Play online chess!

From	Message
anomalocaris 18-Nov-14, 14:59	Question We all know its a good thing to help others. So that being said, Is it really compassionate to have someone on welfare for years or are we doing an injustice?
saintinsanity 18-Nov-14, 17:56	Like everything else, it depends
jonheck 03-Dec-14, 06:45	pawntificator "Like everything else, it depends. In deed it does! For decades a couple of Appalachian states have doled out disability benefits to their citizens for common mental disorders, with little more than a quick visit to the Psychiatrist. The practice is largely viewed as motivated by the federal funds available to fill those states coffers. For whatever reason, it has become the way and plans of life for the expectant recipients. The Feds have stepped in and those questionable disabilities will be reevaluated in the near future. The news around here is that many will loose their eligibility. Fair, perhaps! Problem, many of those recipients know of any other life style and have made little to any attempts to do or learn anything else. What are they supposed to do without their disability checks? Are they responsible for the laxity of their states that created the problem? That is not to suggest that there are not many others who receive years and even life times of assistance from what needs to be a compassionate society. That assistance is certainly not doing them an injustice.
softaire 03-Dec-14, 07:26	The rule should be that there is long-term government assistance only to those who are physically or mentally unable to qualify for work. There should be long-term reduced assistance for those peoples with disabilities that can still qualify for some work, but the assistance should be reduced and enough to supplement a reduced income. It should make total income meet some basic minimum or better. (They should not be penalized for going to work) There should be short-term assistance to those who are out of work temporarily. The assistance should be a minimum (to get by temporarily) and it should include retraining and reeducation, if appropriate plus enough for housing, food, medical etc. There should be a limited time-table but should include the time to retrain and then look for new employment. Or, it should include enough time to recover from the illness or problem causing loss of ability to work. This should apply to any situation... loss of employment, welfare, families with dependent children etc. but it should NOT last forever. It should NOT pay for having more children.
jonheck 03-Dec-14, 07:51	Softaire Not paying for having more children is another common rant from the right. Less agitating more rational points would be far more productive.
softaire 03-Dec-14, 07:57	jon It is a known fact that single women on welfare, with government child support do have more babies because the government pays more per child. That is not a rant... it is a fact. We should not encourage more single parent children when we know that they have a greater chance of growing up illiterate, dropping out of school, not being able to get a job or only getting low pay jobs, joining a gang, committing crime and getting put in jail etc. Is that what you are advocating for?
jonheck 03-Dec-14, 08:19	Softaire "It is a known fact that single women on welfare have more children because the Gov pays more per child." I don't think it was your intent but you seemed to indite all single women on welfare. It is a known fact that many parents have more than average numbers of children.
softaire 03-Dec-14, 10:19	jon Why are you prolonging the agony. You know that 70 % of Black babies are born out of wedlock to a single parent mother. Many of them are living on welfare and aid to dependent children. Because they are not working and because they have no husband helping financially, the one thing they do to get more money is simply to have another kid. Of course not all do. And, of course, it is not only Black females that do that. But, it is my opinion that we should not pay more money based on the number of kids. The financial aid should be a set amount (enough only to get by). The assistance then should be also for health care, education, baby sitting, and finding a job. And, it should also be temporary... to be determined by education requirements and a "reasonable" period of time to find a job. A subsidized amount could be paid for longer periods in order to make going to work more attractive than sitting at home.
deadofknight 03-Dec-14, 14:41	A feast full of famine. Lets examine this: Dr. Heck says, "The Feds have stepped in and those questionable disabilities will be reevaluated in the near future. The news around here is that many will loose their eligibility. Fair, perhaps! Problem, many of those recipients know of any other life style and have made little to any attempts to do or learn anything else. What are they supposed to do without their disability checks? Are they responsible for the laxity of their states that created the problem?" I totally agree with his conclusions here. The logic is this: 1. Poorly run, large, questionable programs give out financial aid that they should not. 2. They are reviewing their practices to verify and fix this problem. 3. In the meantime, those that are using the system are becoming dependent upon it. 4. This dependence breeds slothful, indigent, and irresponsible people that are now unable to be productive. 5. The problem we are now facing is that removing them from the programs will result in their total demise because they have no skills, no competitive edge in the world or the necessary work standards and responsibility to lead their lives like they should. There has never been a better stream of logic drawn up so artfully as this that totally destroys the addictive, debilitating, destructive, socialized, liberal programs of the Federal Government on this website. JonHeck...you deserve an award or a diploma or something. Because your have identified exactly how it is that federal governments programs, while necessary for a few, are out of control and lead people into poverty, sloth, impoverishment and an inability to be productive member of our society. This is why our great cities with their high numbers of minorities are suffering. We have led them to a feast full of famine. They can no longer contribute. They have lost their ability to be responsible. We have taken them down to this terrible place through the kindness of our hearts. These are the unintended consequences of liberalism. They want to help--but really hurt. I am stunned at the clarity and understanding you have forthwith shown here and can say nothing but "Amen, Brother..." dok
jonheck 04-Dec-14, 05:40	deadofknight Thanks for that, at least part of it! Of course I do not buy that the problem is liberalism! I might add that the information I provided was in reference to an improper and unanticipated manipulation of an otherwise good and necessary Federal Gov. assistance program. I also agree that it somewhat suggested, in a low percentage of cases, how government assistance can become a way of life and can move to dependence.
jonheck 04-Dec-14, 05:53	Softaire The data you recently provided, 70%, would be shocking if it were even remotely true! It's not!!
softaire 04-Dec-14, 06:48	Jon You are correct, I was wrong... the actual percentage is 73% of births are out of wedlock. Read the article at the link posted below to see the stats from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which publishes a report every year that includes a wealth of data about births in America. The most recent report, published in August 2012, is based on data from 2010. ************************************************************************** CNN's Don Lemon says more than 72 percent of African-American births are out of wedlock In the middle of a national conversation about race following the George Zimmerman acquittal, CNN anchor Don Lemon gave an on-air commentary that went viral on social media. The focus of the commentary was a five-point list of recommendations. "Black people," Lemon said, "if you really want to fix the problem, here's just five things that you should think about doing." The No. 1 item on that list -- "and probably the most important," he said -- had to do with out-of-wedlock births. www.politifact.com
jonheck 04-Dec-14, 08:14	Softaire Your number appears to be correct. Additionally from a vital stats site. Although a lower but equally surprising high percentage, the number of births to single white women is about 50% higher than blacks. The trend is moving downward for blacks and is stable for whites. The data includes the increasing trend of cohabitation and hence more children born to family raising couples who are not married. The trend is increasing more among older women, and decreasing among others, most importantly in the under 20 group. -------- It is reasonable to suggest that many of these children are receiving assistance as are many, perhaps larger numbers, who are born in wedlock. It is my understanding that the rant of mothers having children to get more money was legislatively addressed during the Clinton presidency and is limited and not particularity lucrative these days. Your point would have been better made if it had not been so strongly directed at a human race. Bottom line, change takes time, and they are children. Would you prefer that those children who qualify for government assistance not have health care, reasonable housing and cloths, and be hungry?
softaire 04-Dec-14, 11:24	jon "Would you prefer that those children who qualify for government assistance not have health care, reasonable housing and cloths, and be hungry? " Nice try. If you re-read my posts I think you will see that I specifically say those type items should be included in support, full at first then partial and then continuing enough support to make working more attractive than not working. How did you miss my posts about that?
jonheck 04-Dec-14, 11:35	Softaire Yea, I saw your full and then later partial assistance suggestion. Not that it doesn't have some merit, but ya gotta make those kids suffer for what their parents do or don't do, no exceptions.
softaire 04-Dec-14, 12:28	jon Once again you miss the point. The point is to find a way to encourage people on welfare, food stamps, aid to dependent children to get off those government handouts and go back to work, provide a proper environment for the kids. You can't go back to work if you must be at home with a brood of kids. It is punishment and unfair for a single parent to make her kids suffer by bringing them into this world such that will grow up in a single parent family where education and staying in school will not be stressed, moral values will not be stressed, there will be a likelihood of them joining gangs, committing crimes and never getting out of poverty. They will live in an unhealthy environment, with little or no health care and good food, or proper recreation. Is that what you are suggesting? You would rather them stay dependent on a minimal government subsidy rather than learn how to survive and prosper in our economy? That seems to be exactly what you are proposing. The question was "is it fair to encourage people to remain on government assistance?". You seem to think it is. I'm saying it is not.
deadofknight 04-Dec-14, 14:24	Jon So, to be clear, how are you able to say that just because a program is being run improperly that the behavioral results would be different among the participants? If you can explain that then we can argue---but the fact is that Financial Assistance from federal programs ALWAYS breeds the behavior problems you so eloquently described. The participants cannot differentiate from a well run program and a poorly run program. The point is that these liberal programs breed the horrible conditions that you oppose and that you want to resolve. I actually join you in your refusal to allow people to suffer that are needlessly that cannot otherwise help themselves. The results of the help you want to provide however do not help the millions that are on this help. It breeds poor behavior and defeats them. You know it. dok
hennybogan1953 04-Dec-14, 16:13	Hillbilly Welfare Question What are they supposed to do without their disability checks? Who cares?
jonheck 05-Dec-14, 02:32	deadofknight "How can I say that--program run improperly = different participant behavior." That was not my intent of the post. Rather I was focused on percipient problems that can occur when program processes are changed even if for the better in the long run and also in support of the tendency for some welfare beneficiaries to move to dependence on it. The future needs of those people need to be considered. That is not to suggest that the lack of adherence to any process will not alter for better or worse the expected outcome. It will! Ref: Obamacare implementation in largely red states.
jonheck 05-Dec-14, 02:49	hennybogan "Who cares?" You may not encounter them on the paths you walk but their are many who do care!

GameKnot: play chess online, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.