h a l f b a k e r yIt's the thought that counts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
One issue that we have with the welfare system in the US is that recipients often pass this way of life on to their children.
It becomes a generational situation where mothers are celebrating daughters who come of age and get their benefits and in turn making it the highest aspiration for their offspring.
I propose that in order to help break this cycle, the children of welfare recipients are required to excel academically in order for the parent to receive benefits. If the kids get straight A's for the month, the family gets full benefits plus a few more dollars added. On the other hand if the child comes home with anything less than average, there will be penalties imposed.
If little Johnny doesn't do his homework, the family might have to eat Ramen noodles for dinner every night instead steak and lobster. The extra money that they thought that they would have for new shoes, Christmas toys, and a trip to the video game store will quickly dry up unless those kids hit those books, study, and rise to the top of their class.
In turn this would help these students become productive members of society to where they get a good education, then they learn how to get into a good career, and then they eventually start paying taxes and paying into the system vs. spending another generation taking from it.
Also, this would force parents to be accountable about how well they raise their children. If the average welfare parent isn't doing anything all day except for watching talk shows, they have plenty of time to make sure their kids get good grades, even if it means going up to the school and taking an active role in their child's education.
If the parent does it for nothing else other than to get that steak dinner, we will have a society of more people who are productive able-bodied tax payers. Otherwise we will be paying taxes to support their children and their children's children.
Linking welfare benefits with school attendance.
http://www.aeufeder.../LBehrendtpaper.pdf
[AusCan531, Jul 22 2012]
Cheating in schools
http://www.theatlan...-the-nation/255105/
Educators and researchers have argued that the intense emphasis on student test scores, a mandate of the federal No Child Left Behind Law, put pressure on educators to show dramatic (and often unrealistic) gains in student achievement. As a result, they argue, cheating is much more likely to occur. [bungston, Jul 25 2012]
Only a Pawn in their Game
http://en.wikipedia..._Pawn_in_Their_Game
The politics of distraction are more effective than ever. But I am glad fewer people get killed over it these days. [bungston, Jul 25 2012]
[link]
|
| |
Excellent idea. Whips and cattle prods available free-issue from your local welfare office. |
|
| |
Wow - I didn't realize the US welfare system allowed
for steak and lobster on a regular basis. I'll be right
over. |
|
| |
Yeah. I've been at the supermarket many times spending my last $20-$30 only to see the family in front of me with steaks and lobsters in a cart that's full to the top with everything that you can imagine. And then when it's time to pay, they whip out their benefit card. |
|
| |
Sign me up. I have a US passport I'm not using - can
they send benefits to the UK? My earnings in the US
are zero, so I ought to qualify. |
|
| |
// send benefits to the UK // |
|
| |
Indeed they can, but in the last century those "benefits" came with strings, like sexually-predatory G.I.s, Tomahawk cruise missiles, F-111's, and The Osmonds; and of they weren't an act of pure spite, we don't know what is. |
|
| |
So, this is a plan to create childhood slavery, to feed
overweight, greedy parents? Niiiiice.... |
|
| |
Any efforts to reduce crippling welfare payments receive a bun from me. |
|
| |
Nor sure if targetting the children this aggressively is the answer. Perhaps if welfare allowances could be split into "essentials" and "luxuries" - then children's failure to submit homework or assignments, or low grades, etc could be used to apply pressure to the parents by way of limiting the "luxuries" allowance. |
|
| |
Steak and lobster? Not sure about that. Alcohol and cigarettes? Hit 'em where it hurts. |
|
| |
Baked in Australia for some Indigenous communities. The jury is still out on whether or not it works. [link] |
|
| |
Not quite the same thing, [AusCan]. In the
Australian case they are sequestering funds to
ensure they are used for purchase of groceries,
rather than alcohol. |
|
| |
//So, this is a plan to create childhood slavery, to feed overweight, greedy parents? // |
|
| |
Making kids do their homework so that they can be better people and have a better life isn't exactly slavery. If they want to be ignorant, it's their choice. But if I have anything to say about it, they won't be ignorant on my dime. The way I see it is that if I am making them learn how to read so they don't need a handout from me later, then forcing them to learn isn't exactly a bad idea. |
|
| |
I'm generally not a fan of social engineering ideas, but I
like this one. It is uncomplicated, easily-institued, and
could produce remarkable long-term benefits. Bun. |
|
| |
As for the lobster... Well, there are two secrets to a great
lobster meal. The first is where to buy the bugs: not at a
restaurant. Unless the joint has at least four stars, you're
paying far too much money for a tiny, overcooked
hardshell. If you do not have the good fortune of living in a
northernish coastal area, you must order the lobsters live-
shipped and prepare them yourself. This is the second
secret: preparation. Do not boil your lobsters! This ruins
the meat, making it rubbery and dense. Lobsters must be
steamed over salt water. If the place you order them from
offers fresh seaweed, get it. Toss a handful of seaweed in
with every bug, steam them until they're crimson, sprinkle
some fresh dill into the melted butter, and you'll have a
feast only haute cuisine chefs can rival. |
|
| |
Sorry about the tangent... I just think it's tragic that so
few people have experienced properly-cooked lobster. |
|
| |
//so few people have experienced properly-cooked lobster// |
|
| |
I will pop round for a feed. |
|
| |
[UB] The link I put up was referring to school attendance. I'm aware of the 'groceries not grog' deal too. |
|
| |
Personally, I like my lobster shelled and sliced, still
live, before me. I then swish the slices through
ponzu and wasabi and garnished with grated daikon
radish. |
|
| |
In a sense, this situation has existed here in the UK until recently
in the form of EMA, where students regardless of family income
were paid just to go to college. The result was that college
classes were full of people pissing about and making it harder
for genuinely motivated students to learn because they were
only doing it for the money. For families in our position, EMA
was a substantial part of our income, but in spite of that i'm
happy they got rid of it because it now means our daughter is
more likely to be able to get somewhere in the long term
without being waylaid by a load of timewasters. I only haven't
boned this idea because I don't vote against ideas here. |
|
| |
I actually think parents should be financially penalised for
sending their children to school, but i realise that's an unpopular
opinion. I'll defend it if you like. |
|
| |
//force parents to be accountable about how well
they raise their children// |
|
| |
What about the (doubtless minority) of cases where
either the child is just plain dumb; or the school is
just plain lousy; or the child is a 15 year old brick
shithouse who is not going to be told what to do by
his or her parents? |
|
| |
Schools are often mistakenly seen as educational premises,
whereas the only real educational premises are the nervous and
immune systems. It isn't their job to instil learning but to
provide childcare during working hours. It is in a sense the
child's "job" to learn, though that's a bit like saying it's
someone's job to breathe, which is generally true only of the
royal family. Moreover, what if academic achievement makes
one less employable? If i'd left school without any O-levels i'd
probably be in a nine-to-five job now, paying thousands a year
in tax and providing a worthwhile service every working day. As
it is, in economic terms probably every advanced qualification i
have has reduced my employability and i 'm by no means alone.
Rewarding academic achievement financially could encourage
dependence on the welfare state. |
|
| |
The childcare aspect of "education" iis
something which is, by some sort of general
conspiracy, hardly ever spoken of. |
|
| |
The first five or six years of schooling have
very little to do with education, but much
more to do with social indoctrination and a
Jesuitical "Give me the child and I will give
you the man" imposition of heirarchy. |
|
| |
If education started at 12 years old, there
would be many benefits. Firstly, during the
preceeding years, a significant number of
children would have eliminated themselves
from the gene pool by taking advantage of
the extensive opportunities for being very
stupid; falling out of trees, traffic accidents,
ggetting shot up in firefights with rival drug
gangs. Also, having a higher degree of
cerebral development, they will learn much
faster. |
|
| |
The existing system was instituted at a time
when work or apprenticeship started at
about 13. This filled the gap between the
child becoming acceptably autonomous (at
about 5) and joining the workforce. |
|
| |
Time for a far-reaching review, we suggest. |
|
| |
// the child is a 15 year old brick shithouse
who is not going to be told what to do by his
or her parents? // |
|
| |
Simple. Fix them firmly to a solid concrete
plinth at the far end of the garden, and then
visit a couple of times a day to urinate on
them. |
|
| |
For as long as there is an important perceived
division of labour between the domestic sphere
and the workplace, to some extent the institution
of state schooling and its hidden curriculum of
perpetuating that division serves a social function.
However, to the extent that childcare can take
place in the workplace and paid work can be done
at home, the need for state schooling is
diminished, and it's a fact that many people do in
fact work from home, often in menial and poorly-
paid jobs. There would probably currently be a
serious side-effect of reducing reliance on schools
as childcare, namely that the current stereotypical
female gender role would probably be reinforced
and a whole load of mothers would end up doing
the childcare rather than getting paid. For that
reason alone, schools do serve a worthwhile
purpose right now, in that in pragmatic terms they
give women career opportunities and more control
over money. |
|
| |
Schools also ensure a reasonably standardised level of
social interaction skills, albeit at a level not too far
below that of chimpanzees or young bull walruses. |
|
| |
First off this is, in my opinion, a bad idea.
If it were implemented the result would be a long string of 'step-dads' beating the shit out of kids falling behind in their grades in order to keep that dole and beer-money a'coming.
You'd get kids with good grades yes, but they would end up very unhappy camper adults. |
|
| |
Riding the welfare-system for some is just a supplemental income.
They hold down under-the-table jobs working for less than minimum wage as long as there are tips involved. Wetting the bottom of the tray to pick up stray bills along with the emptys, or turning the odd trick is where the real money's at. Collecting that emergency cheque just before Christmas or kids birthdays is a real cash-cow because the goods can always be returned for refund after the receipts have been submitted. etc. etc. |
|
| |
This will not be fixed by putting the onus on the welfare-riders' children, but by filling gaps in such a way that collecting the dole is more work than it's worth. |
|
| |
You want a monthly cheque, fine, stuff and lick x amount of envelopes to qualify. |
|
| |
//What about the (doubtless minority) of cases where either the child is just plain dumb; or the child is a 15 year old brick shithouse who is not going to be told what to do ?// |
|
| |
They are going to suffer. If you don't work, you don't eat. You can be dumb and still get get good grades in special ed. |
|
| |
//If it were implemented the result would be a long string of 'step-dads' beating the shit out of kids falling behind in their grades.// |
|
| |
I used to get beat for bad grades too.. but it ended up being for my own good. |
|
| |
There can only be one kid at the top of the class.
Remember, 50.1% is a pass. |
|
| |
Sorry [Bub's] - I disagree.
Violently, in fact. |
|
| |
Being better than 50% of the population shouldn't decide your grade, if that was the case you'd get the same grade profile on a difficult course as you would an easy one. 50% from a group of illiterate morons could pass a special relativity course. Likewise, getting 50% of the available marks should absolutely not be a pass mark - that results in fatally incompetent engineers, doctors, etc. Neither of these systems is adequate if applied as a percentage. |
|
| |
....Anyhoo, as I alluded to above, I think assignment submittal, attendance, grades etc should all contribute. Any single one of those doesn't indicate a concerted effort. |
|
| |
I read the aim of this idea to be reducing the welfare burden by applying leverage to parents to encourage "welfare children" to work their way out of welfare. Gets my vote for that alone. Hows and whyfor's I'm not so sure the nail's been struck square here, but education, including vocational education is a big element, I think. Making welfare a less attractive option is, of course, another big element. |
|
| |
1. 'it's tragic that so few people have experienced properly-cooked lobster'. Do you have any pets, Alterother, and if you do would you let anyone steam them over salt water? I'd hope the answer would be no because that would be cruel, right? |
|
| |
2. This idea falls down for me because the bigger problem which is cultural has nothing to do with benefit claimants except as part of that culture and it doesn't only apply in America. Here it is: there are homes where there's not even one 99c/99p book but you'll see at least one X-Box running for upwards of 6 hours a day. X-Boxes don't provide careers unless you work in retail selling them and until people again value the simple acts of reading and study, which don't actually prevent X-Box use, stick and carrot schemes are pointless. Change the culture, then change the welfare schemes if necessary. |
|
| |
What [Phrontistery] said. Education doesn't actually
happen in schools. In fact, if you take the time to
watch a classroom at work you will notice it is
possibly the single most inefficient use of students',
and teachers', time you could possibly make. It's a
shambolic pretence of application of resources. |
|
| |
I'm concerned that IQ is related to the diet, and one failure might induce a series of failures, especially if students were graded in relative, not absolute grading system. |
|
| |
//My earnings in the US are zero, so I ought to qualify.// |
|
| |
Sorry, [Max], it just don't work that way. It is the position
of the Infernal Revenue Service that all income earned by
U.S. citizens anywhere in the world is taxable by the
United States. I believe there are deductions and such for
taxes paid to foreign governments that usually reduce your
liability to zero, and since there's no penalty for not filing
if you owe no tax (although technically you're supposed to)
you're generally okay ignoring it. But if you try to claim
benefits in the U.S. based on having no income, not only
will they get you for benefits fraud, they'll probably get you
for tax fraud as well. As your lawyer* and tax
accountant**, I advise you not to try it. |
|
| |
*This statement is not meant to constitute any form of
legal
advice, or otherwise imply in any manner that I am
qualified to practice law.
**Ditto, but for tax accountancy. |
|
| |
In most poor communities in America this becomes a Catch-22 with the school systems. |
|
| |
Welfare systems are abused, certainly. But the abuse is not as rampant as it seems. One large problem occurs where eligibility is dependent upon income and does not include net worth. |
|
| |
//there are homes where there's not even one 99c/99p book but you'll see at least one X-Box running for upwards of 6 hours a day.// |
|
| |
So true. But then the parent has to have the talk with their kid- "That's great Junior! You can stay up all night playing Donkey Kong, but keep in mind that if you fail that spelling test tomorrow, we might not have anywhere to live next month. So you think about that.. but there's no pressure. Really." |
|
| |
// X-Boxes don't provide careers // |
|
| |
Hmm. They do if you work for Microsoft, write
games for them and so forth, and they also provide
educational opportunities. It's a question of
balance, but [eleventeenthly] has just learnt De
Morgan's laws, the concept of functional
completeness, truth tables, JK and T flip-flops,
Turing completeness and a whole host of other
things from playing Minecraft on the X-Box. Not
saying he shouldn't do other things as well, and he
does, but literacy, though i personally prize it, is
overrated and was treated with suspicion back in
Ancient Greece for example. It harms your long-
term memory for a start, and if you read literature
it can lead you to expect real people to behave
like fictional characters and even alter your own
behaviour to be less authentic. There's a good
case to be made against literacy but not one i'd be
particularly happy pursuing. All of us in this family
are quite bookish, so we fail to engage with the
real world as well as others might. Also, you can
be bookish and play on games consoles, because
ultimately both books and X-Boxes are information
technology. |
|
| |
People who can crack car stereo security, break
into vehicles, use controlled substances without
immediately killing themselves and various other
things on the other side of the law have useful
skills which are misapplied for some reason i can't
fathom. The problem is not that they haven't
learnt anything useful, but that they're not
applying it appropriately. There could be an
official qualification in criminal skills. Would the
recipients get more money if they got good grades
in that? |
|
| |
//There could be an official qualification in criminal skills. Would the recipients get more money if they got good grades in that?// |
|
| |
Absolutely NOT. Even though people do indeed find careers in game testing, development, averting security threats, etc., the way that you are discussing it is the exception to the rule. |
|
| |
Even though there are people who have been hired as a result of being able to break into an employer's network, for everyone who gets a job, 100 other people go to jail. |
|
| |
//has just learnt De Morgan's laws, the concept of functional completeness, truth tables, JK and T flip-flops, Turing completeness and a whole host of other things from playing Minecraft on the X-Box// - hang on, how did he learn all those things from Minecraft? |
|
| |
/are required to excel academically/ |
|
| |
Academic excellence is subjective. It is not an objective fact, like the facts that I have a 3 foot vertical leap or that I weigh 297 pounds without shoes. Once there are dollars at stake for anyone involved, there is incentive to make sure that the dollars are received - by teaching to the tests, cheating, or any number of other methods. Anyone still interested in running a test-based system like this in the US has not been paying attention to the news. But it is not too late for you, Jscotty - I will supply links for your gentle edification. |
|
| |
//I have a 3 foot vertical leap or that I weigh 297 pounds without shoes// |
|
| |
Pedantry 201
Which of the following is a valid pedantic question ?
a) How much do the shoes weigh ? all 3 of them together I mean.
b) How much do you weigh when you do a 3 foot vertical leap ?
c) All of the above.
d) None of the above. |
|
| |
// Do you have any pets, Alterother, and if you do would
you let anyone steam them over salt water? // |
|
| |
Yes, I do, and no, I would not. Lobsters are not pets, they
are food. |
|
| |
Look, I live in Maine. I
know all about the lobster-cooking controversy. I'll state
my case, then I'll be done with it: |
|
| |
D) there is no valid evidence to show that lobsters feel
pain. I have personally witnessed a lobster having one of
its
claws lopped off by another lobster, and the amputee did
not flinch or flee, it did not even pause to reflect upon the
loss of the appendage, it simply continued to futilely
attack its foe
(which was susequently pulled from the tank and re-
banded before it dismembered any more merchandise). |
|
| |
2) lobsters do not 'scream' when they are put into the pot;
lobsters have no vocal apparatus, nor any other method of
producing audible communication. The 'screaming' sound is
the water inside their shells boiling into steam and
escaping through their joints. |
|
| |
C.1) lobsters are delicious. |
|
| |
4) anyone who feels that it is cruel to put live lobsters into
a steamer (or, if they insist on doing it the wrong way, into
boiling water), may mercifully despatch the lobsters by
centering the point of a chef's knife on the dorsal seam
approx. 1" behind the eyestalks and driving it sharply
downward, which kills them instantly. Alternatively, they
can simply choose to not eat lobsters. |
|
| |
// It isn't their job to instil learning but to provide
childcare during working hours// |
|
| |
<beginning of probably open-ended and off-topic
debate> I disagree. I was quite glad of the fact
that teachers (this was back in the old days,
before they became 'learning facilitators') actually
told me stuff that I could write down andor
remember. |
|
| |
One of the things that pisses me off no end is the
insistence that children discover _everything_ for
themselves, because this is somehow more
involving than being told stuff. If someone knows
what currency they use in Guatemala, frankly I'm
happy for them to tell me. |
|
| |
What is worse, this "find out for yourself"
philosophy is _not_ applied where it actually
should be. There are many things that children
(and adults) have to work out and develop -
particularly, how to learn and how to evaluate and
connect information. By insisting instead that
they waste time laboriously deducing simple facts
that they can be told in five seconds, you give
them no chance to learn how to learn. |
|
| |
hmm... considering that this site is populated mostly by people who follow the beat of a different armadillo, that sounds a bit off. |
|
| |
I'd just type into Google "what currency do they use in Guatemala ?", trusting that some other lazy slob has asked the question before and some well-meaning bored person answered it. |
|
| |
But apart from that, in order to find out for themselves, somebody has to deal with either a general information data sheet or a currency-conversion chart: knowledge that those things exist is useful as well. |
|
| |
/laboriously deducing simple facts that they can be told in five seconds/ |
|
| |
The problem is that if you have them deduce things that Cannot Be Told, probably because you do not know yourself, it is hard to know whether they got it right. |
|
| |
Yeah, not gonna get into that [MB] - there's a notorious blog
where many of my friends and another bloke who shall remain
nameless argue about this in circles forever. My impression is
that you had a positive experience of school, so you were lucky.
Having said that, my later experience of school was also very
positive. This was because it was an escape from a tense home
life. It had no connection with the academic content of what was
being taught because on the whole i'd covered it on my own
many years previously. School was in academic terms
ridiculously simplistic and involved sitting around waiting to hear
something new, and it never happened, at least in the maths and
sciences. English literature was more of a challenge but
unfortunately took a turn into complete bollocks at A-level. |
|
| |
//Academic excellence is subjective. It is not an objective fact// |
|
| |
Bugston, you are indeed correct. The system is screwed up so badly that it's nearly impossible to quantify "academic success", however, the cruel people who run this world reward those who can do a good job playing the school games. They really don't care whether or not you learn. But then again, it works that way in the professional world too. In many jobs, the boss could care less about what you specifically contribute to the growth of the company. All they usually care about is whether you cross every T and dot every I before you clock out. |
|
| |
So if these kids don't learn anything, they'll still be employable, and they will still be financial contributors to the society. It's not fair, but true- The man who has a stack of diplomas stands to get better job offers and promotions even if he can't tie his own shoes. But the guy who started in the mail room is forever stigmatized even if he can run every task in the company better than the people who hold the position. |
|
| |
That's fine, but those people really are the miniscule minority. |
|
| |
Life isn't a happy cuddle club, and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else is a precious flower. What the employer wants, is, by definition - the right thing. They've got the money - they're the boss, not you. If they want compliant people with diplomas, - who are the social engineers to tell them anything otherwise. |
|
| |
The "cruel people who run this world" got there by doing what was necessary at the time - including a whole lot of hard work. |
|
| |
What frustrates me is the false sense of entitlement that plagues our society these days. Why should employers pander to your fragile little ego, or bend and flex to find ways to "empower" the whole work force? Why not reward hard work, committment, qualifications (read as pre-invested hard work) - and bloody delivering what is asked for. |
|
| |
Why should society support people unnecessarily on welfare that take no effort to get off? Why shouldn't we throw up whatever hoops and embuggerances we can in the road to make sponging off society as unnatractive as possible? Why should we not demand certain ongoing requirements, effort or progress in order for people to qualify for ongoing support? Morally, what should we do with someone who steadfastly refuses to help him/herself? |
|
| |
Anyway, as for the dude in the mailroom, having never actually held any of the other positions for any length of time - probably has a vastly inflated sense of his worth and competence, based on a highly simplified view of what it is the qualified people actually do. |
|
| |
People typically can't get off of welfare without help because it's a financial trap. Anyone would like to think that you can take welfare for a short period of time while you regroup and get yourself together. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, it does not work that way. The moment you get a job, open up a bank account, or in one way or another, save up your money, you immediately lose your benefits. There is no transition that allows you to get a few paychecks under your belt before you get your own apartment. |
|
| |
However, there is hope for the next generation because as a dependent to the welfare recipient, they CAN get a job, and they CAN start off good in life without penalty. |
|
| |
//Why should employers pander to your fragile little ego, or bend and flex to find ways to "empower" the whole work force?// |
|
| |
Because it's the right thing to do. Every one of us who has succeeded in life didn't get here by ourselves. Someone helped us along the way. If we look at the unemployable segment of society and think to ourselves that they aren't our problem, we are greatly mistaken. As hard as it may seem to fathom, someone getting to adult age without being able to read or pull their pants up is indeed our problem. We can just choose to deal with it now or deal with it later. |
|
| |
I come from a country where welfare is applied
liberally and relatively simply to anyone who hasn't
got full-time employment. We therefore have a lot
of people receiving it. |
|
| |
Having said that, I once lost my job and went to
apply for welfare benefits. The sheer hassle
involved in filling out multiple forms and
participating in a Kafkaesque interview process
put me off so much I walked out after an hour and
a bit and got myself another job in the following
two hours. |
|
| |
That was in 1984, and is the only time I've ever
been unemployed. I'm still unsure how one could
remain unemployed for any length of time without
actively seeking to be unemployed. |
|
| |
'They do if you work for Microsoft, write games for them and so forth, and they also provide educational opportunities'. nineteenthly, that's a series of statements you'll need to support. How many X Box users have grown up to earn a living at Microsoft and did they get those jobs through education or by playing games for large chunks of each day? Nor can I see the educational value of Ghost Recon. |
|
| |
Alterother, 'there is no valid evidence to show that lobsters feel pain'. Eat 'em if you want but don't back it with that kind of cop-out. |
|
| |
jscotty, the talk any parent should have with their kid is about getting more choices in life and polishing a chair playing games isn't going to provide many choices. Benefits are nothing to do with it. |
|
| |
Custardguts summed it up pretty well. People do get helped along the way but they have to already be on the way, not waiting to start. |
|
| |
//the talk any parent should have with their kid is about getting more choices in life and polishing a chair playing games isn't going to provide many choices// |
|
| |
Unfortunately the parent isn't equipped to talk on that level. They haven't been exposed to anything better so they don't believe that anything better is other there for them. The best thing that most welfare parents can hope for is an increase in benefits and/or the day when their children get on the system 'independently'. |
|
| |
At least if they are required to go to school, do their work, get good grades, etc. that will point more welfare children in the right direction. Would they all graduate? Probably not. Of those who graduate, would they all get jobs? Only in a perfect world. But one thing that we cannot tolerate is the lack of effort. Should I reward the kid that does his homework and gets it wrong or should I reward the kid who doesn't even do it in the first place? |
|
| |
// Alterother, 'there is no valid evidence to show
that lobsters feel pain'. Eat 'em if you want but don't back
it with that kind of cop-out.
// |
|
| |
I was witholding my vote until I could determine whether this post was geniune or a wind up. |
|
| |
"Maybe, sometimes, we forget why we have social services, why we have welfare, why we even care about the fates of those without the resources to "speak" in our society. We forget the child indenture, the begging,the poor houses and work farms, the destitution, we forget the street crime, the homeless families, the disease, the filth, the finding of corpses in the snow. We even forget that compassion for basic human needs is prescribed by our faiths. Instead we yearn for a miraculous time, in the past possibly, when everyone able bodied could have a job if they wanted it, where every child was provided with good parents, where every sick person could get enough treatment that they were not spewing disease out into the gutters of our metropolis. I tell you today, that here, in this city, any person who declares that they do not care about the fates of the poor; who objects to the provision of basic services and shelter; who is comfortable with hunger, disease, with begging. With the billy stick as a goad to the most suffering fraction of society, the death of some for the betterment of others and a unmarked pit to hide the bodies of the hindmost, that person is a monster." |
|
| |
/We even forget that compassion for basic human needs is proscribed by our faiths/ |
|
| |
True for some faiths even if not acknowledged, but given the context you probably mean prescribed. |
|
| |
// any person who declares that they do not care about the fates of the poor; who objects to the provision of basic services and shelter; who is comfortable with hunger, disease, with begging. With the billy stick as a goad to the most suffering fraction of society, the death of some for the betterment of others and a unmarked pit to hide the bodies of the hindmost, that person is a monster. // |
|
| |
Bankers are just such easy targets, aren't they ? |
|
| |
Bankers? The people who get my ire are the marginal folks, the people one or two paychecks from destitution, who regard the less fortunate than they with utter disgust, as lazy, as shiftless. Who hate the fact that a person can go to the hospital and get medical care that they cannot pay for. They are so close to the same fate, spurred on by fear, afraid to protest their condition, their wages, the condition of their community, their own lack of opportunity, and instead choose to piss on those one rung down the ladder, accusing them of "holding them back" and essentially being the cause of all poverty. This clambering and clawing at the bottom of the ladder is pathetic, and reflective of just how "huddled" the masses have become. |
|
| |
The masses were always huddled. |
|
| |
We really have no idea how bad things were 100
years ago; let alone 200 or 400 or, even worse,
1000 years ago. It's not something our societies
are proud to chronicle, lest they remind
themselves of how they've failed. |
|
| |
Just 150 years ago the average life expectancy was
about 42 years for a male and about 44 years for a
female, in the US, UK, Canada or Australia. Those
numbers are now in the high 70s and low 80s,
unless you're a member of the indigenous or
aboriginal population of the US, Canada or
Australia. |
|
| |
As we continue to make improvements to living
standards and to health care we'll see the life
expectancy increase, globally. |
|
| |
However, as [WcW] rightly points out, we're only a
few paydays or a civil war away from anarchy and
destitution, most of the people; most of the time.
There are few who could weather 6-12 months
without any income or support from family or
government. |
|
| |
I agree with what [UB] said. All of it. |
|
| |
(Now I feel dirty) <shudder> |
|
| |
To get back to the core of the idea, where has this 'generational situation' sprung from? A baby every year just to keep getting the freebies seems barking to me. Whatever your experience of education, this idea somehow pinpoints a dividing line above which parents have aspirations for their kids and below which parents just incubate to accumulate. I don't think such a perception can derive from education alone so where does it come from? |
|
| |
//I don't think such a perception can derive from education alone so where does it come from?// |
|
| |
Exposure. It's very difficult to aspire to something that you aren't even aware of. If your level of exposure does not transcend beyond the 4 sides of the television screen, the only thing you will ever aspire to is whatever is inside of it. |
|
| |
School won't solve every problem or social ill in our nation, however, if they would just do SOMETHING other than walk around with their pants around their knees imitating their favorite singers, they just might make something of themselves. |
|
| |
Is the _SOMETHING other_ you propose incompatible with pants-around-the-knees singer imitations? Or could one pull them both off simultaneously? |
|
| |
[bungston], please pull your pants up. |
|
| |
Jscotty, I don't think education's the answer to your last comment and neither is bad parenting. The answer's far more pernicious and outside of parental control, I'm talking about the cult of celebrity trash that vomits out of gondola-end mags, TV, social media etc. Until we as a culture see how bloody worthless and fake that is, telling kids after a certain age that getting an education will set them up in life is hopeless when all they see are talentless plumped/pumped up nobodies flashing laminated teeth in all directions. Parents (and schools) have to fight that and it's pretty much overwhelming, particularly if you have nothing better to compare it to. |
|
| |
That's why we have to institute the associative punishment aspect. You mess up in school and your momma will have to beg for money in order to make ends meet. Fail all your classes and your family faces eviction. 2 kids fail and then the family is backcharged. |
|
| |
I think this policy would result in an even lower birth
rate for developed nations, several of whom have
already gone into negative territory. |
|
| |
How can you backcharge a family on benefits - starve them? It's also my suspicion that in dysfunctional families (of which there are many) Junior's not going to care if Mumsy begs. |
|
| |
Junior will care if he doesn't want to be embarrassed in front of all of his friends. |
|
| |
This has transitioned from an idea to some form of rant, therefore I'm out. |
|
| |
Hey, you're part of this. No point trying to be all high-and-mighty now. Come wallow here with the rest of us. |
|
| |
This wallowing of which you speak - is custard in any way involved? |
|
| |