Obama finally called them out

[VT-Chicklit]

BigDaddy said The education problems run a lot deeper than just lazy kids. Most of the drop outs are students in inner city schools. They have a peer system that scoffs at successful students. The schools are under funded because they are in neighborhoods with low cost housing which equates to low property taxes. Those are the people Obama was talking to. Obama realizes the problems that his race faces. Being black he is able to criticize some of the things that a white person dare not say anything about.

If Obama is so concerned with the inner city children getting a hand up and out into a successful world, why has he allowed the Democratic Congress to cut a very successful school voucher program for poor inner city children in Washington DC. A good education is their way to a successful life. These children have had the rug pulled out from underneath them. Yes there were not enough vouchers for everyone who wanted one to get one but the accademic competition for the 1000 or so vouchers meant those who really wanted it and aplied themselves would be able to get a better education. It was a start on breaking the cycle that keeps poor inner city people down! The program was shot down after quite a few successful years of implementation. The children that are currently in their last year of the program will be allowed to finish, but those kids who were to start the program (they had been given slots) and the remaining children already in the program, were told they would not get the voucher that they had been promised! Some of these children were going to school with the Obama children. It doesnt seem like Obama and the Dems in congress really want to give them a leg up and out of the inner city. I dont usually have much good to say about the Republicans, but in this case they were at least for continuing the program and helping these children. This program had proven success and they killed it because it did not fit with their ajenda, public schools for all and education controlled by teachers unions and inept bureaucrats.

 

[VT-Chicklit]

FarmerChick said At some point WE all know we must take care of those that can't (and sometimes won't)
It is hard to have welfare, food stamps, etc. without having the good and the bad in the system. Hard truly to weed them out (and WOW I wish they could control that fraud and ALL!!!)-----but again, we can't hurt many who need cause some take.

I preface what I am about to say with, I dont have a problem helping people who are in need. I donate to worthy causes that feed, clothe, provide heat and shelter. My husband is a volunteer on the board of a local agency that helps people in need (especially seniors and invalids) get what they need to be able to stay at home and be as selfsufficient as they can. That said, I do not believe the government should be making the people that receive welfare so comfortable that there is NO INCENTIVE to get off.

I have someone in my family who was on welfare for years and now gets SSI. Much of her problem is self inflicted. She has lived in low income subsidized housing for about 10 years. Before that she lived with her parents until her father died and they lost the house. Her rent is paid. Her heat is paid. Her food is paid. She smokes, so indirectly that is paid for and so on. When I was paying over $4 a gallon for fuel oil and my thermostat was turned down to 50 and I was supplementing with wood heat that we broke our back to chop, her thermostat was at 80 (literally). I have a garden, chickens, and fruit trees (all of which add extra work) to supplement our groceries each week, she has government provided money and food stamps. She smokes. If I did, I wouldnt be able to afford it. She has been on welfare/AFDC for 15 years before getting SSI. She has not had an incentive to get off the government largess and now, because of an illness, will never be off the dole. She will never have any more than she already does unless it is given to her by the government.

The system is too geneous for those who are able to work, but dont. They are comfortable "enough" to lack the incentive to go to work. My relative would have been able to work for most of the time she was on welfare/AFDC. That would have set a good example for her child. She may have needed Food Stamps and help with heat or other bills but she would have been contributing as well. Instead she was paid to stay home, she was comfortable enough to lack the incentive to better her life. We need not pitty people who are in need so much, that we trap them in poverty. Making their lives comfortable enough that they do not want to make the effort to better it, is actually a disservice to their children who will know no better life! We need to be careful and give only enough to survive and not enough to be too comfortable.

That said, I do not feel that this applies to those who are sick, injured or elderly. By not coddleing those who should be able to help themselves, we free up monies for those who really need our help . . . those who are truely sick, injured or the elderly with out means.

Edited for spelling. I really need a new computer with spell check! It is not in the budget.

 

[reinbeau]

VT-Chicklit, download Firefox and use it as your browser, it has spell-check built right in.

As for the school voucher program shot down by Obama, I heard a very cynical report that the school his children are in participated in that program.....just saying.

 

[Big Daddy]

FarmerChick said At some point WE all know we must take care of those that can't (and sometimes won't)
It is hard to have welfare, food stamps, etc. without having the good and the bad in the system. Hard truly to weed them out (and WOW I wish they could control that fraud and ALL!!!)-----but again, we can't hurt many who need cause some take.

I preface what I am about to say with, I dont have a problem helping people who are in need. I donate to worthy causes that feed, clothe, provide heat and shelter. My husband is a volunteer on the board of a local agency that helps people in need (especially seniors and invalids) get what they need to be able to stay at home and be as selfsufficient as they can. That said, I do not believe the government should be making the people that receive welfare so comfortable that there is NO INCENTIVE to get off.

I have someone in my family who was on welfare for years and now gets SSI. Much of her problem is self inflicted. She has lived in low income subsidized housing for about 10 years. Before that she lived with her parents until her father died and they lost the house. Her rent is paid. Her heat is paid. Her food is paid. She smokes, so indirectly that is paid for and so on. When I was paying over $4 a gallon for fuel oil and my thermostat was turned down to 50 and I was supplementing with wood heat that we broke our back to chop, her thermostat was at 80 (literally). I have a garden, chickens, and fruit trees (all of which add extra work) to supplement our groceries each week, she has government provided money and food stamps. She smokes. If I did, I wouldnt be able to afford it. She has been on welfare/AFDC for 15 years before getting SSI. She has not had an incentive to get off the government largess and now, because of an illness, will never be off the dole. She will never have any more than she already does unless it is given to her by the government.

The system is too geneous for those who are able to work, but dont. They are comfortable "enough" to lack the incentive to go to work. My relative would have been able to work for most of the time she was on welfare/AFDC. That would have set a good example for her child. She may have needed Food Stamps and help with heat or other bills but she would have been contributing as well. Instead she was paid to stay home, she was comfortable enough to lack the incentive to better her life. We need not pitty people who are in need so much, that we trap them in poverty. Making their lives comfortable enough that they do not want to make the effort to better it, is actually a disservice to their children who will know no better life! We need to be careful and give only enough to survive and not enough to be too comfortable.

That said, I do not feel that this applies to those who are sick, injured or elderly. By not coddleing those who should be able to help themselves, we free up monies for those who really need our help . . . those who are truely sick, injured or the elderly with out means.

Edited for spelling. I really need a new computer with spell check! It is not in the budget.

Switch to Firefox and use G-Mail. FREE.

The welfare system is full of problems. You just named a few. Plenty of people do take advantage of it. I could never live like that. There will always be freeloaders. If there is a child involved, you have to put up with the freeloader. There just isn't enough money to be sure standards are met. Legislation usually gives away freebies and allows a lot of abuses. Excesses are written in to the system in exchange for campaign contributions.

As for the school vouchers. The Republicans want school vouchers for all and no public schools. I don't know. I can't think of why it would be a problem. It is a Republican idea though, so there must be a flaw. I remember the DC thing. You're right. Our current system is not good for inner city kids. Seems to work well for middle class and of course upper class already goes to private schools. Maybe the Dems should use it as a bargaining chip. Single payer health care and we close all public schools and give everybody school vouchers,

 

[Wifezilla]

It is a Republican idea though, so there must be a flaw.

 

[reinbeau]

And those great Democrats are doing such a bang-up job, aren't they? Making sweeping statements like that does nothing to bolster your arguments - especially since the D's and the R's are both doing nothing to move this country forward economically.

 

[Big Daddy]

And those great Democrats are doing such a bang-up job, aren't they? Making sweeping statements like that does nothing to bolster your arguments - especially since the D's and the R's are both doing nothing to move this country forward economically.

It was a joke. Sorry, I don't know how to use the silly faces. I actually think it's a better idea. I would like to know why the Dems fight it so hard. It bears looking in too. If it was administered correctly it might improve the schooling situation. We ought to see what the rest of the civilized countries are doing, since they all score ahead of us.

Actually the D's are doing something to move the country forward. You just don't agree with what they're doing. Your right about the R's though. So far all they have done is crossed their arms and stomped their feet on the ground and whined out a big long NOOOOO. The only thing they have suggested is more tax cuts for the rich. It didn't work with Reagan. It didn't work with Bush. Why do they think it will work now. Answer is they don't. Write your party and ask them when they are going to try to help instead of spending all their time being obstructionist. My party is doing just fine except they are trying to be too inclusive.

 

[Big Daddy]

It is a Republican idea though, so there must be a flaw.

See, Wifezilla knew I was joking.

 

[houndit]

but thats the part of the argument that i dont get -- no one is saying this is the ONLY healthcare plan or that the govt is going to take over ALL health coverage... just make an option available to folks (like me) who dont work.

The bill says that after a certain amount of time the health care companies can no longer except new customers. This will run them out of business. So the government will be the only healthcare system. They are taking over healthcare. Why should we let the government run something they do not know about. How much do they know about doctoring?
Look at all the other countries!!!!! Look at Canada!!!! Do they have great healthcare??? They come here to have their children because they are refused their.

In the Declaration of Independence it said that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights among which are Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No reference to the right of healthcare.

 

[patandchickens]

Look at Canada!!!! Do they have great healthcare??? They come here to have their children because they are refused their.

Actually, many Canadians think Canada DOES have pretty good healthcare and would not swap places with the US.

Yes, some Canadians come to the US for some things... but "to have children"???? No way, no how. One of the fairly spectacular (to me) aspects of Canadian healthcare is that it covers ALL CHILDBIRTH AND RELATED EXPENSES, even (in many places) midwives or homebirtsh, even complications, even babies with severe problems. At zero cost to the parents.

VERY much unlike the US, where if you are uninsured (and at least til recently, dunno if it's any different now, if you changed insurance while you were pregnant and thus it was a preexisting condition) you were S-O-L for coverage of the birth, which typically runs like $10k for a straightforward hospital birth to hundreds of thousands if there are problems -- which causes considerable hardship for many people.

In the Declaration of Independence it said that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights among which are Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No reference to the right of healthcare.

Sure -- healthcare, as we know it today, did not really EXIST then.

Declaration of Independance doesn't say anything about the internet, space travel, illegal immigration, or the United Nations either. Astute and farsighted as the founding fathers were, there were some changes in the world that could not be forseen.

Pat