Text 20982, 69 rader
Skriven 2008-09-17 15:52:22 av shannon talley (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Ross Cassell
Ärende: Re: Things Change
=========================
Howdy,

> st> True, but who is going to pass a law to ban births? There will ALWAYS
> st> be a population of poor or disadvantaged or derelicts, however one
> st> wants to label them -- they will always exist.  Should we make them
> st> more poor & more disadvantaged?  I don't have the answers; and to
> st> date, I'm unaware of anyone who does.  But to turn off their aid
> st> completely because they had a kiddo is playing a very obtuse game.
> No, simply tell them up front that they wont receive additional benifits 
> should
> they have more children. The cycle has to be broken somewhere.

So let's examine your scenario for a moment.  Example: Jane Doe is on TANF, 
Unemployment, WIC, welfare funded training program & Food Stamps.  She has 
been out of work for 8 weeks, doesn't have a High School education, and her 
best job was at Spatula City retail where she worked as a cashier. She is 
working toward obtaining a GED & a certification in accounting (or whatever) 
with her welfare funded training program.  She has been told that if she had 
another child, she would be excluded for everything (or even part for that 
matter).

Ok, she gets pregnant and has a child.  Now she is broke, having a child, 
and completely homeless.  The burden of her existence falls back onto the 
tax-payers "anyway" -- AND now she is in an even worse position because it 
will cost even MORE money to get her a new place to live -- or maybe it will 
cost us NOTHING and she stays homeless and the baby freezes during the 
winter as she slept in a vacant car or alley.

I -- like you -- HATE a welfare state.  I think that it is money that could 
be spent doing something more important.  But to cut funding or hell, even 
reduce (the already extremely low funding they receive) is ludicrous.  I 
don't have the answers for this issue Ross, but I don't believe that either 
the extreme left or right solutions are going to solve it.

> >> Examples:
> >> Drunk Driving Laws...
> >> Sexual Harassment/Hostile Workplace..
> >> Weak and pathetic in the days of old, ZERO tolerance with severe
> >> penalties (mostly civil) today. How many times have you heard today
> Again I wasnt talking about old laws regarding cattle rustling..
> I was talking about why some laws have gotten tougher, you ignored the 
> examples
> I cited.

That wasn't my intention; actually I highlighted them (sorry for the 
mis-communication).  I believe that "zero tolerance" is absolutely complete 
bull; as a society we need to take time and look at each and every single 
issue more closely including the items you mentioned.  Perhaps that DWI 
example was a ranch hand going to the feed store and was unaware someone had 
thrown a beer can in the back of his truck.  He get's pulled over because he 
was speeding and is arrested for drinking while driving -- THAT is an 
example of what I originally meant by Zero Tolerance.  Just as the Soldier 
who gave his limb for his country and can't get any government funding for a 
college education because 25 years before that date, when he was 15 yrs old, 
he had been prosecuted for possession of Cannabis (less than 1 gram) -- THAT 
is Zero Tolerance.   THAT is what the Republicans have helped to bring to 
our society (and some dems as well, but it's mostly been a GOP campaign).

> Giving a President every thing he wants isnt necessarily a good thing.

I'll agree but a president can get things done easier if he has an aligned 
party in the Congress.  You have to admit, during the later Clinton 
Administration, the GOP was the complete opposite of 'helpful' when it came 
to ANY bill.

Shannon 

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)