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

[El Bombi]

by using my quote

So

 

[The Real]

Why would it effect black people?

Because a higher percentage of Black people are on welfare than whites.

You can whine all you want but this law or stopping it is not part of the black agenda, the black agenda is all about black excellence

Aside from the disproportionate impact this will have on Black people, it's also old-fashioned social engineering that won't do any good for Black people or anyone else.

 

[Type Username Here]

More whites are on welfare than blacks and it's gonna backfire against them

Because a higher percentage of Black people are on welfare than whites.

Can we begin by getting a consensus on which statistic we are going to go with?

 

[theworldismine13]

Because a higher percentage of Black people are on welfare than whites.



Aside from the disproportionate impact this will have on Black people, it's also old-fashioned social engineering that won't do any good for Black people or anyone else.

in no way shape or form does this law interfere with what black people need to do to get ahead, its pretty much irrelevant to black people, the only people that should lose any sleep at night over this are marxists such as yourself

 

[theworldismine13]

Can we begin by getting a consensus on which statistic we are going to go with?

they are both right, in raw numbers its more whites, but blacks make a disproportionate number of people on welfare considering they are 13% of the population

so everytime welfare comes up, black people under the guidance of the democratic party take it personally and try to make welfare part of the black agenda

apparently the fate of the black race is dependent on timely welfare payments

 

[Type Username Here]

they are both right, in raw numbers its more whites, but blacks make a disproportionate number of people on welfare considering they are 13% of the population

so everytime welfare comes up, black people under the guidance of the democratic party take it personally

I always feel that on here the statistic which is used seems to fluctuate.

When it is a negative aspect of welfare, it gets pointed out that most people on welfare are white.

When it is something like this, it gets pointed out that blacks will suffer because there is a disproportionate number of them on welfare.

I know both facts are true, but I just feel there is a selective choosing on which one to go with depending on the argument.

As far this law goes, it's absolute garbage. You help people who are poor because they are poor, nothing more and nothing less. Making them take drug tests or judging their children's performance in school is just absolute garbage.

That being said, if you're kid is getting Fs in school, I'd be willing to wager that at least 95% (number pulled out of my ass) of time it is due to bad parenting. Just my opinion.

 

[theworldismine13]

I always feel that on here the statistic which is used seems to fluctuate.

When it is a negative aspect of welfare, it gets pointed out that most people on welfare are white.

When it is something like this, it gets pointed out that blacks will suffer because there is a disproportionate number of them on welfare.

I know both facts are true, but I just feel there is a selective choosing on which one to go with depending on the argument.

As far this law goes, it's absolute garbage. You help people who are poor because they are poor, nothing more and nothing less. Making them take drug tests or judging their children's performance in school is just absolute garbage.

That being said, if you're kid is getting Fs in school, I'd be willing to wager that at least 95% (number pulled out of my ass) of time it is due to bad parenting. Just my opinion.

Yeah I agree about how people use the stats, that's why I was laughing about it in one of my firsts posts

As far as this I'm neutral about it, simply becuase I haven't seen any studies about it

But on principle I can't say it's wrong, nothing is free, once you accept a check from the government, you kinda have opened yourself to goverent rules, I don't think putting stipulations is violating your rights

I thinks it's a bit cooky but I have a hard time getting outraged about a pretty easy stipulation

 

[Type Username Here]

But on principle I can't say it's wrong, nothing is free, once you accept a check from the government, you kinda have opened yourself to goverent rules

Seems to only be the case when its poor people receiving checks. When its the Banks and Corporations, government rules and laws goes out the window. That's my biggest problems with this nonsense. If we fried the big fish, we'd be much better financially.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Can we begin by getting a consensus on which statistic we are going to go with?

Both are right....:lookherebruh:

 

[Type Username Here]

If, as a society, we choose to implement a safety net to help out the poor and disabled, that should be the only quantifying measure. We help them because they are poor and disabled, and it is the moral thing to do. If we go throwing stipulations then the morality ceases to exist.

But yes, there is a signification problem with generational welfare in this country, with all races.

 

[Type Username Here]

Both are right....:lookherebruh:

That wasn't my point friend.

My point is that each statistic gets brought up in certain cases, depending on what is being discussed. It seems a bit misleading and disingenuous at times.

 

[theworldismine13]

Seems to only be the case when its poor people receiving checks. When its the Banks and Corporations, government rules and laws goes out the window. That's my biggest problems with this nonsense. If we fried the big fish, we'd be much better financially.

That's valid but like I said I'm neutral about these stipulations until I see some stats either way, and it's certainly not a priority or something I would lose sleep over, rights arent being violated and this actual law will effect a minuscule amount of people, a kid would have to be getting straight f's in class for this law to even have an impact

 

[PewPew]

Im sorry guys but I fail to see what the big deal is. This is what I gathered from the article: Dude introduced a bill that will tie welfare money to how kids do in school. A d-, or 1.0 gpa, is enough to get you full benefits. So bascially all a parent has to do is make sure a kid shows up and does ok in school, not great not excellent, and nothing happens.

BUT if the student cant manage a d- average, they see a reduction in benefits. I say great fukking idea. If you can't motivate and help your kid pass school with a fukking 1.0 GPA, then you dont deserve to have the state keep feeding you and your dumbass kid and creating more welfare users.

I've always believed that welfare should come with stipulations because at some point it stops being help and becomes enabling. I hope it passes. If anything maybe these kids will actually stay in school and earn diplomas and hopefully do something with their lives instead of repeating the same cycle over and over

 

[PewPew]

If, as a society, we choose to implement a safety net to help out the poor and disabled, that should be the only quantifying measure. We help them because they are poor and disabled, and it is the moral thing to do. If we go throwing stipulations then the morality ceases to exist.

But yes, there is a signification problem with generational welfare in this country, with all races.

Yes but how long do you keep helping them? If this "poor" person doesn't wanna look for work and better their situations, should you just keep throwing hundreds at them?

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Would y'all really be willing to feed a man a fish you had to work hard to get EVERYDAY just because he doesn't know or want to learn how?

Im not. Call me a c00n, uncle tom, whatever, but if you're getting FREE money then I feel like some stipulations are warranted.

 

[Type Username Here]

Im sorry guys but I fail to see what the big deal is. This is what I gathered from the article: Dude introduced a bill that will tie welfare money to how kids do in school. A d-, or 1.0 gpa, is enough to get you full benefits. So bascially all a parent has to do is make sure a kid shows up and does ok in school, not great not excellent, and nothing happens.

BUT if the student cant manage a d- average, they see a reduction in benefits. I say great fukking idea. If you can't motivate and help your kid pass school with a fukking 1.0 GPA, then you dont deserve to have the state keep feeding you and your dumbass kid and creating more welfare users.

I've always believed that welfare should come with stipulations because at some point it stops being help and becomes enabling. I hope it passes. If anything maybe these kids will actually stay in school and earn diplomas and hopefully do something with their lives instead of repeating the same cycle over and over

You help the poor because they are poor. Nothing more, nothing less.