Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Welfare and Kids Grades
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


guangzhou


Mar 7, 2013, 8:21 PM
Post #1 of 25 (2757 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Welfare and Kids Grades
Report this Post
Can't Post

Interesting can of worms

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...essee_n_2552781.html


petsfed


Mar 7, 2013, 9:33 PM
Post #2 of 25 (2752 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [guangzhou] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Interesting can of worms

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...essee_n_2552781.html

Because the well established connection between standardized test results and household income isn't enough to convince this idiot that this is a bad idea?

Look, I understand the fear of welfare queens. Its just that using welfare queens as an argument against welfare is like using 9/11 as an argument against skyscrapers AND airplanes. They are a statistically tiny portion of welfare expenditures, and really, REALLY don't represent the average welfare recipient.

I've tried to do well in my studies AND work enough to cover my expenses at the same time. It was damn hard, and I had no dependents. If you make a kid responsible for the scale of welfare payments, you will see child abuse, child suicide, and a whole lot of other bad things sky rocket.

This is, objectively, a bad idea. If you want to force parents to help their kids, you might try working to ensure that the parents can support their kids and work few enough hours to actually be parents when they aren't at work, AT THE SAME TIME.


tready


Mar 8, 2013, 3:02 AM
Post #3 of 25 (2732 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 10, 2007
Posts: 166

Re: [petsfed] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

We should just kill the kids and eat them. Makes sense.

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/.../1794/872/modest.pdf


lena_chita
Moderator

Mar 8, 2013, 9:35 AM
Post #4 of 25 (2667 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5472

Re: [guangzhou] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Interesting can of worms

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...essee_n_2552781.html


Someone should send the brilliant guy this link:

http://www.cracked.com/...d-about-poor-people/


veganclimber


Mar 8, 2013, 1:01 PM
Post #5 of 25 (2647 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [lena_chita] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Interesting can of worms

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...essee_n_2552781.html


Someone should send the brilliant guy this link:

http://www.cracked.com/...d-about-poor-people/

That was really good. I particularly like this line:

"Politicians can't get past the idea that the only possible way to fail in America is if you sit back and do nothing. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable to them."

So true.


DougMartin


Mar 11, 2013, 6:20 AM
Post #6 of 25 (2582 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [petsfed] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Interesting can of worms

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...essee_n_2552781.html

Because the well established connection between standardized test results and household income isn't enough to convince this idiot that this is a bad idea?

Look, I understand the fear of welfare queens. Its just that using welfare queens as an argument against welfare is like using 9/11 as an argument against skyscrapers AND airplanes. They are a statistically tiny portion of welfare expenditures, and really, REALLY don't represent the average welfare recipient.

I've tried to do well in my studies AND work enough to cover my expenses at the same time. It was damn hard, and I had no dependents. If you make a kid responsible for the scale of welfare payments, you will see child abuse, child suicide, and a whole lot of other bad things sky rocket.

This is, objectively, a bad idea. If you want to force parents to help their kids, you might try working to ensure that the parents can support their kids and work few enough hours to actually be parents when they aren't at work, AT THE SAME TIME.

What are your thoughts on using school attendance as a metric? The means Campfield suggests are poorly conceived but the idea of making parents be more accountable for their children's school performance is a valid one! What are your ideas for ending poor school performance in under privileged children?


petsfed


Mar 11, 2013, 9:01 AM
Post #7 of 25 (2569 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
What are your thoughts on using school attendance as a metric? The means Campfield suggests are poorly conceived but the idea of making parents be more accountable for their children's school performance is a valid one! What are your ideas for ending poor school performance in under privileged children?

Most places I've been to in the US, kids below a certain age have to be in school, so excessive truancy can become a legal issue. If you want to add additional punishments, so the charge is truant while poor, then you can probably guess my response. Fortunately for the poor folks involved, there isn't the manpower to run down every truant kid, and there certainly isn't the money or will to license teachers and school administrators with the power to choose whether parents of students get paid or not.

It remains the case that its damn hard for a student of any age to study effectively with their belly empty, and I don't see how *institutionally* making students responsible for whether or not their family eats can help improve school performance. As I already said, if the politicians really want to improve that education gap, then they'd be pushing for systematic changes that allow a person working a full-time job on minimum wage to actually support a small family, so they can still spend time with their kids.


DougMartin


Mar 11, 2013, 5:10 PM
Post #8 of 25 (2539 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [petsfed] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
What are your thoughts on using school attendance as a metric? The means Campfield suggests are poorly conceived but the idea of making parents be more accountable for their children's school performance is a valid one! What are your ideas for ending poor school performance in under privileged children?

Most places I've been to in the US, kids below a certain age have to be in school, so excessive truancy can become a legal issue. If you want to add additional punishments, so the charge is truant while poor, then you can probably guess my response. Fortunately for the poor folks involved, there isn't the manpower to run down every truant kid, and there certainly isn't the money or will to license teachers and school administrators with the power to choose whether parents of students get paid or not.

It remains the case that its damn hard for a student of any age to study effectively with their belly empty, and I don't see how *institutionally* making students responsible for whether or not their family eats can help improve school performance. As I already said, if the politicians really want to improve that education gap, then they'd be pushing for systematic changes that allow a person working a full-time job on minimum wage to actually support a small family, so they can still spend time with their kids.

Good points to ponder! The truant while poor statement is very good! My question is how and what do you do to get the children in school? Lower income students do have a higher drop out rate, yet they are the ones that can least afford it (no pun intended)! I can't think of any solution that does not include holding the parents accountable for there children! So how would you hold them responsible for their children's attendance in school, would you simply rely on the justice system as it is now? Currently most school district allow for prosecution of a parent in regards to truancy, it results in a fine of the parents. This method typically leads to unpaid fines and has no real impact! I don't see an easy answer, in fact I am not sure I see a hard one either!


petsfed


Mar 11, 2013, 6:53 PM
Post #9 of 25 (2533 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.


DougMartin


Mar 11, 2013, 7:46 PM
Post #10 of 25 (2525 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [petsfed] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.

I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

If the minimum wage was raised to $20 the yearly gross pay of a worker would be $41600. Do you think employers will just cover that increase in labor cost without passing it onto the consumer? Sure the workers wage has increased but so has everything they need to live! Your solution solves nothing!

There must be a way to get children in school! I don't see a problem with paying parents money when their children attend school or taking money away from parents when their children don't! Neighbor A does not send their children to school but neighbor B does. Take a hundred dollars in governmental assistance from A and give it to B! I don't know if that will work but then again that is why I asked, hoping someone might have an idea that is valid and actually workable! So do you have an idea that is actually viable or are you going to stick with the raise the minimum wage statement that has repeatedly proven to widen the income gap not reduce it!


justroberto


Mar 11, 2013, 8:40 PM
Post #11 of 25 (2511 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
petsfed wrote:
Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.

I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

If the minimum wage was raised to $20 the yearly gross pay of a worker would be $41600. Do you think employers will just cover that increase in labor cost without passing it onto the consumer? Sure the workers wage has increased but so has everything they need to live! Your solution solves nothing!

There must be a way to get children in school! I don't see a problem with paying parents money when their children attend school or taking money away from parents when their children don't! Neighbor A does not send their children to school but neighbor B does. Take a hundred dollars in governmental assistance from A and give it to B! I don't know if that will work but then again that is why I asked, hoping someone might have an idea that is valid and actually workable! So do you have an idea that is actually viable or are you going to stick with the raise the minimum wage statement that has repeatedly proven to widen the income gap not reduce it!

This is off topic, but if you want people to pay attention to the content of your message, I suggest drastically cutting back on your exclamation mark usage; it's extremely distracting and adds nothing to your argument.

Anyway, it's not hard to find several studies that suggest this is not an effective approach. Using Threats of Poverty to Promote School Attendance: Implications of Wisconsin's Learnfare Experiment for Families, for example. The inverse is not true.

In reply to:
Abstract:Examined the effectiveness of the Wisconsin Learnfare experiment that requires teens to attend school regularly as a condition of receiving family financial aid. Findings from state social services data reveal that, despite a $1.5 million "savings" attributed to the program between September 1988 and December 1989, tremendous family pressures were created and no improvement in student attendance rates was realized.

I find it hard to believe that well-meaning people think this to be a good idea. It seems to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to cut back on welfare programs with a complete disregard for the actual consequences.


petsfed


Mar 11, 2013, 8:57 PM
Post #12 of 25 (2504 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

I don't recall saying simply increase the minimum wage. I know that won't work, because I'm not stupid. Other approaches that may help to accomplish the same goal: lower housing costs, convince people that they don't need a smart phone, big screen TV, new car, etc. to be happy, provide better/cheaper health-care options, so insuring the kid isn't forcing the parent to work 60+ hours a week, quite a few more ideas that I haven't come up with yet. Schools are bad enough as it is at killing student interest in learning (what with the constant teaching to the test just to keep the doors open). Don't make the kids consider learning as a job that they can quit as soon as the law allows it.

I'm saying that the solution is social and systematic, and any single policy change is not going to do it. Its no surprise that kids from wealthy neighborhoods do better in school, since by and large they have a healthier home life. A major part of a healthy home-life is having a parent at home for a significant fraction of the time the kid is home. Somebody to help with homework, somebody who provides healthy encouragement.


petsfed


Mar 11, 2013, 9:00 PM
Post #13 of 25 (2502 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [petsfed] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Put another way, the problem is *not* that the minimum wage is too low, its that our society has cheapened certain jobs to the point that what we claim they are worth is not enough to survive on.


DougMartin


Mar 11, 2013, 9:28 PM
Post #14 of 25 (2494 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [justroberto] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
petsfed wrote:
Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.

I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

If the minimum wage was raised to $20 the yearly gross pay of a worker would be $41600. Do you think employers will just cover that increase in labor cost without passing it onto the consumer? Sure the workers wage has increased but so has everything they need to live! Your solution solves nothing!

There must be a way to get children in school! I don't see a problem with paying parents money when their children attend school or taking money away from parents when their children don't! Neighbor A does not send their children to school but neighbor B does. Take a hundred dollars in governmental assistance from A and give it to B! I don't know if that will work but then again that is why I asked, hoping someone might have an idea that is valid and actually workable! So do you have an idea that is actually viable or are you going to stick with the raise the minimum wage statement that has repeatedly proven to widen the income gap not reduce it!

This is off topic, but if you want people to pay attention to the content of your message, I suggest drastically cutting back on your exclamation mark usage; it's extremely distracting and adds nothing to your argument.

Anyway, it's not hard to find several studies that suggest this is not an effective approach. Using Threats of Poverty to Promote School Attendance: Implications of Wisconsin's Learnfare Experiment for Families, for example. The inverse is not true.

In reply to:
Abstract:Examined the effectiveness of the Wisconsin Learnfare experiment that requires teens to attend school regularly as a condition of receiving family financial aid. Findings from state social services data reveal that, despite a $1.5 million "savings" attributed to the program between September 1988 and December 1989, tremendous family pressures were created and no improvement in student attendance rates was realized.

I find it hard to believe that well-meaning people think this to be a good idea. It seems to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to cut back on welfare programs with a complete disregard for the actual consequences.

So in other words you have no solution to present, you just want to bash my punctuation!!! Nice!!!


DougMartin


Mar 11, 2013, 9:38 PM
Post #15 of 25 (2489 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [petsfed] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

I don't recall saying simply increase the minimum wage. I know that won't work, because I'm not stupid. Other approaches that may help to accomplish the same goal: lower housing costs, convince people that they don't need a smart phone, big screen TV, new car, etc. to be happy, provide better/cheaper health-care options, so insuring the kid isn't forcing the parent to work 60+ hours a week, quite a few more ideas that I haven't come up with yet. Schools are bad enough as it is at killing student interest in learning (what with the constant teaching to the test just to keep the doors open). Don't make the kids consider learning as a job that they can quit as soon as the law allows it.

I'm saying that the solution is social and systematic, and any single policy change is not going to do it. Its no surprise that kids from wealthy neighborhoods do better in school, since by and large they have a healthier home life. A major part of a healthy home-life is having a parent at home for a significant fraction of the time the kid is home. Somebody to help with homework, somebody who provides healthy encouragement.

I think we can say we agree, there is not one solution and the problem is social in nature. I don't believe anyone has the solution at this point, yet we must keep working or we truly will fail. So keep thinking!


dr_feelgood


Mar 12, 2013, 7:29 AM
Post #16 of 25 (2469 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25629

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
justroberto wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
petsfed wrote:
Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.

I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

If the minimum wage was raised to $20 the yearly gross pay of a worker would be $41600. Do you think employers will just cover that increase in labor cost without passing it onto the consumer? Sure the workers wage has increased but so has everything they need to live! Your solution solves nothing!

There must be a way to get children in school! I don't see a problem with paying parents money when their children attend school or taking money away from parents when their children don't! Neighbor A does not send their children to school but neighbor B does. Take a hundred dollars in governmental assistance from A and give it to B! I don't know if that will work but then again that is why I asked, hoping someone might have an idea that is valid and actually workable! So do you have an idea that is actually viable or are you going to stick with the raise the minimum wage statement that has repeatedly proven to widen the income gap not reduce it!

This is off topic, but if you want people to pay attention to the content of your message, I suggest drastically cutting back on your exclamation mark usage; it's extremely distracting and adds nothing to your argument.

Anyway, it's not hard to find several studies that suggest this is not an effective approach. Using Threats of Poverty to Promote School Attendance: Implications of Wisconsin's Learnfare Experiment for Families, for example. The inverse is not true.

In reply to:
Abstract:Examined the effectiveness of the Wisconsin Learnfare experiment that requires teens to attend school regularly as a condition of receiving family financial aid. Findings from state social services data reveal that, despite a $1.5 million "savings" attributed to the program between September 1988 and December 1989, tremendous family pressures were created and no improvement in student attendance rates was realized.

I find it hard to believe that well-meaning people think this to be a good idea. It seems to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to cut back on welfare programs with a complete disregard for the actual consequences.

So in other words you have no solution to present, you just want to bash my punctuation!!! Nice!!!

Wow, you are an idiot.


DougMartin


Mar 12, 2013, 8:05 AM
Post #17 of 25 (2462 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [dr_feelgood] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
justroberto wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
petsfed wrote:
Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.

I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

If the minimum wage was raised to $20 the yearly gross pay of a worker would be $41600. Do you think employers will just cover that increase in labor cost without passing it onto the consumer? Sure the workers wage has increased but so has everything they need to live! Your solution solves nothing!

There must be a way to get children in school! I don't see a problem with paying parents money when their children attend school or taking money away from parents when their children don't! Neighbor A does not send their children to school but neighbor B does. Take a hundred dollars in governmental assistance from A and give it to B! I don't know if that will work but then again that is why I asked, hoping someone might have an idea that is valid and actually workable! So do you have an idea that is actually viable or are you going to stick with the raise the minimum wage statement that has repeatedly proven to widen the income gap not reduce it!

This is off topic, but if you want people to pay attention to the content of your message, I suggest drastically cutting back on your exclamation mark usage; it's extremely distracting and adds nothing to your argument.

Anyway, it's not hard to find several studies that suggest this is not an effective approach. Using Threats of Poverty to Promote School Attendance: Implications of Wisconsin's Learnfare Experiment for Families, for example. The inverse is not true.

In reply to:
Abstract:Examined the effectiveness of the Wisconsin Learnfare experiment that requires teens to attend school regularly as a condition of receiving family financial aid. Findings from state social services data reveal that, despite a $1.5 million "savings" attributed to the program between September 1988 and December 1989, tremendous family pressures were created and no improvement in student attendance rates was realized.

I find it hard to believe that well-meaning people think this to be a good idea. It seems to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to cut back on welfare programs with a complete disregard for the actual consequences.

So in other words you have no solution to present, you just want to bash my punctuation!!! Nice!!!

Wow, you are an idiot.

Just another person with absolutely nothing to add! Hope you feel better soon! Calling people names usually makes small minded people feel good sooner or later!


Kartessa


Mar 12, 2013, 8:55 AM
Post #18 of 25 (2451 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 7356

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

You strike me as one of those "Small goverment" republican types...


justroberto


Mar 12, 2013, 9:23 AM
Post #19 of 25 (2446 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
justroberto wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
petsfed wrote:
Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.

I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

If the minimum wage was raised to $20 the yearly gross pay of a worker would be $41600. Do you think employers will just cover that increase in labor cost without passing it onto the consumer? Sure the workers wage has increased but so has everything they need to live! Your solution solves nothing!

There must be a way to get children in school! I don't see a problem with paying parents money when their children attend school or taking money away from parents when their children don't! Neighbor A does not send their children to school but neighbor B does. Take a hundred dollars in governmental assistance from A and give it to B! I don't know if that will work but then again that is why I asked, hoping someone might have an idea that is valid and actually workable! So do you have an idea that is actually viable or are you going to stick with the raise the minimum wage statement that has repeatedly proven to widen the income gap not reduce it!

This is off topic, but if you want people to pay attention to the content of your message, I suggest drastically cutting back on your exclamation mark usage; it's extremely distracting and adds nothing to your argument.

Anyway, it's not hard to find several studies that suggest this is not an effective approach. Using Threats of Poverty to Promote School Attendance: Implications of Wisconsin's Learnfare Experiment for Families, for example. The inverse is not true.

In reply to:
Abstract:Examined the effectiveness of the Wisconsin Learnfare experiment that requires teens to attend school regularly as a condition of receiving family financial aid. Findings from state social services data reveal that, despite a $1.5 million "savings" attributed to the program between September 1988 and December 1989, tremendous family pressures were created and no improvement in student attendance rates was realized.

I find it hard to believe that well-meaning people think this to be a good idea. It seems to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to cut back on welfare programs with a complete disregard for the actual consequences.

So in other words you have no solution to present, you just want to bash my punctuation!!! Nice!!!

I am not trying to bash you on anything. You seem to want to have an honest and civil conversation. I'm trying to help you by offering a simple way to strengthen your conversational skills.

My 'solution' has already been suggested above. Reducing poverty and allowing parents to spend more time with their families is the only way to address truancy, not the other way around. Creating a situation that contributes to child abuse is absolutely not a way to solve any of our problems.


DougMartin


Mar 12, 2013, 12:22 PM
Post #20 of 25 (2429 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [Kartessa] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Kartessa wrote:
You strike me as one of those "Small goverment" republican types...

I am a republican but definitely not far right but more centered in an approach, some might even call me an independent. I support reasonable gun control, I am all for supporting those that need the help. Yet I still think people need to rely on themselves versus the government!


DougMartin


Mar 12, 2013, 12:41 PM
Post #21 of 25 (2420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [justroberto] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
justroberto wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
petsfed wrote:
Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.

I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

If the minimum wage was raised to $20 the yearly gross pay of a worker would be $41600. Do you think employers will just cover that increase in labor cost without passing it onto the consumer? Sure the workers wage has increased but so has everything they need to live! Your solution solves nothing!

There must be a way to get children in school! I don't see a problem with paying parents money when their children attend school or taking money away from parents when their children don't! Neighbor A does not send their children to school but neighbor B does. Take a hundred dollars in governmental assistance from A and give it to B! I don't know if that will work but then again that is why I asked, hoping someone might have an idea that is valid and actually workable! So do you have an idea that is actually viable or are you going to stick with the raise the minimum wage statement that has repeatedly proven to widen the income gap not reduce it!

This is off topic, but if you want people to pay attention to the content of your message, I suggest drastically cutting back on your exclamation mark usage; it's extremely distracting and adds nothing to your argument.

Anyway, it's not hard to find several studies that suggest this is not an effective approach. Using Threats of Poverty to Promote School Attendance: Implications of Wisconsin's Learnfare Experiment for Families, for example. The inverse is not true.

In reply to:
Abstract:Examined the effectiveness of the Wisconsin Learnfare experiment that requires teens to attend school regularly as a condition of receiving family financial aid. Findings from state social services data reveal that, despite a $1.5 million "savings" attributed to the program between September 1988 and December 1989, tremendous family pressures were created and no improvement in student attendance rates was realized.

I find it hard to believe that well-meaning people think this to be a good idea. It seems to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to cut back on welfare programs with a complete disregard for the actual consequences.

So in other words you have no solution to present, you just want to bash my punctuation!!! Nice!!!

I am not trying to bash you on anything. You seem to want to have an honest and civil conversation. I'm trying to help you by offering a simple way to strengthen your conversational skills.

My 'solution' has already been suggested above. Reducing poverty and allowing parents to spend more time with their families is the only way to address truancy, not the other way around. Creating a situation that contributes to child abuse is absolutely not a way to solve any of our problems.

Your absolutely right, civil and honest discussion is what this country needs at every level, even on RC.com. Seems that when people don't agree they simply want to bash the other guy, unfortunately that never leads to better understanding or growth.

You mentioned Wisconsin's Learnfair study. I have read that research in its entirety. The one issue I have with that research was it was one faceted, with fear of punishment as the only motivator. Could you imagine a study that used both reward and punishment? Go to school, achieve better marks and receive a reward paired with not going to school and receiving a punishment! The motivation to excel is greatly increased thus potentially altering the results of the study. They should try it.


Kartessa


Mar 12, 2013, 1:15 PM
Post #22 of 25 (2414 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 7356

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
Kartessa wrote:
You strike me as one of those "Small goverment" republican types...

I am a republican but definitely not far right but more centered in an approach, some might even call me an independent. I support reasonable gun control, I am all for supporting those that need the help. Yet I still think people need to rely on themselves versus the government!

Then don't rely on the government to nanny people into submission


dr_feelgood


Mar 12, 2013, 6:22 PM
Post #23 of 25 (2387 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25629

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
justroberto wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
petsfed wrote:
Doug, I've said it twice now, but I guess I'll put it out there, separately, so you won't miss it this time:

We have to make it possible to survive as a poor person while still having enough time to spend with one's family that parents actually have the time to be, well, parents, instead of absentee breadwinners.

The fact that you can't even pay the rent on a full-time, minimum-wage job in most metro areas is probably the main reason why we such a high truancy rate amongst the poor.

I got it the first time, I just dismissed it as not realistic nor even possible. Poverty does not go away simply by raising the minimum wage. Your solution only makes the income level of those in poverty higher.

If the minimum wage was raised to $20 the yearly gross pay of a worker would be $41600. Do you think employers will just cover that increase in labor cost without passing it onto the consumer? Sure the workers wage has increased but so has everything they need to live! Your solution solves nothing!

There must be a way to get children in school! I don't see a problem with paying parents money when their children attend school or taking money away from parents when their children don't! Neighbor A does not send their children to school but neighbor B does. Take a hundred dollars in governmental assistance from A and give it to B! I don't know if that will work but then again that is why I asked, hoping someone might have an idea that is valid and actually workable! So do you have an idea that is actually viable or are you going to stick with the raise the minimum wage statement that has repeatedly proven to widen the income gap not reduce it!

This is off topic, but if you want people to pay attention to the content of your message, I suggest drastically cutting back on your exclamation mark usage; it's extremely distracting and adds nothing to your argument.

Anyway, it's not hard to find several studies that suggest this is not an effective approach. Using Threats of Poverty to Promote School Attendance: Implications of Wisconsin's Learnfare Experiment for Families, for example. The inverse is not true.

In reply to:
Abstract:Examined the effectiveness of the Wisconsin Learnfare experiment that requires teens to attend school regularly as a condition of receiving family financial aid. Findings from state social services data reveal that, despite a $1.5 million "savings" attributed to the program between September 1988 and December 1989, tremendous family pressures were created and no improvement in student attendance rates was realized.

I find it hard to believe that well-meaning people think this to be a good idea. It seems to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to cut back on welfare programs with a complete disregard for the actual consequences.

So in other words you have no solution to present, you just want to bash my punctuation!!! Nice!!!

Wow, you are an idiot.

Just another person with absolutely nothing to add! Hope you feel better soon! Calling people names usually makes small minded people feel good sooner or later!
Oh, sure, I could attempt to reason with your reactionary bullshit. However, it is ultimately more productive, and more satisfying to ridicule and belittle you and the inarticulate mess of poorly-formed thoughts and soundbites that is masquerading as a grammatically flawed opinion.


justroberto


Mar 12, 2013, 8:28 PM
Post #24 of 25 (2366 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [DougMartin] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
... The one issue I have with that research was it was one faceted, with fear of punishment as the only motivator.

Well, that is exactly what the distinguished ideologue from Tennessee is proposing, right? Using children as pawns in this ridiculous republican battle is disgusting, and anyone who puts forward such an idea doesn't have any business having kids, much less making decisions for society.

Poverty isn't going away. The only things we can do are try to limit it as much as possible and mitigate its effects. Tying welfare payments to a child's performance does neither.


clymbrchk


Mar 13, 2013, 8:56 AM
Post #25 of 25 (1140 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 25, 2007
Posts: 115

Re: [petsfed] Welfare and Kids Grades [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

There is also the reality that some kids struggle in school (and sometimes, they struggle a lot), regardless of what parents may try.

This approach does not take into consideration the possibility that some kids may do poorly in school due to learning disorders or other mitigating factors that have nothing to do with the parents' involvement or interest in their children.

What's more, the implications of tying real financial consequences to the household based on children's school grades puts an enormous (and unfair) burden of responsibility on kids. This approach would, to a certain extent, make kids financially responsible for their parents.

While I agree there is abuse within the system, I also believe the vast majority of participants within the system are not abusers of the system. Additionally, there are better ways of dealing with said abuse that do not involve making children responsible for their families.

edited to correct typographical mistakes.


(This post was edited by clymbrchk on Mar 13, 2013, 9:08 AM)


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook