TN Repub state Senator wants to tie welfare benefits to kids' academic performance

[Robbie3000]

I can't justify that at all, but I can justify not giving a fuk whether does law passes or not, becuase it will effect pretty much....nobody, and if it does effect somebody than so be it, there is zero crisis here

So you can't even justify the need for this law but yet you have made several posts defending it's validity?

Have you given any consideration to the costs of enforcing this ass backward law especially if it is realized that it was an unnecessary law in the first place?

Ya'll be on that bullshyt sometimes.

 

[theworldismine13]

But bottom line for me is that this is exhibit A as to why black people should not outsource the black agenda to liberals, this law will have little to no impact on black people and we need to focus on our agenda which is making sure black kids get good grades and getting people off welfare, this law does not interfere with our agenda and this law is not the battle line for black progress

 

[theworldismine13]

So you can't even justify the need for this law but yet you have made several posts defending it's validity?

Have you given any consideration to the costs of enforcing this ass backward law especially if it is realized that it was an unnecessary law in the first place?

Ya'll be on that bullshyt sometimes.

I said I'm neutral on the law and it will not have any significant impact becuase the actual requirement of 1.0 is laughably low

The costs to this law are minimal, it would just another checkbox in a form, but if I'm wrong let me know

Lets say this law passes, so what? There is no reason for me to give a fuk

 

[GoPro]

Its perplexing how liberals either can't, or don't want to, fathom how unfettered welfare would result in perpetual dependence
- How they're ignorant of the suggestion that rewarding women for producing b*stard children could possibly be the cause of the destruction of the family unit.
- How they believe throwing more money into education (eventhough we already spend more per capita than any country in the world) will make any fukks worth a difference when those students come from dysfunctional home environments. The other day I was in the Harlem DMV and this "family" was sitting behind me. The two hoodlum "parents" were loud and cursing up a storm. Once then finally shut up for a while, their kid (could've been 6-7) began reading his book aloud, pretty well too. I was impressed, sadly. The piece of shyt mother actually told him to "stop that because he was disturbing other people" Five seconds later the two "parents" started up again

I'm looking at @Type Username Here 's post with disgust and am starting to buy into the Republican talking point that white liberals don't think those on the lower rung of society can fend for themselves, poor blacks in particular. Liberals, I want you to really contemplate the fruitfulness of your ideology and whether it really supports more than it destroys. I mean, how in your mind does a culture of unmitigated dependency help uplift people? Forget about they budgetary aspect of the argument that republicans insincerely use, that's inconsequential to me. How does just giving people things with no stipulations benefit them in any meaningful way? Yall tend to take on a parental role to the poor, yet even responsible parents don't give their children money without stipulation (i.e. getting good grades, doing their chores, ya know, actually being productive), nor do they intend on supporting their kids for life.

I'm really trying to understand your end game here.

 

[Listen]

Its perplexing how liberals either can't, or don't want to, fathom how unfettered welfare would result in perpetual dependence
- How they're ignorant of the suggestion that rewarding women for producing b*stard children could possibly be the cause of the destruction of the family unit.
- How they believe throwing more money into education (eventhough we already spend more per capita than any country in the world) will make any fukks worth a difference when those students come from dysfunctional home environments. The other day I was in the Harlem DMV and this "family" was sitting behind me. The two hoodlum "parents" were loud and cursing up a storm. Once then finally shut up for a while, their kid (could've been 6-7) began reading his book aloud, pretty well too. I was impressed, sadly. The piece of shyt mother actually told him to "stop that because he was disturbing other people" Five seconds later the two "parents" started up again

I'm looking at @Type Username Here 's post with disgust and am starting to buy into the Republican talking point that white liberals don't think those on the lower rung of society can fend for themselves, poor blacks in particular. Liberals, I want you to really contemplate the fruitfulness of your ideology and whether it really supports more than it destroys. I mean, how in your mind does a culture of unmitigated dependency help uplift people? Forget about they budgetary aspect of the argument that republicans insincerely use, that's inconsequential to me. How does just giving people things with no stipulations benefit them in any meaningful way? Yall tend to take on a parental role to the poor, yet even responsible parents don't give their children money without stipulation (i.e. getting good grades, doing their chores, ya know, actually being productive), nor do they intend on supporting their kids for life.

I'm really trying to understand your end game here.

While I find the senator and this bill a disingenuous shot at classism, I by no means think that stipulations for welfare are nefarious items to be shot down.

Lets use unemployment instead of welfare for a second.

The safety net of unemployment is unmatched in the ability to try and catch people when they fall and pretty clearly to me one of our best social programs:

-Its based on a reasonable factor and scale of your most recent employment and pay levels, so its not giving too much money to people who never earned that much before
-its designed to help you not lose everything when you look for more employment
-it has an end date.

The only downside is when the economy drops like it has, and job scarcity rises, employers can lower their salary obligations and still find workers willing to take them. Now, certain people can only find jobs that actually pay them less money than they take home on unemployment.

Now, in that scenario, should we see this as problematic of the program, and do away with it, or should we see the values of the program and try to come up with smarter ways to implement it?

Welfare needs reform, but welfare needs to exist.

 

[CrimsonTider]

Not trolll here at all....
SOunds like a good idea in theory. If you can't help your kids to get a passing grade D...1.0gpa...then damn. Your job essentially would be to make sure the kid shows up AND is at least making an effort. Do you realize how hard it is to get a D while actually going to school?

If you're suspended fine I get it, a D is probably not going to be possible, if you're ditching it's doable, but a little harder. To actually show up though, and get a D...really? We can't hold ourselves to the D standard?

Again this is sound in theory, i'm assuming there would be special circumstances for special needs kids but ultimately how is this bad?

My idea would have been this plus in the cases where an able bodied person was receiving assistance they should be required to perform some community service, like 5 week or something.

Welfare is a problem, it has turned from a helping hand into a mental crutch. I'm not for taking it away, but what's wrong for asking someone to work a little for what they get for free?

Or even better yet, particularly for food stamps, limit what can be purchased. I see far to many micro wave dinners junk food. Limit that shyt to healthy food, or at least cut off some of the items you can purchase.

only thing i agree with is cutting benefits if parents arent sending their kids to school

once theyre in school thats on the teachers imo

as far as welfare goes...imo it should have a finite term of payment. and then give substantive tax credits for low income families

the problem with welfare is people on it not actively seeking work or doing "just enough" to stay on welfare indefinitely which wasnt its purpose.

i actually like the idea. i bet parents will make their kid put down the playstation and pick up the books if their food depended on it. A D isn't that hard to get. even tho most kids are diagnosed with learning disabilities they should still be able to put up a D.
you have to make parents care for the child to care and this seems like a way to do that. is it an attack on blacks yes but i don't see this as an attack if parents do their part. it can be beneficial. hell 50% of grades is attendance and HW completion.

Its perplexing how liberals either can't, or don't want to, fathom how unfettered welfare would result in perpetual dependence
- How they're ignorant of the suggestion that rewarding women for producing b*stard children could possibly be the cause of the destruction of the family unit.
- How they believe throwing more money into education (eventhough we already spend more per capita than any country in the world) will make any fukks worth a difference when those students come from dysfunctional home environments. The other day I was in the Harlem DMV and this "family" was sitting behind me. The two hoodlum "parents" were loud and cursing up a storm. Once then finally shut up for a while, their kid (could've been 6-7) began reading his book aloud, pretty well too. I was impressed, sadly. The piece of shyt mother actually told him to "stop that because he was disturbing other people" Five seconds later the two "parents" started up again

I'm looking at @Type Username Here 's post with disgust and am starting to buy into the Republican talking point that white liberals don't think those on the lower rung of society can fend for themselves, poor blacks in particular. Liberals, I want you to really contemplate the fruitfulness of your ideology and whether it really supports more than it destroys. I mean, how in your mind does a culture of unmitigated dependency help uplift people? Forget about they budgetary aspect of the argument that republicans insincerely use, that's inconsequential to me. How does just giving people things with no stipulations benefit them in any meaningful way? Yall tend to take on a parental role to the poor, yet even responsible parents don't give their children money without stipulation (i.e. getting good grades, doing their chores, ya know, actually being productive), nor do they intend on supporting their kids for life.

I'm really trying to understand your end game here.

You're question conviently ignores a lot facts.

You are ignoring how most welfare recipients actually work.

You are also ignoring depressed wages and how cost of living is increasing.

You also ignore the fact that in capitalism somebody has to get paid peanuts for this to work.

Cashiers, janitors, etc can't make a decent livable wage and the CEOs and owner continue to make millions upon millions

Also welfare is nowhere near one of the top reasons that creates generational poverty or dependency

 

[MMS]

you can sympathize with people who dont work hard all you want

but i wont, in theory welfare is just fine how it is

but anyone with half a brain can see what most people are doing on it

 

[OG Talk]

You're question conviently ignores a lot facts.

I know somebody who's mom wouldn't be allowed to cash her welfare check

 

[CrimsonTider]

you can sympathize with people who dont work hard all you want

but i wont, in theory welfare is just fine how it is

but anyone with half a brain can see what most people are doing on it

So welfare recipients don't work hard?

What are most people doing?

Other benefiting from government programs like you do with tax breaks.

I know somebody who's mom wouldn't be allowed to cash her welfare check

I get an F on that post, Mrs Buck?

 

[MMS]

So welfare recipients don't work hard?

What are most people doing?

Other benefiting from government programs like you do with tax breaks.

1. No
2. working
3. i get exactly one tax break and its cause im in school (another break but im ill with tax code )

eitherway nah, im no selling the fukk outta your whole woe is welfare recipient. every single person ive seen in my lifetime in Alabama either doesnt need welfare or uses it inadequately. and I lived in the shyt parts of huntsville(oakwood ave) and montgomery(south of atlanta hwy)

so miss me with this bs, i hate agreeing with repubs but this is one thing they are right on. and if you take ur glasses off you can see that this effects more white families than black ones..its just its only the black ones you see in the news

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I think a lot of you proponents of this bullshyt bill need to rethink your reasoning here because you just sounds ridiculous.

And please miss me with this "liberal" nonsense because I am in full agreeance with the notion that generational welfare dependence is a serious problem and I am in support of tying government assistance qualifications with expected actions, some of which many would find draconian. Why this bill is retarded is that it ties the qualification to the actions of fukking children!

We're not talking about mandating that the recipient seek employment, or job training, or stay away from crime, or limit the number of children you have. We're talking basing it on the academic performance of children; a phenomena that is hinged upon a number of factors, and not necessarily always a direct action of the parent receiving the money.

There can be a myriad of reasons why a child is failing in school. They could be going hungry, have a chronic illness, a learning disability, attention deficit, or some other cognitive deficiency, be affected by lead or some other chemical contaminant that are usually deposited near poor areas of cities, be bullied, abused physically or sexually, have a chaotic violent home, drug abuse in the home, etc.

The problem is some of you think that a parent is the be-all end-all that determines everything that happens in a child's life and that is simply not true. Y'all are not sociologists or psychologists...you're just speaking from hubris. I'm sorry to tell you, but parenting is just one factor that goes into molding a child. Watch this video for a brief summary of some good info.



Does that mean that parenting is not very important in a child's academic performance? Of course not (I only mention feel the need to say that as a pre-emptive strike against an expected strawman). It means it's an important factor but just one factor, and when you're dealing with people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, there's a multitude of other stressors at play. That is why you sometimes see parents who do stress academics and are not deadbeat bums have children who drop out of school. So all y'all's stories about how your father was poor and worked this and that so that you could be where you are just reeks of sanctimonious, self-serving bullshyt.

Y'all know I'm not a dummy, but me and my sister both went through periods where we were failing in school despite having parents who were on us about grades. My sister brought home four Ds and two Fs on a report card in 8th grade and she later went on to get a Ph.D from one of the elite universities in the country. Good thing we weren't on welfare in TN. Our bad grades wasn't a fault of parents who didn't care and weren't actively engaged, there were other factors at play. When you get into middle school and high school years, sometimes kids just can't be reached by their parents. I've seen it plenty of times.

Y'all are talking about "what kid can't maintain a D"? That's not the fukking point. You're tying social welfare benefits for people trying to run households to the grades of 7 year olds and that's innately sick and ass backwards.

Like The Real said, this is social engineering, and social engineering always leads to unintended consequences and distortions. I bet you didn't even think about this: you realize that there a lot of teachers who are going to feel sympathy from students who are poor, wearing the same clothes over and over and who they know come from unstable homes right? A lot of teachers are going to just gives kids Ds they didn't deserve just because they feel sorry for them and don't want to see their benefits get cut. What a lot of good that'll do.

And a lot of single mothers are always at work and don't have a lot of time to devote to helping kids with their homework, and even if they did, a lot of them can't even do the homework themselves. You do realize particularly at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder a lot of the parents themselves are dropouts right? But they're supposed to teach their kids algebra?

The bill is so flawed and just totally illogical on so many fronts it's ridiculous. To hear people who normally have reasonable opinions on matters like Brown Pride supporting this half-cocked, hair-brained, non sequitur logic-based, right-wing social engineering, "let's beat up on poor people for political gain and more funding for corporate tax breaks" shyt is just sad.

 

[GoPro]

While I find the senator and this bill a disingenuous shot at classism, I by no means think that stipulations for welfare are nefarious items to be shot down.

Lets use unemployment instead of welfare for a second.

The safety net of unemployment is unmatched in the ability to try and catch people when they fall and pretty clearly to me one of our best social programs:

-Its based on a reasonable factor and scale of your most recent employment and pay levels, so its not giving too much money to people who never earned that much before
-its designed to help you not lose everything when you look for more employment
-it has an end date.

The only downside is when the economy drops like it has, and job scarcity rises, employers can lower their salary obligations and still find workers willing to take them. Now, certain people can only find jobs that actually pay them less money than they take home on unemployment.

Now, in that scenario, should we see this as problematic of the program, and do away with it, or should we see the values of the program and try to come up with smarter ways to implement it?

Welfare needs reform, but welfare needs to exist.

I don't have a problem with unemployment. You worked for that money is some fashion, you're entitled to it. Just like social security. My problem is people like CrimsonTider and TUH who see nothing wrong with rewarding people for irresponsible behavior, and encouraging future generations of decadence by having no endgame policy. In case those two are unaware, it is a common bragging point in the hood that if you get pregnant, the government will take care of you. If you don't live in the hood and have no access to this thought process, just watch the movie Precious.

IMO, welfare should be gradually reduced to extinction.

 

[RC-P90]

it is crazy how people will admit that the plan might not have been created to improve academic performance then turn around and insist that it will do just that...does the plan provide kids or parents instruction on how to maintain a d average????..if not it will only create more problems for the family when a kid fails to meet the requirement...

 

[GoPro]

I think a lot of you proponents of this bullshyt bill need to rethink your reasoning here because you just sounds ridiculous.

And please miss me with this "liberal" nonsense because I am in full agreeance with the notion that generational welfare dependence is a serious problem and I am in support of tying government assistance qualifications with expected actions, some of which many would find draconian. Why this bill is retarded is that it ties the qualification to the actions of fukking children!

We're not talking about mandating that the recipient seek employment, or job training, or stay away from crime, or limit the number of children you have. We're talking basing it on the academic performance of children; a phenomena that is hinged upon a number of factors, and not necessarily always a direct action of the parent receiving the money.

There can be a myriad of reasons why a child is failing in school. They could be going hungry, have a chronic illness, a learning disability, attention deficit, or some other cognitive deficiency, be affected by lead or some other chemical contaminant that are usually deposited near poor areas of cities, be bullied, abused physically or sexually, have a chaotic violent home, drug abuse in the home, etc.

The problem is some of you think that a parent is the be-all end-all that determines everything that happens in a child's life and that is simply not true. Y'all are not sociologists or psychologists...you're just speaking from hubris. I'm sorry to tell you, but parenting is just one factor that goes into molding a child. Watch this video for a brief summary of some good info.

Steven Pinker - Parental Influence On Personality - YouTube

Does that mean that parenting is not very important in a child's academic performance? Of course not (I only mention feel the need to say that as a pre-emptive strike against an expected strawman). It means it's an important factor but just one factor, and when you're dealing with people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, there's a multitude of other stressors at play. That is why you sometimes see parents who do stress academics and are not deadbeat bums have children who drop out of school. So all y'all's stories about how your father was poor and worked this and that so that you could be where you are just reeks of sanctimonious, self-serving bullshyt.

Y'all know I'm not a dummy, but me and my sister both went through periods where we were failing in school despite having parents who were on us about grades. My sister brought home four Ds and two Fs on a report card in 8th grade and she later went on to get a Ph.D from one of the elite universities in the country. Good thing we weren't on welfare in TN. Our bad grades wasn't a fault of parents who didn't care and weren't actively engaged, there were other factors at play. When you get into middle school and high school years, sometimes kids just can't be reached by their parents. I've seen it plenty of times.

Y'all are talking about "what kid can't maintain a D"? That's not the fukking point. You're tying social welfare benefits for people trying to run households to the grades of 7 year olds and that's innately sick and ass backwards.

Like The Real said, this is social engineering, and social engineering always leads to unintended consequences and distortions. I bet you didn't even think about this: you realize that there a lot of teachers who are going to feel sympathy from students who are poor, wearing the same clothes over and over and who they know come from unstable homes right? A lot of teachers are going to just gives kids Ds they didn't deserve just because they feel sorry for them and don't want to see their benefits get cut. What a lot of good that'll do.

And a lot of single mothers are always at work and don't have a lot of time to devote to helping kids with their homework, and even if they did, a lot of them can't even do the homework themselves. You do realize particularly at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder a lot of the parents themselves are dropouts right? But they're supposed to teach their kids algebra?

The bill is so flawed and just totally illogical on so many fronts it's ridiculous. To hear people who normally have reasonable opinions on matters like Brown Pride supporting this half-cocked, hair-brained, non sequitur logic-based, right-wing social engineering, "let's beat up on poor people for political gain and more funding for corporate tax breaks" is just sad.

No. Instead of us rethinking our positions, how about you "liberals" "progressives", (whatever the hell you wanna call yourselves) stop whining about measures and conjure up rational ideas to end generational dependency rather than "let's just give them more money". Of course this bill isn't the perfect solution, but it's one step in the means to an end. You mentioned your "draconian" ideas. Name a couple, please. Let's put your rationality to the test.

And with all of your hyperbole about extenuating circumstances that cause a child's bad performance (all of which can be diagnosed and render a family exempt from this bill's graces), the bolded stands out as raison d'etre. You mention your temporary troubles in school, despite having parents who pushed you to excel. You inevitably overcame that period of underachievement, with I'm sure the help of said parents. Most of these kids don't even have that. They've lost even before they get started. You unintentionally boosts our point with the mention of high school drop outs having children. IMO, they shouldn't even see that as an option, yet the government gives it to them. My mother waited until she was 40 to have me. I'm 31 with no children. Why is waiting until you're ready so inconceivable to some people? I'll tell you why. Because liberals say you should fukk whenever you want to fukk, how often you wanna fukk, with no fukking responsibility or repercussions. You want condoms? We'll pay for that. You want an abortion? We'll pay for that too! You want to go ahead and have that baby? OF COURSE, go right the fukk on ahead. We got you! We got you!

Surely you can conjecture that this could possibly be destructive.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

No. Instead of us rethinking our positions, how about you "liberals" "progressives", (whatever the hell you wanna call yourselves) stop whining about measures and conjure up rational ideas to end generational dependency rather than "let's just give them more money".

Why would open up your post with a stupid ass "liberal" canard when I specifically stated that this isn't about liberalism, but a half-ass, poor thought-out policy that makes income and living conditions dependent upon children and I'm not against attaching conditions for federal and state assistance?

Of course this bill isn't the perfect solution, but it's one step in the means to an end.

No it's not a step to anything. It's fukking stupid and accomplishes not a single thing and is nothing more than an attempt to start to chip away at the social safety, relying on the misguided naivette of people like you who can be easily manipulating into supporting legislation by pressing your emotional buttons.

You mentioned your "draconian" ideas. Name a couple, please. Let's put your rationality to the test.

You can't stay in Section 8 housing or get TANF forever without working, as many are doing now. Offering job training opportunities or infrastructure projects to get people working. You incentivize or add conditions to the ADULTS getting the assistance, not the child.

And with all of your hyperbole about extenuating circumstances that cause a child's bad performance (all of which can be diagnosed and render a family exempt from this bill's graces),

The bold is bullshyt and nothing I said was hyperbole, but go on.

the bolded stands out as raison d'etre. You mention your temporary troubles in school, despite having parents who pushed you to excel. You inevitably overcame that period of underachievement, with I'm sure the help of said parents. Most of these kids don't even have that. They've lost even before they get started. You unintentionally boosts our point with the mention of high school drop outs having children. IMO, they shouldn't even see that as an option, yet the government gives it to them.

Uh, how would that boost your point? You're all over the place. If seems like you're morphing a general criticism of the welfare state in general into this discussion about a specific piece of legislation. The fact is that high school dropouts are having children. This dumb ass bill does nothing to change or address that.

My mother waited until she was 40 to have me. I'm 31 with no children. Why is waiting until you're ready so inconceivable to some people? I'll tell you why.

So? You want a cookie? Nobody cares when your mother had you.

Because liberals say you should fukk whenever you want to fukk, how often you wanna fukk, with no fukking responsibility or repercussions. You want condoms? We'll pay for that. You want an abortion? We'll pay for that too! You want to go ahead and have that baby? OF COURSE, go right the fukk on ahead. We got you! We got you!

Surely you can conjecture that this could possibly be destructive.

Okay Rush Limbaugh. You stopped even attempting to make a salient, rational point about the topic several sentences ago.