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

[Type Username Here]

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.

Where the hell did you get that from what I said? I said that there needs to exist a safety net whereby monies are distributed solely based on whether someone is poor or not. Race is not a factor.

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?

Keyword: culture. The Scandinavian countries have much more elaborate welfare systems, and much less generational welfare. People fall on the safety net and they bounce back. This is the only system I advocate for. If people take advantage of the system, so be it. I'm much more concerned with stopping the fraud and loopholes that goes on in the wealthy part of the spectrum.

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?

Ask Wall Street, Big Banks, Farmers, etc..

They seem to be doing just fine taking taxpayer money without meaningful stipulation.

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

For a conservative, you seem to love the idea of the Government being the parent in this case. That is essentially what you are asking for.

fukking hypocrites.

fukker wants the government to be daddy and mommy.

 

[Type Username Here]

Let's be clear on one thing:

“The maximum benefit for a mother with two children is $185 a month,” O’Neal told the News Sentinel. “That’s already low. If you take $60 plus dollars away, you’re just further limiting people who already have extremely few resources.”

 

[Brown_Pride]

Let's be clear on one thing:

is that just cash? or food? i know here in AZ 2 kids and a single mother get's you like 500+ in food stamps alone something like 250 cash a month maximum of 5 years (for life) on the cash part. FS you can get when you need.

Our social safety net is hardly a problem. I get that. On a percentage basis there are far, far bigger items that should be addressed, however, from a futures standpoint this is some serious shyt going on. We're talking about a perpetual slave class almost. Parents to dumb to help their kids who become to dumb to help there kids, etc, etc.

This bill takes a stab at correcting some of the attitude. Which is really at the heart of the problem. People getting FS is not an issue, people seeking to ONLY get assistance is. Clearly there are better ways to do this, but again, any step in that direction is a good one.

Also,
this bill doesn't tie assistance to kids, it ties it to their parents. A kid failing is more a parent's fault than anything else and that's the point a lot of people miss out on. Kids, in the majority of cases, are a reflection of their parents. YES there will be situations where some kids are just horrible little b*stards, most educators know those situations and those should be handled differently. It has also been pointed out time and again that getting a D is not that hard.

 

[Type Username Here]

 

[GoPro]

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?
Because every Liberal's argument against ideas that conflict with your delicate sensibilities is reactionarily dismissed with the derision "Republican", as if moderate democrats, who don't ascribe to your hippy go free free agenda, don't exists. I'm just return ing the favor.


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.
And that's where we disagree. This particular "safety net" (more like a welcome basket) NEEDS to be eventually eliminated.


How's this for draconian? Mandate forced state sterilization after one kid if you've been on federal assistance for a fixed period of time. 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.
*clap* Shocking. Actual worthwhile policies coming from a Lib. I wonder how these would go over with your compatriots who don't believe a thing is wrong with welfare. Add this bill into the mix. EVERY little bit furthers the ultimate goal. But of course your myopic ass doesn't see this.

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



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.

There goes that myopia again. Here, try on these bifocals: The fact that parents would actually be required to have the rudimentary knowledge to assist their children up to the high school would reduce the number of ignorant parents. If retaining elementary education is too much to ask, then at bare minimum attendance at PTA meetings should be mandatory. If even that's too much for your paternal ass, email contact with teachers to ensure your child's adherence to the curriculum. And if the child isn't, there must be clinical reason and a corrective plan of action.


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

Oh, so we're supposed to give a rats fukk about your family situation, and add that allegory to the debate, but not mine huh? Narcissistic fukk.

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

Yea whatever Chris Mathews. You liberals love to dismiss how your laissez faire behaviors come with consequences.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

I think this is a brilliant idea. If the parents didn't give a fukk about these kids before, I'm sure they'll care once their benefits get cut!

 

[Meta Reign]

Sounds like an excuse to beat up poor Black people. . . But it also sounds fiscally irresponsible on his end. I would imagine that the cost to maintain the infrastructure of such a program alone would be enormous. The state would have to hire more workers, review grades, take away benefits then give them back over and over. . .

Sound expensive as fukk and not very well thought out, but maybe he has a plan to pay for it. Fukk him either way.

There are other ways to get people off of welfare, but it should NOT be through the success or failure of children. This is just a stupid and spiteful idea.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

What is draconian about requiring a 1.0? Have you lost touch with reality?

If anything a kid getting a 1.0 in school is grounds for child welfare to look into the family and getting the kids proper care

That negroe was so excited about using the word draconian he just threw it in there to sound smart. LOL. LMAO at requiring your child to get a 1.0 "draconian".

 

[GoPro]

Where the hell did you get that from what I said? I said that there needs to exist a safety net whereby monies are distributed solely based on whether someone is poor or not. Race is not a factor.

I mention blacks because we receive assistance in greater percentage than any other ethnicity. I want this to cease.


Keyword: culture. The Scandinavian countries have much more elaborate welfare systems, and much less generational welfare. People fall on the safety net and they bounce back. This is the only system I advocate for. If people take advantage of the system, so be it. I'm much more concerned with stopping the fraud and loopholes that goes on in the wealthy part of the spectrum.

Key phrase: "bounce back". How do you bounce back when you start from nothing. Your continued decisiveness perpetuates your condition. I know you're not concerned. You're perfectly appreciable of a permanent destitute class. I'm not.


Ask Wall Street, Big Banks, Farmers, etc..

They seem to be doing just fine taking taxpayer money without meaningful stipulation.

Oh trust. I believe all forms of welfare should cease. I am not a conservative, but a moderate democrat. I detest both extremes cause they're both equally destructive.

For a conservative, you seem to love the idea of the Government being the parent in this case. That is essentially what you are asking for.

No. I would prefer the government not be involved in people's personal matters. But if it's going to be handing out money for no equivocal return, you damn right there should be oversight onto those who receive it.
fukking hypocrites.
What's hypocritical is you Libs who want the government to foster grown people, yet stay out of affairs like gay marriage. It's quite comical how both you Libs and Cons are, and don't even see it.
fukker wants the government to be daddy and mommy.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

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.

First Welfare itself is social engineering, so your entire point is moot. Second, I know you liberals enjoy finding every reason to defend poor parenting and unlimited welfare benefits, but most people know that a large amount of welfare recipients aren't taking the time to prepare their child properly for school and one day END the cycle of ignorance and poverty. If these parents are threatened with the possibility of loosing their benefits, i'll guarantee you that the grades of alot of these kids would dramatically improve.

I for one applaud out of the box thinking seen in ideas like this one. Im sure the liberal response to improving things is "tax the rich!" or "Spend more money!", etc,

 

[daze23]

I didn't read the whole thread, but it seems ideas like this lead to the question "and then what?"

your kid does bad in school, you lose your benefits... and then what? a life of crime? starvation?

 

[Robbie3000]

First Welfare itself is social engineering, so your entire point is moot. Second, I know you liberals enjoy finding every reason to defend poor parenting and unlimited welfare benefits, but most people know that a large amount of welfare recipients aren't taking the time to prepare their child properly for school and one day END the cycle of ignorance and poverty. If these parents are threatened with the possibility of loosing their benefits, i'll guarantee you that the grades of alot of these kids would dramatically improve.

I for one applaud out of the box thinking seen in ideas like this one. Im sure the liberal response to improving things is "tax the rich!" or "Spend more money!", etc,

I've asked the proponents of this law to show figures that justify the this proposal. So far no one has taken me up on that offer. How many kids with 1.0 averages are welfare kids vs. kids from other socio-economic backgrounds.

There is a huge unsupported assumption being made about people who receive government assistance. I went to school with kids who were on welfare and alot of them were very smart and did well in school. I also went to school with kids who's parents were working class and working middle class and some of these kids did poorly in school.

Y'll sound like some real uncle tom's with your view of people who receive public assistance.

 

[theworldismine13]

I didn't read the whole thread, but it seems ideas like this lead to the question "and then what?"

your kid does bad in school, you lose your benefits... and then what? a life of crime? starvation?

no you make sure your kids get all d's next semester, and you're good, if you cant do that then obviously child protection services needs to be called in

 

[Black Hans]

You guys that don't live in Tennessee might not know what is going on in this state.

The Tennessee Republicans(80% of the State) have declare an all out war on Memphis, which is the only true BLUE area in the state.

All the new state laws are aimed at Memphis. Also, remember that Memphis is predominantly black.

Damn. White people in TN punishing black people there for Obama winning?

 

[theworldismine13]

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" shyt is just sad.

this is a stupid melodramatic post, its very obvious that the number of people this will effect is few to none, there is nothing draconian about it out and there is not anymore social engineering than the very ideas you mention in your own post, the requirement is so weak that the main criticism should be that its weak, if a child is getting a 1.0 child protection services should be called and not simply a slap on the wrist which is what this bill is