLAME DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
-Jeff
--
Jeffrey N. Woodford || Email: jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu || Physical Chemistry
Homepage: http://wildcat.dementia.org/jeffw/index.html || Graduate Student
"The devils of truth steal the souls of the free" --NIN || (2nd Year) at UN-L
Gail Thaler
sha...@world.std.com (Terry Shannon) wrote:
>In article <4pktrp$1d...@news3.realtime.net>,
>morse@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Morse) wrote:
>
>>
>> Taking care of a young child alone is not an easy task. It takes
>> dedication and selflessness, and Mother Nature very often provides
>> that to the youngest of mothers. Unfortunately, Mother Nature also
>> seems to provide other people with a desire to attack the weakest
>> and most vulnerable, and to lie about them to excuse the attack.
>
>
>Yep. I know 'bout that. Had two kids whilst wifey and I were relatively
>"young and vulnerable." And guess what??? I PAID FOR BOTH OF 'EM! The
>taxpayers did not.
>
>For God's sake, instead of buying into the Daschle/Gephardt "weakest and
>most vulnerable" mantra, why don't you look at economics and pragmatics:
>
to keep inflation down. Yes, businesses prefer cheap labor.
How many husbands have left their wives because they lost
their jobs, and the only way to get their kids health insurance
is to go on welfare? Any married woman who stays home with her
kids is a likely candidate for welfare.
>If you can't afford to reproduce, use contraception. Remember, Mother
>Nature did not create the offspring that must be supported at the
>taxpayers' expense.
Contraception fails. The sexual instinct is very powerful.
This is a "pragmatic" solution.
>We taxpayers have no choice in the matter. But the "two who tangoed"
>certainly had some degree of choice. Now might be a good time to consider
>going after the **fathers** of these welfare children rather than the
>taxpayers.
>
I agree fathers could be more responsible. But what if they
want to be but get laid off and can't find new jobs.
Your company went to Mexico.
What are YOU supposed to do?
>Terry C. Shannon, Editor & Publisher, Shannon Knows DEC
>Shannon Knows DEC is a twice-monthly subscription-based
>newsletter on all things Digital. For more details and
>subscription info, send email to sha...@world.std.com.
--What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and
Gail Thaler
Einstein <eins...@mars.superlink.net> wrote:
>OK Gail if they got paid 20k per year would you agree???? The point is
>either get them doing some work or cut welfare all together .... Why
>should I pay for someone elses kids.... especially those with more then
>1! I can see one as being an accident I can see those people that need
>a few years because of a mistake that they made in their life but not
>when they continue to have children while on welfare!!!!!
Einstein, did you READ the statistics I posted?
Forget that
>... It is funny also that when these people want to go out and party or
>go somewhere they seem to find babysitters easily but when it comes to
>work there seems never to be any alternatives .... We must have
>workfare for these individuals .... Or else they have economic
>incentives to stay on welfare!!!
>
In the evening, the kids are mostly asleep, aren't they?
Gail
Gail Thaler
"Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@zippy.sonoma.edu> wrote:
>Gail Thaler wrote:
>>
>> "Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@zippy.sonoma.edu> wrote:
>
>> >Average? I don't know. But he lived in a subculture
>> >full of families like his own.
>> >
>> Any system is going to have some fraud. But talk about
>> throwing the baby out with the bathwater!! Payments are
>> minimal to mothers.
>
>The money isn't the primary issue with AFDC. It's the destruction
>of family structure and the resulting social chaos (crime, child
>abuse by the boyfriend of the week, graffiti). But even several
>hundred dollars a month adds up when you multiply by millions.
>
neither Democrats or Republicans want to face the fact
that A.F.D.C. forces unemployed fathers out of the home.
There are economic factors as well. The federal government
helped drive businesses and people out of the cities. I
suppose all those people could move to the burbs or to
Mexico to get jobs? Face it, we the people created the
problem. Face it, we the people are not going to like to
see hungry children who can't get health care. So let's
be honest about working out a solution.
>> >In any case, there are two things that the folks in
>> >question know how to do without training. The fathers
>> >who either can't or won't find a job can be given
>> >plastic bags to fill with trash. We've already paid
>> >for their labor by feeding their wives and kids; it's
>> >now time for men that won't support their own families
>> >to do a bit of work for it. If they don't like it,
>> >we can bring back chain gangs until their attitude
>> >improves.
>> >
>> Well, at least one person is talking about the men who
>> abandon the children. Thanks.
>
>That has ALWAYS been the problem. There's just some reluctance by
>liberals to suggest that irresponsible fathers who seem to know how
>to make babies but aren't willing to care for them are the big problem.
>
because that would seem intolerant. But you can't get money
from a Dad who's factory moved to Mexico, can you?
>> >The mothers know how to watch children. One AFDC mother
>> >can watch kids for the other five while they go off to
>> >work. I would prefer mothers to raise their own kids,
>> >but if middle class families have to put their kids in
>> >daycare, why should AFDC recipients be exempt?
>> >
>> Please. Raising children is a serious business that
>> requires training. Wouldn't you insist that your day-
>> care provider no something more about parenting than
>> just being one?
>
>Are you suggesting that AFDC recipients aren't fit to watch
>each others children? Then why are they fit to walk their
>own children?
>
Nope.
>I'm sure that there are some wonderful daycare providers out there.
>But there are plenty that are not so wonderful. I hear in your plaint
>a request that the government provide better daycare for AFDC
>mothers than a lot of working, non-dependent mothers currently
>have.
Only if they want to be day-care providers.
Wait! It's coming to me now! A giant bureaucracy of
>government daycare centers with $60,000/year administrators
>(with a BA in Psychology from institutions like Stanford), lots of
>AFDC recipients to watch the children (who dropped out of high school
>and therefore deserve $30,000/year to do what they do right now)!
>Why didn't I think of it before? :-)
>
Who suggested that?
>For all that liberalism talks about caring for children, I smell
>a makework project for people with useless degrees.
The only people who are suggesting "makework" are those
who are suggesting that welfare mothers, I kid you not,
stuff envelopes, pick up litter, or watch each others kids.
Have you studied American history from 1900's on? I notice
from other threads that you are quite knowledgable about
other eras? (I'm not being sarcastic, just wondering)
Einstein
Oh God another one of these ......
Morse wrote:
>
> Einstein (eins...@mars.superlink.net) wrote:
> : Problem solved!!!! Give welfare mothers work that they can do at home
> : like stuffing envelopes!!!!
>
> Why, Einstein, get to "giving." How many envelopes shall each mom
> stuff a day? And what sort of money will that bring in?
Whatever would consist of an 8 hour day and she would bring in her
welfare check!!! + benifits!!!!!
Where are these
> unstuffed envelopes sitting around needing to be stuffed?
The envelope stuffing is just one do at home idea I am sure you could
think of a few others if you put your mind to it!!!!
>
> Let's see a post from somebody who stayed at home watching even one
> kid and stuffed envelopes and made enough money to survive.
Well we obviously see many people staying home watching more Oprah then
their kid and making enough money to survive ... it is called welfare
.... my proposal is to have welfare recipients do 40 hours of productive
community service. Fathers will also do this work!!! If they are not
productive or do not come to work then they receive no check!!!!
After I
> was widowed, and when my son was still young, I worked at home
> as a technical translator. And that barely supported us. And
> I found it very difficult to do two things at once--translate and
> watch my son. If he vegged out on tv, I could work. But I
> certainly didn't want him doing that 8 hours a day. And if there
> were a quiet period during which I became absorbed in my translating,
> there was always a possibility that my son had gotten into danger.
You always hae night time to do your work!!!!!
For
> him to have any opportunity to play outside, we had to take monetary
> losses. His friends' mothers watched the kids when they played together,
> but I had to reciprocate, and this again took time away from wage-earning
> activiy.
>
> Taking care of a young child alone is not an easy task. It takes
> dedication and selflessness, and Mother Nature very often provides
> that to the youngest of mothers.
Too bad that most of the people in the US(other then the welfare queens)
have to go to work and don't have the oportunity to sit at home and
watch our kids.
Unfortunately, Mother Nature also
> seems to provide other people with a desire to attack the weakest
> and most vulnerable, and to lie about them to excuse the attack.
Not an attack but I dont want them stealing my hard earned money by
being parasitic. Welfare was created as a safty net not to be a way of
life!!!!
Welfare is a trap! unfare to taxpayers! severely abused! without
incentive to go back to work(why when you receive free money?)! etc etc
etc .....
>
--
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of
course, powerful muscles, but no personality."
Einstein
Mayor Giuliani is the best thing that ever happened to NYC!!!!
Giuliani for President!!!!! 2000
Mr. Sam wrote:
>
> In <31bb8946...@news.zipnet.net>, ri...@zipnet.net (Rich Bernstein) wrote:
>
> >sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 06 Jun 96 14:32:58 GMT, pnh...@psu.edu (Philippe Hajjar)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <31b5c53...@nntp.crl.com>, sh...@crl.com (Mr Smith) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>}The people that recieve welfare and who are able to work should be
> >>>}doing this.
> >>>
> >>>Those who are able to work should not be receiving welfare.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yeah, well lets wait and see how long that takes to happen. The first
> >>step is getting the low lifes to work at all.
> >
> >Cut their welfare first. They will work in some form, be funded by
> >charities, or will die. Some will get charities (optional by the
> >charities), some will work, and the rest will die.
>
> Actually, making them work as a condition of a welfare can work equally well.
> In New York City, Mayor Rudolph "Rudy" Giuliani successfully pushed through a
> requirement that all able-bodied welfare recipients be given a broom and told
> to go sweep up the streets, in neighborhoods arbitrarily assigned to them.
> Well, a distant relative of mine's neighbor did nothing all day but jack off,
> on welfare. After one day of being sent up to Harlem to sweep the streets, he
> got off welfare and went to work at a gas station. Wonders never cease. You
> never know how resourcefull you can be, until someone proverbially kicks you
> in the ass.
>
> --
> Mr. Sam: member, talk.politics.misc troll patrol
> channel operator, #Sci-Fi - Undernet IRC sci-fi/fantasy channel
> http://www.cyberstorm.com/~rockd/sci-fi.html
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> "Government is not a solution to our | "First of all, keep in mind that most
> problem, government IS the problem." | of our problem is with working
> -- R. Reagan. | Americans." -- B. Clinton.
> _____________________________________|_______________________________________
--
Philippe Hajjar
In article <4pog23$g...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu (Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
}On Sat, 08 Jun 96 11:58:44 GMT Philippe Hajjar (pnh...@psu.edu) wrote:
}: In article <4pa9h0$l...@fnnews.fnal.gov>, mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
}
}: }Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
}: }education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
}: }decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
}
}: Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it?
Maybe
}: if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
}
}YOUR ASSIGNATION OF BLAME DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
WHAT?
My assignment of blame sure does address the problem. First of all, everyone
in this country more or less gets a "free" K-12 education. If welfare
recipients know that there's no way they can get a starting job without an HS
education, and they choose to drop out anyway, then they fucked up.
Enjoy!
Philippe Hajjar
pnh...@psu.edu
"Fight crime, shoot back."
"Vote Democratic, it's easier than working."
Morse
Einstein (eins...@mars.superlink.net) wrote:
: You always hae night time to do your work!!!!!
And during the day, we could have eaten cake!
Why didn't I think of that?
I can't be the only person reading these discussions who has raised a child
alone. But I seem to be the only person with such experience who
is posting in this discussion.
The anti-welfare people seem to post any old thing, with no indication
of how they know these damning facts about welfare queens.
How, for instance, do you "see welfare mothers watching Oprah more
than their kids?" Are you going around peeking in the windows
of welfare-mothers homes? I guess you always have the night time
to do your work, eh?
spa...@vixa.voyager.net
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
: > Now might be a good time to consider
: >going after the **fathers** of these welfare children rather than the
: >taxpayers.
: Many State and Federal programs do just that. Wisconsin has a very
: interesting one that shepards those fathers into jobs (with the
: threat of jail time otherwise)
I'd like to know how this works: has Wisconsin established some sort
of "affirmative action" for the fathers of welfare children? Can others
apply for these jobs? Do others have equal access to these jobs, or is
preference given to the welfare fathers? If there is any job preference
extended to the fathers, the program would be unfair to other men, and
could create a perverse incentive to father a child in order to get a job.
Ed and Matt
The oldest welfare system that I know of is described in the Bible. The
farmer (the wealthier member of that society) was required by law to leave
the produce that fell to the ground on the ground for the poor to glean.
This was not begging. Try gleaning on a modern corporate farm and see what
that gets you.
Those of you who claim the Judeo-Christian ethic and have not the decency
to support the poor, the opposed, the down and out...know not the writtings
that you claim to believe in.
When the last frontier in North America closed that was the last nail in the
coffin of laissez faire capitalism. It is possible for laissez faire
capitalism to grow in ‘under-developed’ countries because the land and raw
materials are there for the taking (or stealing. depending on your point of
view.)
Our noble leaders cannot see the system for the mountain of paper in the way.
If the frontier is closed and we determine that a level of unemployment is
5% (or whatever percent seems acceptable) then we must provide assistance for
that 5% or their only choice is to commit unlawful acts to survive. We
cannot give that old advice, “Go west young man.” (Men like Henry Ford
realized that if wages weren’t such that the workers could purchase his
product he could not be successful.)
The death rattle is beginning and we can’t hear the sound because we aren’t
willing to listen. We are willing to cheer the break up of the Soviet Union
drowning out the death rattle of capitalism. Many have spoken concerning the
issues. We live on a planet of finite resources. We cannot have the
wealthiest continue to suck off the profits and penalize the poorest and
expect harmony, peace and security. A violent revolution will be the result
of our inattention to the problems.
Israel/Palestine, Falklands/Malvinas, Soccer War (Central Am.,) Iran/Iraq,
Desert Storm...these are the beginning of territorial disputes that are
symptoms of the problem masked by cultural and religious enmity.
Most revolutionaries are romantics linked to old modes of thought and cannot
see that the only successful revolution in the future is a non-violent one in
the tradition of Gandhi and M.L.King. How non-violent can one be when one
has no food? I have now seen beggars in 3rd world countries throw stones if
you do not put something in their cup.
Unless we adopt views that are directly related to our societal situation and
not fantasies of Jeffersonian Democracy for Virginia Gentlemen, Neo-Facist
Bigots or Marxist Ideologues we shall all perish in chaos.
PS. Sorry I didn't real the attachment wouldn't convert. Live and learn! We
do have that choice.
Michael Zarlenga
Gail, it appears my news server missed your response to the
question below. As a courtesy I'll ask again ... in the wel-
fare data you cite, what is the age range for "children?"
Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
: Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
: : You don't know much about the real world, do you.
: : 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
: Tell us, Gail, is a 20-year-old a child?
: What exactly IS a child, as you've used the term?
: Surely you asked that basic question before blindy repeating a
: statistic, yes?
: --
: -- Mike Zarlenga
: Bill Clinton is so hard up he's thinking about asking dead Incans out.
: finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP Public key and killfile
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP Public key and killfile
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
Nope, essentially the STATE stands there with a stick in its hand (a jail
term for non-payment of child support) and says "You WILL get a job",
They then check up on the work site and make sure that any problems
(lateness etc.) get taken care of. There was some help in filling out
forms or such, but no preference is given, these are just jobs out in the
market. I don't remember all the details.
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
In article <6d7cc$d353a.273@NEWS>, edz...@mail.ameritel.net (Ed and Matt) writes:
>The oldest welfare system that I know of is described in the Bible. The
>farmer (the wealthier member of that society) was required by law to leave
>the produce that fell to the ground on the ground for the poor to glean.
>This was not begging. Try gleaning on a modern corporate farm and see what
>that gets you.
Actually there is quite a bit of gleaning done on vegatable farms across
the country, typically either Christians or groups of poor organized
by Christians. (I don't mean to be exclusive here, Atheist do-gooders are
welcome to pick up on the idea)
>Those of you who claim the Judeo-Christian ethic and have not the decency
>to support the poor, the opposed, the down and out...know not the writtings
>that you claim to believe in.
[blah, blah, blah]
>Unless we adopt views that are directly related to our societal situation and
>not fantasies of Jeffersonian Democracy for Virginia Gentlemen, Neo-Facist
>Bigots or Marxist Ideologues we shall all perish in chaos.
If you say so.
>PS. Sorry I didn't real the attachment wouldn't convert. Live and learn! We
>do have that choice.
Glad to here it.
spa...@vixa.voyager.net
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
: In article <4ppkq1$5...@vixc.voyager.net>, spa...@vixa.voyager.net () writes:
: >mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
: >
: >: > Now might be a good time to consider
: >: >going after the **fathers** of these welfare children rather than the
: >: >taxpayers.
: >
: >: Many State and Federal programs do just that. Wisconsin has a very
: >: interesting one that shepards those fathers into jobs (with the
: >: threat of jail time otherwise)
: >
: > I'd like to know how this works: has Wisconsin established some sort
: >of "affirmative action" for the fathers of welfare children? Can others
: >apply for these jobs? Do others have equal access to these jobs, or is
: >preference given to the welfare fathers? If there is any job preference
: >could create a perverse incentive to father a child in order to get a job.
: Nope, essentially the STATE stands there with a stick in its hand (a jail
: term for non-payment of child support) and says "You WILL get a job",
: They then check up on the work site and make sure that any problems
: (lateness etc.) get taken care of. There was some help in filling out
: forms or such, but no preference is given, these are just jobs out in the
: market. I don't remember all the details.
So what happens if a welfare father fills out 50 job applications
and doesn't get hired at all? What happens if the unemployment rate for
others goes up because welfare fathers are getting the jobs?
Jeffrey N Woodford
On Thu, 13 Jun 96 11:52:43 GMT Philippe Hajjar (pnh...@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <4pog23$g...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
: jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu (Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
: }On Sat, 08 Jun 96 11:58:44 GMT Philippe Hajjar (pnh...@psu.edu) wrote:
: }: In article <4pa9h0$l...@fnnews.fnal.gov>, mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
: }
: }: }Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
: }: }education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
: }: }decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
: }
: }: Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it?
: Maybe
: }: if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
: }
: }YOUR ASSIGNATION OF BLAME DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
: WHAT?
: My assignment of blame sure does address the problem. First of all, everyone
: in this country more or less gets a "free" K-12 education. If welfare
: recipients know that there's no way they can get a starting job without an HS
: education, and they choose to drop out anyway, then they fucked up.
OK, you've correctly assigned the blame for their economic condition
at their feet.
Now what?
Jeffrey N Woodford
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996 05:22:41 GMT Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (wa...@blarg.net) wrote:
: I've seen estimates that as many as 70% of children in day-care are in
: *unlicensed* day-care. I don't see the lack of government regulation
: as a problem per se... what I see as a problem is that these day-care
: providers are, for the most part, criminals (guilty of providing
: unlicensed day-care and operating unlicensed businesses) -- therefore,
: out of necessity, they hide their operation, which reduces apparent
: availability and provides protection to those few who deserve to be
: considered criminals.
: There is no better way to improve the quality of daycare available to
: current and recent welfare recipients than to make it so common that
: the average mother on welfare knows at least three or four legitimate,
: legal providers PERSONALLY. When she has a choice of a dozen
: providers by walking no further than the far side of the apartment
: complex's parking lot, she isn't likely to leave her children in an
: abusive or unhealthy day-care. But to achieve that, we have to stop
: creating obstacles to day-care, and take down the ones already
: created.
How do you prevent child molesters from becoming day care providers?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>Warrl writes:
>>and because creating unemployment does absolutely nothing about inflation.
>I am not going to argue that point BUT clearly the policy makers
>believe that it does...
The explanations for ongoing inflation that are still sufficiently
well "expert"-supported to be credible are:
(1) economic growth causes inflation
(2) government causes inflation
They used to have a few others, such as "OPEC causes inflation", but
all of them turned out to be factors far too little of the time to
account for the continuing inflation.
It's down to those two.
The people who can speak with the most authority (namely the authority
of law) work for the government. It is in their personal and
professional interest to increase the size of government.
The people who carry the message to the public are the media, most of
whom -- whether "conservative" or "liberal" -- favor increasing the
size of government, with some quibbling over details.
For some reason, the notion that government might be the cause of
inflation never gets to the masses. I wonder why?
Now let's try an experiment. Let's see if economic growth causes
inflation.
Assume a non-inflatable unit by which *all* economic output will be
measured. Call it a "quarble". If a brand-new car exactly patterned
after the 1968 Volkswagen Beetle is exactly 100 quarbles of output
this year, then ten years down the road -- no matter how the
technology changes, no matter what happens to the money supply -- a
brand-new car exactly patterned after the 1968 Volkswagen Beetle will
still be exactly 100 quarbles of output.
Assume that a certain nation's economy produced 1 million quarbles of
output in one year. Also assume that the money supply (adjusted for
the velocity of money) was 1 million dollars.
Obviously, one dollar should buy about one quarble of goods.
Now assume economic growth. Heck, let's assume really absurd economic
growth. Since the Federal Reserve tells us that high economic growth
is inflationary, let's assume 100% economic growth per year. But --
let's not mess with the money supply.
The next year, the economy produces 2 million quarbles of goods.
There are still 1 million dollars to buy goods with. So, one dollar
should buy about two quarbles of goods.
The following year, the economy produces 4 million quarbles of goods.
There are still 1 million dollars to buy goods with. SO, one dollar
should buy about four quarbles of goods.
Where does the inflation come in?
Now let's try leaving the economy fixed, and doing the same thing with
the money.
The first year, one million dollars will buy one million quarbles of
output -- one dollar each, no problem.
The second year, two million dollars are running around trying to buy
one million quarbles -- they'll end up costing about $2 each.
The following year, four million dollars are still chasing one million
quarbles -- so it ends up taking four dollars to catch one quarble of
output.
That looks like inflation to me.
Who produces dollars?
Probably not the guy who just got a job digging trenches for the
foundations of new factories.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) wrote:
>In article <4phpuf$r...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>Zarlenga) wrote:
>> Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
>> : You don't know much about the real world, do you.
>> : 80% of the "people" on welfare are children.
>>
>> Tell us, Gail, is a 20-year-old a child?
>>
>> What exactly IS a child, as you've used the term?
>>
>> Surely you asked that basic question before blindy repeating a
>> statistic, yes?
>>
>The statement is false on its face. The government does not
>mail out welfare checks to children. 100% of the welfare
>recipients are "adults" who may have children.
That statement is false on its face. Many welfare checks (not all,
probably not even most, but many) go to mothers of small children,
where the mothers themselves are as young as 14.
Einstein
Mothers and fathers or anyone else on welfare should be made to do 40
hours of community service in order to receive their welfare check!
spa...@vixa.voyager.net wrote:
>
> mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>
> : > Now might be a good time to consider
> : >going after the **fathers** of these welfare children rather than the
> : >taxpayers.
>
> : Many State and Federal programs do just that. Wisconsin has a very
> : interesting one that shepards those fathers into jobs (with the
> : threat of jail time otherwise)
>
> I'd like to know how this works: has Wisconsin established some sort
> of "affirmative action" for the fathers of welfare children? Can others
> apply for these jobs? Do others have equal access to these jobs, or is
> preference given to the welfare fathers? If there is any job preference
> extended to the fathers, the program would be unfair to other men, and
> could create a perverse incentive to father a child in order to get a job.
--
mailto:eins...@mars.superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein
Einstein
Mothers and Fathers that receive welfare both should be made to provide
40 hours of community service in exchange for their welfare check!
If there is no father and the mother has no babysitter ( which it is
obvious they will say that they dont , even if they did) then the mother
should be given work that she can do either at home or in an office
where she can bring her child!
--
mailto:eins...@mars.superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein
Einstein
If a 14 year old has a child then that 14 year old just took the express
train to adulthood!!!!
The point is that the actual children are not the ones receiving the
checks .... as many pro welfare people would have you believe!
--
mailto:eins...@mars.superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein
Einstein
I just wanted to add that everyone in this country gets a free K-12
Education and the poor and minorities get free college also!
Philippe Hajjar wrote:
>
> In article <4pog23$g...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
> jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu (Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
> }On Sat, 08 Jun 96 11:58:44 GMT Philippe Hajjar (pnh...@psu.edu) wrote:
> }: In article <4pa9h0$l...@fnnews.fnal.gov>, mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
> }
> }: }Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
> }: }education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
> }: }decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
> }
> }: Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it?
> Maybe
> }: if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
> }
> }YOUR ASSIGNATION OF BLAME DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
>
> WHAT?
>
> My assignment of blame sure does address the problem. First of all, everyone
> in this country more or less gets a "free" K-12 education. If welfare
> recipients know that there's no way they can get a starting job without an HS
> education, and they choose to drop out anyway, then they fucked up.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Philippe Hajjar
> pnh...@psu.edu
> "Fight crime, shoot back."
> "Vote Democratic, it's easier than working."
--
mailto:eins...@mars.superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein
Einstein
DOn't back down to threats of violence..... That still doesn't give
those welfare leeches the right to act as parasites.
Marc Ely-Chaitlin wrote:
>
> GROW A CONSCIENCE! You apparently have ignored history and decided to
> just focus on the last fifty years. How convenient. The only problem is
> that this country was made into a great power on the backs of hardworking
> common people, especially after 1776 when the slavemasters set up their
> little government in opposition to thousands of years of law, which
> enabled them to exploit their slaves and indentured servants without
> limitations. (That's what controlling the government lets you do).
>
> As a fascist you should appreciate the fact that the welfare is not being
> provided for the benefit of the poor, but for the safety of the state. I
> guarantee you, as someone who is actually acquainted with the condition
> of the street culture in America, if welfare was abolished today, and the
> money was cut off, (the money that is printed by the Government, and
> distributed to its favorites due to corrupt deals), this country would be
> dripping in blood; and I am sorry to say, it would probably include a
> fair measure of your blood and mine. If you intend on making comments on
> public policy, do everyone a favor and get a decent education first.
> Do your country a favor, and stop taking your information off the news.
>
> THE REGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES
Einstein
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>
> sha...@world.std.com (Terry Shannon) writes:
> >In article <4pktrp$1d...@news3.realtime.net>,
>
> >If you can't afford to reproduce, use contraception.
>
> because of a divorce or separation
Does seperation include breaking up with that girl/guy that you have
been going out with for 3 days????
but again it would seem that welfare offers an incentive for a woman to
break up with her spouse .... It is like that mother in law telling her
child .... break up with him you can stay here and have your room and we
can cook together I will feed you and help take care of the child.
Well these people need to take responsibility for their lives and their
children's. Maybe they will realize that unplanned sex = unplanned
children = poor = lots of work
>
> > Now might be a good time to consider
> >going after the **fathers** of these welfare children rather than the
> >taxpayers.
>
> Many State and Federal programs do just that. Wisconsin has a very
> interesting one that shepards those fathers into jobs (with the
> threat of jail time otherwise)
>
> Robert
>
> >Terry C. Shannon, Editor & Publisher, Shannon Knows DEC
--
mailto:eins...@mars.superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein
spa...@vixa.voyager.net
ma...@engdns.bandley1.netmanage.com wrote:
: Morse wrote:
: [snip]
: > why is it that you want just those women who have no one
: > to help them care for the children to go outside the home to
: > work? Did you know that children in daycare actually
: > continue to exist when they get out for the day? Did you
: > know that there is a lot of work to be done to maintain
: > existence besides getting a paycheck? Truthfully, I
: > believe a lot of you don't, because you are the ones who
: > don't do enough work. You don't do any child care.
: Hurm. Both my parents worked full time. In our neigborhood
: the families got together and formed a babysitting co-op.
: This involved no money, no fancy daycare centers, and only
: a promise to either take a turn caring for us children or
: performing some other work that needed to be done (for those
: parents who had to work during the weekday "peak babysitting"
: hours). This system was used by almost 100 families (the
: "Montevedeo Improvement Association"), and worked like a charm.
: It is not impossible to have both working parents and kids,
: and it can be done without excessive daycare costs. All it takes
: is some motivation, organization, and a committment among the
: local families to help each other - in other words, a classic
: community.
: However, don't expect the 'urban blight' dweller to ever get to
: this point. The problems among welfare recipiants and others living
: in these areas of social cancer have nothing to do how much money they
: have, or what work they can or can't find. Their problems lie in
: their attitudes and perceptions of the world around them. Children are
: raised to believe that the have no chance at becoming a true American
: ('as seen on TV'), so they don't even try. They join gangs and sell
: drugs because they honestly believe that is the most viable option
: available to them. It is this whole belief structure that must be
: destroyed before any real improvement can be sought.
The typical 'urban blight' dweller faces profound exploitation and
disincentives to improvement. Let's say you want to form a babysitting
co-op in your neighborhood. People are constantly moving into and out of
your urban blight neighborhood (often not by choice; urban blighters are
frequently displaced by rising rents) and you don't have an activist (in
the positive sense of the term) base to accomplish your goal: how many
people are going to commit themselves to the co-op if they figure they
won't even be in the neighborhood six months down the road?
Similarly, how many people are going to bother trying to improve the
neighborhood when they're going to be displaced before they get results?
And getting results - neighborhood improvement - means the neighborhood
will become more desirable, your rent will go up (that's capitalism for
you!) and you'll be displaced. Why shoot yourself in the foot?
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
Einstein <eins...@mars.superlink.net> writes:
>mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>>
>> sha...@world.std.com (Terry Shannon) writes:
>> >In article <4pktrp$1d...@news3.realtime.net>,
>>
>> >If you can't afford to reproduce, use contraception.
>>
>> see Gail's post, 45% of families that go on welfare do so
>> because of a divorce or separation
>
>Does seperation include breaking up with that girl/guy that you have
>been going out with for 3 days????
Einstein, lay off the caffiene for a bit ok?
>but again it would seem that welfare offers an incentive for a woman to
>break up with her spouse
Yup, it does allow a woman who is being smacked around to leave without
wondering where her next meal is coming from.
Incentive = $373/month + food stamps + (often substandard) health care.
right. Big incentive.
No doubt that our Welfare system does not help maintain families and
should be improved in that regard. But quite honestly many of the
suggestions I have heard from the Welfare bashers have not impressed
me as having been based in anything like reality.
Robert
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
spa...@vixa.voyager.net () writes:
>mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>: In article <4ppkq1$5...@vixc.voyager.net>, spa...@vixa.voyager.net () writes:
>: >mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>: >
>: >: >going after the **fathers** of these welfare children rather than the
>: >: >taxpayers.
>: >
>: >: Many State and Federal programs do just that.
>: >: Wisconsin has a very interesting one that shepards those fathers
>: >: into jobs (with the
[previous exchange deleted]
> So what happens if a welfare father fills out 50 job applications
>and doesn't get hired at all?
Very Interesting != perfect
I don't know all the details
>What happens if the unemployment rate for
>others goes up because welfare fathers are getting the jobs?
Let me reword, "What happens if 5% of the population becomes fully
and continuously employed because the state threatens them with
jail time as an alternative and spends two hours a week to make
sure they stay that way?"
Answer: not much
5% is a guess at the %age of the workforce equal to the number
of men who are not working and who have children on welfare.
I am guessing a total travel time of one hour, half an hour at the
work site making sure everything is going smoothly (or impressing
upon the father that showing up on time is a GOOD IDEA (TM))
and half an hour filling out paperwork.
Clearly in an area of deep poverty this program is not going to work
as well. But it is an interesting method of dealing with one facet
of the problem of poverty.
Chill a bit.
Robert
Michael Zarlenga
Einstein (eins...@mars.superlink.net) wrote:
: Mothers and Fathers that receive welfare both should be made to provide
: 40 hours of community service in exchange for their welfare check!
: If there is no father and the mother has no babysitter ( which it is
: obvious they will say that they dont , even if they did) then the mother
: should be given work that she can do either at home or in an office
: where she can bring her child!
Or she can go to work at a daycare facility.
Philippe Hajjar
In article <4ps5e8$1...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
}Assignment of blame does not address the problem. Do you
}want to help come up with a solution?
Not really, I don't have enough money to solve the problem. I don't feel that
the government should take more of the money which I earned and need to solve
a problem that doesn't affect me.
Of course, if a person feels they should help out, then by all means, let them
whip out their own checkbook and let them help.
Gail Thaler
pnh...@psu.edu (Philippe Hajjar) wrote:
>In article <4pog23$g...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
> jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu (Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
>}On Sat, 08 Jun 96 11:58:44 GMT Philippe Hajjar (pnh...@psu.edu) wrote:
>}: In article <4pa9h0$l...@fnnews.fnal.gov>, mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>}
>}: }Let me make a WAG, 80% of women on welfare don't have a high school
>}: }education or other salable skill so even if they just on their own
>}: }decided to organize what kind of jobs would they get? And where?
>}
>}: Well, their dropping out of high school is their fault, now isn't it?
>Maybe
>}: if they didn't drop out, things would be better.
>}
>}YOUR ASSIGNATION OF BLAME DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
>
>WHAT?
>
>My assignment of blame sure does address the problem. First of all, everyone
>in this country more or less gets a "free" K-12 education. If welfare
>recipients know that there's no way they can get a starting job without an HS
>education, and they choose to drop out anyway, then they fucked up.
Assignment of blame does not address the problem. Do you
want to help come up with a solution?
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/afdc/reports/1994/overview/contents.htm
For more statistics.
--What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and
the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde