13.9% and 15% more recently 19% versus 1/10 of one percent

[G-Man]

So now someone's "poor attitude" defines less opportunity?

Chirst! 

Yet, when I have a bad attitude toward Liberals, I'm not seen as lacking opportunity. 

It takes a villiage to raise a child?  BS.  It takes parents.  I have seen many great people climp out of the ghetto.  It's possible and only takes determination.  Going to college is easier for some than others... there is NO guarantee that life is equally easy or hard for people... but ANY kid that WANTS to go to college can find a way.  Your middle class kids... found a way.  Dad paid for 1/2 and they borrowed the rest. 

I used to live in a house with no electricity.  I lived in a tent.  I almost lived in a storage unit for a while.  I worked my way out of it.  I got a job.  I got a better job, and I got yet another better job.

I know foreign nationals that come here, work hard, gain citizenship and succeed.  The fact that "poor" people here fail is cultural, and and can be fixed by old fashioned American grit, if they so CHOOSE.  But coddling failure, and feeding, clothing, and wiping their butts guarantees continued failure.

That's the legacy of Liberals.  Their intent id good.  They WANT to help.  But all they are doing is help guarantee failure.

It's time for some tough love.  Our poor are largely capable of success.  they CHOOSE not to be successful.

YMMV.

Jabba

I agree 100%...it takes parents. Parents who teach their kids a work ethic.  Kids don't learn that on their own.  My point is that when they grow up in a home like I described, instead of work ethic, they learn and develop a defeatist ("why bother?") attitude, often supported by their own parents, rather than encouraged to succeed by those parents.  Kids who grow up in this type of environment are far less likely to succeed.  But to claim that these kids growing up in these types of homes have the same opportunities as kids who grow up in upper-middle class homes is ludicrous.  They are handicapped from day one.

I'm not saying every kid should have the same or equal opportunity either.  That's just not realistic.  But let's not pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves what a great job we're doing providing all of this equal opportunity when it just isn't so.  We need to recognize that the real reasons why these kids aren't succeeding isn't just laziness, but a much more complicated set of circumstances often beyond their control that usually leads them to failure.  Some people, perhaps like yourself, just think, "tough crap..not my problem."  While others like myself thing that having so many failures in our society brings us all down.  And I would argue that if they don't fail, then they don't become burdens on society.  So it is in all of our best interest to help them succeed.

And I never said they couldn't succeed.  We all love stories of those folks who grow up poor and beat the odds.  The reason we hold them up as examples is because we all know just how unlikely an outcome that story represents.

For those making the generality that poor means less fortunate or having less of an opportunity,.....explain the thousands of kids who are making it out and doing very well. 

As for the unlikely outcome.......Then explain how the second generation of immigrant Jews, Italians, eastern Europeans. etc. managed to thrive, without the benefit of public assistance, living in tenemants, un and under employment, non-english speaking parents, etc.    They thrived because it was important to do so.  Nobody was gonna do it for them.  The kids didn't want to live 12 to an apartment with one bath that 5 apartments shared.  They didn't to have holes in their shows.  They wanted to help their parents who risked everything for them.  But that it not the poor of today.  There's no urgency.....that's the best word I can think of.

And I mentioned the meals in school to demonstrate that people have kids they can't afford to feed.  And the taxpayers are now responsible to feed someone elses kids.  Yes, of course I don't want any child to be hungry and I would cook for every kid in the neighborhood myself.........but why has it become OK to have kids you can't afford?  Why do we just sit back and accept such irresponsibility out of our fellow citizens?  The libs say we should take care of each other, but why doesn't that mean EVERYONE should pitch in.  Why does it only mean that the half with money should take care of the half without money.  Why shouldn't it mean that we should all pitch in to have a less expensive society, so people can do, produce, buy, sell, acheive, more??  Imagine the savings if people only had children that they could afford on their own?  And why is that such a terrible thing?  And, yes, I know that some families start out just fine and then something happens like an illness to derail everything.  These are the folks that we should help.  And we'd have so much more money to do so if people lived responsibley.  I'm telling you, watch that Maury show and you'll see where billions are going every year.  "YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER!"

[G-Man]

As far as I am concerned I think public ed would be better off if parents of kids in the school had to kick in some money based on their income instead of getting everything free. I work in the field so I see students everyday and not all of them are lazy with bad attitudes. Many of them work hard but due to things outside of their control they will not reach the level many of us have. I could go into all of them but most would just say to bad for them.

On this we agree!  If parents had some out of pocket expense, I'm sure there would be more questions like "Hey, did you do your homework?".  We could all come up with very good reasons why children shouldn't succeed.  Our society has taken away (for 99% of the poor) the problems of not having a home, not having meals, clothing, and healthcare.  The rest are all distractions.  Some more real or prevalent than others, but still distractions.  The trick is to help get kids past these distractions, but the exorbitant amount of money we throw at our schools is not doing it.  And the answer is always to get more money from those that already too much. 

[Jabba]

Let's face it... many people do A LOT better on public assistance than they would working.  So they consider menial jobs beneath them.  And then, due to a lack of workforce... we create a market for illegal mexican er, undocumented latin workers. 

If our welfare system was a little less... lucrative, it'd be a step in the right direction IMO.

Again... feed them.  Give them shelter.  Use the money saved to train them.  To teach them that they CAN succeed.  And allow them to fail. 

I have failed.  and I learned that failing sucks. 

Jabba

[Bob E.]

For those making the generality that poor means less fortunate or having less of an opportunity,.....explain the thousands of kids who are making it out and doing very well. 

As for the unlikely outcome.......Then explain how the second generation of immigrant Jews, Italians, eastern Europeans. etc. managed to thrive, without the benefit of public assistance, living in tenemants, un and under employment, non-english speaking parents, etc.    They thrived because it was important to do so.  Nobody was gonna do it for them.  The kids didn't want to live 12 to an apartment with one bath that 5 apartments shared.  They didn't to have holes in their shows.  They wanted to help their parents who risked everything for them.  But that it not the poor of today.  There's no urgency.....that's the best word I can think of.

And I mentioned the meals in school to demonstrate that people have kids they can't afford to feed.  And the taxpayers are now responsible to feed someone elses kids.  Yes, of course I don't want any child to be hungry and I would cook for every kid in the neighborhood myself.........but why has it become OK to have kids you can't afford?  Why do we just sit back and accept such irresponsibility out of our fellow citizens?  The libs say we should take care of each other, but why doesn't that mean EVERYONE should pitch in.  Why does it only mean that the half with money should take care of the half without money.  Why shouldn't it mean that we should all pitch in to have a less expensive society, so people can do, produce, buy, sell, acheive, more??  Imagine the savings if people only had children that they could afford on their own?  And why is that such a terrible thing?  And, yes, I know that some families start out just fine and then something happens like an illness to derail everything.  These are the folks that we should help.  And we'd have so much more money to do so if people lived responsibley.  I'm telling you, watch that Maury show and you'll see where billions are going every year.  "YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER!"

Sorry for the late response.  We had a family emergency that pulled me away for a day or so.

Anyways, a couple points.  First, you mention the "thousands...that make it out..."  The Brookings Institute has a study out that shows that while a relative very few do make it out, this is not generally true.  Their study shows that for kids who grow up in the bottom 1/5th, nearly half never make it out of the bottom, and about 2/3 never make it above the bottom 2/5ths.  Meanwhile, almost the opposite is true for kids who grow up in the top 1/5th.

Second, you mention the success of hardworking 2nd-gen immigrants.  The major difference is that these folks learned a hard-work ethic from their parents while many poor kids aren't learning that from their parents today.  Also, I would argue that when the period of immigration that you mention happened, there were more opportunities in general. There were alot more manufacturing/labor type jobs than there are now.  The country was undergoing a period of great industrial development.  Furthermore, even before this period, before the country was very developed...just the lack of development can provide opportunities.  Think about the folks who started a "general store" in a mining town...or who started a mining town to begin with.  Go ahead and try to start a general store today and take on Wal-Mart.  No matter what sort of business you try to start, unless you develop something truly new and revolutionary without equal, you will run into alot more competition today than you would have back in the day because so many industries are so far developed and generally dominated by existing entities who will work and lobby to kill off any competition.  Look at what happened to Tucker when he went up against the Big-3 Automakers.  Not that it would matter anyways because some poor kid isn't likely to have the capital to compete anyways.  So he remains poor.

I would disagree about the "lack of urgency" comment.  They might not be starving like back in the 1800's and I would argue that is a good thing.  But they aren't "comfortable" or living high on the hog...at least not as a rule.  There might be exceptions, and where they are, there is probably some fraud going on somewhere that should be stopped.  Welfare, especially since the 90's when it was reformed, just doesn't pay out that much money and it no longer lasts forever.  So I would describe it more of a "lack of hope" situation.  When kids grow up seeing that hard work is getting their parents nowhere, they learn that as their reality.  Why bother? 

I'm glad we agree about feeding the kids.  Kids are the real issue when dealing with cuts to entitlements because they are in their situation not by their own doing and have no control of their situation.  But the thing is, if you cut food stamps, kids go hungry.  Kick parents off for failing a drug test?  Kids go hungry.  Yes, parents shouldn't have kids they can't afford.  But it isn't the kids fault for being here either.  And I believe that if the parents were more educated in the first place, they might not have had those kids...or on the flip side, they might be able to afford them.  So helping the kids now is an attempt to break that cycle.  We should do everything we can to help the kids, even though their parents might be real trash (or maybe not), so that they have the greatest chance at success.

[Bob E.]

Let's face it... many people do A LOT better on public assistance than they would working.  So they consider menial jobs beneath them.  And then, due to a lack of workforce... we create a market for illegal mexican er, undocumented latin workers. 

If our welfare system was a little less... lucrative, it'd be a step in the right direction IMO.

Again... feed them.  Give them shelter.  Use the money saved to train them.  To teach them that they CAN succeed.  And allow them to fail. 

I have failed.  and I learned that failing sucks. 

Jabba

Do you know what welfare actually pays?  I don't know the exact number, but I'd bet it is far less than a full-time min wage job.  But that isn't why people don't work.  The problem is that, if you have kids, you can't afford child care on min wage.  Hell, I make a professional engineer's salary and, if my wife worked, the cost of child care for 2 small kids would hurt.  Furthermore, if you are working, you need transportation.  Cars, gas, and insurance are expensive.  And many poor people don't live near public transportation.  And then, most min wage jobs have no insurance, which you would lose Medicade if you worked.  Also, min wage jobs tend to not have regular schedules (to arrange child care) nor are they entirely reliable.  When I was working one, I might work 20 hrs one week, and 38 the next.  You can't count on it.

So I guess I would agree partly with your statement in that they might be better off on welfare/assiatance/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, only because leaving those programs to go to work is so difficult for the reasons I outlined above.  But it isn't because they are living the good life on welfare.  If we could help with that transition, provide support for decent child care, continuing health insurance, all of those worries that people have that keep them from jumping,  you might see more people working.  Laziness certainly might be a descriptor for some, but I reject the notion that it describes most.

[musclehead]

Let's face it... many people do A LOT better on public assistance than they would working.  So they consider menial jobs beneath them.  And then, due to a lack of workforce... we create a market for illegal mexican er, undocumented latin workers. 

If our welfare system was a little less... lucrative, it'd be a step in the right direction IMO.

Again... feed them.  Give them shelter.  Use the money saved to train them.  To teach them that they CAN succeed.  And allow them to fail. 

I have failed.  and I learned that failing sucks. 

Jabba

Do you know what welfare actually pays?  I don't know the exact number, but I'd bet it is far less than a full-time min wage job.  But that isn't why people don't work.  The problem is that, if you have kids, you can't afford child care on min wage.  Hell, I make a professional engineer's salary and, if my wife worked, the cost of child care for 2 small kids would hurt.  Furthermore, if you are working, you need transportation.  Cars, gas, and insurance are expensive.  And many poor people don't live near public transportation.  And then, most min wage jobs have no insurance, which you would lose Medicade if you worked.  Also, min wage jobs tend to not have regular schedules (to arrange child care) nor are they entirely reliable.  When I was working one, I might work 20 hrs one week, and 38 the next.  You can't count on it.

So I guess I would agree partly with your statement in that they might be better off on welfare/assiatance/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, only because leaving those programs to go to work is so difficult for the reasons I outlined above.  But it isn't because they are living the good life on welfare.  If we could help with that transition, provide support for decent child care, continuing health insurance, all of those worries that people have that keep them from jumping,  you might see more people working.  Laziness certainly might be a descriptor for some, but I reject the notion that it describes most.

no it's not great and they don't live in great neighborhoods, but the alternative is to stay on the dole?
don't fool yourself our poor live like kings compared to average folks in many countries.
if it IS a transititional and not generational poverty, that'd be great, but we've gotten zero results from the war on poverty.
there was 13% when we started welfare and now it's up to 14% since Obama got in power.
so now what's the answer?

[Jabba]

Take the kids away from parents that can't support them properly?
Jabba

[Bob E.]

Take the kids away from parents that can't support them properly?
Jabba

Seriously??  Go into people's homes and take their kids??  Talk about an over-reaching big government!

[Bob E.]

no it's not great and they don't live in great neighborhoods, but the alternative is to stay on the dole?
don't fool yourself our poor live like kings compared to average folks in many countries.
if it IS a transititional and not generational poverty, that'd be great, but we've gotten zero results from the war on poverty.
there was 13% when we started welfare and now it's up to 14% since Obama got in power.
so now what's the answer?

First, we should be glad, proud even, that our poor are better off than the poor in alot of other countries.  And if you have any ideas of how to get them "off the dole" besides just cutting the "dole", I'm all ears.  But all cutting off the "dole" will do is lead to a huge increase in hunger and homelessness.  It doesn't solve anything.  It makes things worse...for all of us.  What do you think will happen to your property value if there are tons of homeless beggars strolling the neighborhoods?  What do you think will happen to the crime rates when you have that many more desperate people in the streets?

Second, you state the 14% poverty statistic as if it were Obama's fault.  He took office when the country was in an economic freefall, and you want to say it was his fault??  The fact is that the policies of the last 30+ years when we adopted the idea of supply-side trickle-down economics are what have contributed to the rise in poverty. 

[Jabba]

Bob...

Jokerman is the official VRCC sarcasm font

Sorry.  No... I was not serious.

Like i said many times over.  Cut people off the dole, and use the money for shelters where they get fed and a warm, dry place to sleep.

Welfare should NOT be comfortable.

If there is an increase in crime... there should be a corresponding increase in prison population.  Which should also not be any fun.

They need motivated.  There is opportunity in America.  New immigrants PROVE it. 

I think we agree on the issue being MOTIVATION.

How do we MOTIVATE poor people to better THEMSELVES and their OWN situation?

Affirmative Action just reinforces the stereotype of their NOT being ABLE to compete on a level playing filed.  I think they ARE capable.  Which proves that people that agree with me are less racist than those pushing for artificial equalizers.

Jabba

[G-Man]

The problem is that, if you have kids, you can't afford child care on min wage.......  Furthermore, if you are working, you need transportation.  Cars, gas, and insurance are expensive.  And many poor people don't live near public transportation.  And then, most min wage jobs have no insurance, which you would lose Medicade if you worked.  Also, min wage jobs tend to not have regular schedules (to arrange child care) nor are they entirely reliable.  When I was working one, I might work 20 hrs one week, and 38 the next.  You can't count on it.

So everyone else has to pay for all the CHOICES that you listed for people not working.  It is a CHOICE to have kids.  It is a CHOICE to live far from public transportation.  If one is relegated to minimum wage jobs, then somewhere they CHOSE not to finish or do well in school, or CHOSE not to learn a trade, or CHOSE not to go back to school because they CHOSE to have kids that are interfering with their ability to make better CHOICES.  CHOICES, CHOICES, CHOICES!

Yes, there are those that CHOSE the better path and something happened beyond their control, an illness, or a bad economy for their particular field.  But this is NOT the norm.  These are the smaller percentage of those on the dole.  These are the folks that need our help, not the ones who CHOOSE to be parasites

[Kep]

Jabba ,
   I couldn't agree with you more..well said in all of your posts ! We have lost the ideal of "Helping people to Help themselves" . Too many want to just "Help" people and they don't learn to support themselves and their families.There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating opportunities for people to work..that is what we need in this country...not handouts for doing nothing. For example: someone posted " day-care is too expensive for those receiving welfare to afford"...give that person a job as a daycare provider in exchange for their welfare assistance !Other jobs could be created similarly. One of the problems too is that people on hard times are unwilling to adjust their standard of living or make sacrifice when they fall on hard times..(i.e... can't give up the cell phone , dish TV,new car,eating out at restaurants, etc...) Not sure how you change that way of thinking , but alot of it starts with upbringing , leading by example and tough love (by parents and government)

[Jabba]

Lot's of other things too.

Drug testing for recipients... (I am in favor of eliminating the war on drugs and decriminalizing drugs anyway... but in the meantime, if we're going to perpetuate the war on drugs... lets do it on the welfare recipients)

Work-fare.  You got to work somehow.  Mowing, picking up trash on the roads, whatever.  Something for nothing has to stop IMO.

Like Kep says... some can do daycare duty as THEIR contribution to society.  I really don't mind helping out... but a person has to contribute SOMETHING and too many contribute NOTHING.

Jabba 

[valkmc]

Jabba ,
   I couldn't agree with you more..well said in all of your posts ! We have lost the ideal of "Helping people to Help themselves" . Too many want to just "Help" people and they don't learn to support themselves and their families.There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating opportunities for people to work..that is what we need in this country...not handouts for doing nothing. For example: someone posted " day-care is too expensive for those receiving welfare to afford"...give that person a job as a daycare provider in exchange for their welfare assistance !Other jobs could be created similarly. One of the problems too is that people on hard times are unwilling to adjust their standard of living or make sacrifice when they fall on hard times..(i.e... can't give up the cell phone , dish TV,new car,eating out at restaurants, etc...) Not sure how you change that way of thinking , but alot of it starts with upbringing , leading by example and tough love (by parents and government)

Well said, this is why advocate for help with college education. I know some will say they did it on their own as I did with out help. However I bet if you look at citizens with college degrees most of us are tax payers who support our families. It seems like a good investment for us to help people get a degree. I know there will need to be rules and not eveyone will be eligible and there will also be some who try to abuse the help. I also know not everyone wants a degree and/or needs one. I just think if we take some of the $ we are already spending and help people get a degree it will benefit us all in the end.

[G-Man]

Work-fare.  You got to work somehow.  Mowing, picking up trash on the roads, whatever.  Something for nothing has to stop IMO.

When I was doing my residency, Guilliani was Mayor of NYC and he instituted Work-Fare.  We had a dramatic increase in the number of clinic appointments with "patients" asking for get-out-of-work  letters.  When the docs started refusing, we were attacked, verbally and physically.  My friend was spit on.  They increased security in the clincs for the next few weeks until it died down.   What a waste of money all this was.  Medicaide has to pay for a clinic visit because some joker cried that his ankle hurts.  He gets examined and there's no signs of trauma or infection, he wasn't even limping as I followed him into the room.  I can put him through all range of motion with no limitations.  More questions and vague history.  I send him for a the least an x-ray to check things out.  X-ray showed nothing.  I told the patient that I didn't see and couldn't find anything wrong with him.  "OK doc, but can you write me a letter?"         

[Jess from VA]

G-man, for my almost 20 years, a significant number of appeals to the USDVA Board of Veteran's Appeals, was the same thing... namely, there was a clear preponderance of competent medical evidence AGAINST any finding the claimed disability was caused in or attributable to military service (often decades earlier) (or that the claimed disability even existed), and/or that the previously service-connected disability had increased in severity as claimed.  Like 85 percent of the appeals claims. 

Of course, these claims had already been denied at the regional level.  And of course, there is/was no cost to appeal, other than to the taxpayers to run a huge bureaucracy to deal with them, including tens of thousands of VA specialized medical examinations (and diagnostic testing) into the claims, and the lawyers to adjudicate the appeals, and a new Federal Court created in 1988.   

Tens of thousands of claims not warranted by the evidence.... but when the G offers free money, people will sign up for it, warranted or not.   I supported and granted legitimate veterans claims, but not the illegitimate ones (an overwhelming majority).

As a caveat, I would say a decent percentage of denied claims had at least some arguable basis, meaning they were not brought in complete bad faith, nonetheless........   

My favorite all time was a claim for service connection for PTSD.  When it was pointed out the veteran had never served in combat, or overseas, and had never left Ft Campbell KY, he replied "no, I have PTSD because of my basic training.... my drill instructor demeaned me in front of my peers, and I am now psychiatrically impaired from working for the rest of my life."   

Denied, go get a job.       

[Bob E.]

Hey, I agree 100% with G-Man and Jess in each of their posts immediately prior to this one.  Kudos to you guys for doing the right thing, rather than the easy thing, and preventing the fraud that all to often rips off and gives a bad name to some very good programs. Good for you guys...seriously.

[Bob E.]

Bob...

Jokerman is the official VRCC sarcasm font

Sorry.  No... I was not serious.

Like i said many times over.  Cut people off the dole, and use the money for shelters where they get fed and a warm, dry place to sleep.

Welfare should NOT be comfortable.

If there is an increase in crime... there should be a corresponding increase in prison population.  Which should also not be any fun.

They need motivated.  There is opportunity in America.  New immigrants PROVE it. 

I think we agree on the issue being MOTIVATION.

How do we MOTIVATE poor people to better THEMSELVES and their OWN situation?

Affirmative Action just reinforces the stereotype of their NOT being ABLE to compete on a level playing filed.  I think they ARE capable.  Which proves that people that agree with me are less racist than those pushing for artificial equalizers.

Jabba

I kinda figured you weren't entirely serious with your suggestion.  However, I can tell you, I've actually heard that exact suggestion more than once from people who were dead serious.

I do agree that lack of motivation is a problem and the root cause of that is the perception that they won't succeed anyways.  I don't know really what would motivate these people except for them to see that it will actually pay off and they will have a very good chance at some level of success.  However your suggestion that using discomfort as a motivator reminds me of the joke about the boss that tells his disgruntled employees that the beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

I guess I will disagree with your assessment of Affirmative Action, though.  The problem I have is with your assertion that the playing field was/is level for minorities.  If not for discrimination and prejudice, I would agree with you.  However, the facts are that minorities have been passed over for jobs for years, and minority-owned businesses have been passed over for contracts for years.  I believe that our attitudes towards minorities are getting better.  But there is still quite a bit of racism out there.  The only reason Affirmitave Action reinforces the stereotype is because of that racism that exists that believes that minorities are inferior in the first place.  Affirmative Action isn't for folks like you and me who are not racist. It is for the racists and to give some recourse to the minorities who are discriminated against by them.

[Bob E.]

So everyone else has to pay for all the CHOICES that you listed for people not working.  It is a CHOICE to have kids.  It is a CHOICE to live far from public transportation.  If one is relegated to minimum wage jobs, then somewhere they CHOSE not to finish or do well in school, or CHOSE not to learn a trade, or CHOSE not to go back to school because they CHOSE to have kids that are interfering with their ability to make better CHOICES.  CHOICES, CHOICES, CHOICES!

Yes, there are those that CHOSE the better path and something happened beyond their control, an illness, or a bad economy for their particular field.  But this is NOT the norm.  These are the smaller percentage of those on the dole.  These are the folks that need our help, not the ones who CHOOSE to be parasites

The question is why do they make those choices and how do we get them to make different choices?  And to go further, I do not believe that the majority of these people consciously make these poor decisions.  For most of these people, their poverty started at childhood...maybe even before their birth.  And many of them succumb to the circumstances of their upbringing that lead them down this path.  They migh have absent parent(s), or their parents are on drugs, or their parents are uneducated, or they are abused, or whatever, and they follow in the footsteps/traps of their parents.  This is why I feel so strongly about programs for kids, whether that's school lunches, WIC, after-school programs or after-care, etc. These types of programs that help kids grow up healthy and get a better education are the key to breaking the cycle of poverty.  Granted, you can't save or reach everyone.  But it can make a measureable difference.

[musclehead]

The problem is that, if you have kids, you can't afford child care on min wage.......  Furthermore, if you are working, you need transportation.  Cars, gas, and insurance are expensive.  And many poor people don't live near public transportation.  And then, most min wage jobs have no insurance, which you would lose Medicade if you worked.  Also, min wage jobs tend to not have regular schedules (to arrange child care) nor are they entirely reliable.  When I was working one, I might work 20 hrs one week, and 38 the next.  You can't count on it.

So everyone else has to pay for all the CHOICES that you listed for people not working.  It is a CHOICE to have kids.  It is a CHOICE to live far from public transportation.  If one is relegated to minimum wage jobs, then somewhere they CHOSE not to finish or do well in school, or CHOSE not to learn a trade, or CHOSE not to go back to school because they CHOSE to have kids that are interfering with their ability to make better CHOICES.  CHOICES, CHOICES, CHOICES!

Yes, there are those that CHOSE the better path and something happened beyond their control, an illness, or a bad economy for their particular field.  But this is NOT the norm.  These are the smaller percentage of those on the dole.  These are the folks that need our help, not the ones who CHOOSE to be parasites

I choose not to get a degree in business, because 1, I'm no good in math and 2, I'd have clawed my eyes out from sheer boredom.
my hats off to those that did well and do well through better educating themselves, i'll just keep on trucking 

[Bob E.]

Drug testing for recipients... (I am in favor of eliminating the war on drugs and decriminalizing drugs anyway... but in the meantime, if we're going to perpetuate the war on drugs... lets do it on the welfare recipients)

Are you aware that since they have enacted this program in FL, they have found that only about 2% of welfare recipients have failed the drug test, while the average rate of drug useage in the state is closer to 9%?  As a result, the program costs more money than it saves.  Contrary to the conservative talking point, the poor are not using more drugs than anyone else...probably because drugs are expensive and they cannot afford them.  If they want to make it fair, they should require anyone taking a paycheck from the govt to pass the drug test...even legislators.  See how that flies!

[Jabba]

In Indiana we have requirement for public projects for WMVBE participation.  Woman, Monority, Veteran Business Enterprise.

The goal is 23% I believe.  5%, 15% and 3% respectively.

What we get is unqualified MBVBE contractors (firms) that bid on some of the work... and a GC that will typically overbid the project by 23%, then bring in WMVBE businesses onto the team to fill the requirement. These guys get paid for adding little or NOTHING to the project.  More Welfar, that doesn't get reported as welfare.

It makes me sick, and I see it EVERY DAY.  These firms out compete other, non-racially qualified firms charging exorbitant fees in the process, and most of the time... they are not of equal quality, because they don't HAVE TO BE.  They can WIN while producing an inferior product.

This is what happens.  It IS.  I see it EVERY DAY. 

Jabba

   

[Jess from VA]

This is exactly the process in many (if not all) Fed contract work in DC.

Some years back my, wife worked for (minority owned) Am-Pro Protective Services, Inc. (USDOE security contract) (she had been there thru many periodic changes of contract holder)

She and many other employees began having their paychecks bounce.  Though prohibited, on paydays, the employees snuck out to cash checks at lunchtime, because only the first few got cash, the rest were told no money in the account.   DOE got involved immediately, and tried to stop payments to the contractor and pay the employees directly with periodic contract payments to the contractor.  The contractor countered with Ch 11 bankruptcy, and the Fed judge stopped the DOE intervention.  It turned out the contractor CEO had mismanaged funds horrendously, including running a NASCAR team, fancy boats, and keeping a mistress in a mansion, among other things.  The employees went 6-8 weeks with no paychecks, and all DOE could do was beg them not to seek other employment, and promise future payment... someday.  Many lost their cars and were evicted from their apartments.  We did not live check-to-check, so no problem.  Most did. 

This is/was not an isolated incident. 

[Bob E.]

We do most of our business with PennDOT and the PA Turnpike Commission.  In order to do work with either, all firms, contractors, etc. must be on a list of approved contractors.  Even vendors and their products must be approved.  In order to be on the approved list, you must first submit a list of qualifications, individual employee resumes, etc. to prove that you are qualified to do the work you are trying to be contracted for.  So we don't have as bad of an "underqualified" problem here in PA.

Currently, engineering is bid/selected based on qualifications of the team.  However, they know that there are many firms that are pretty much equally capable of doing the work, so they make an effort to spread the work around somewhat.  If you do a good job, your turn comes around more often and on bigger projects. Do a bad job, and you might not get another turn for years.

Construction is bid/selected based on low bid.  But you must still be pre-qualified to even bid on the project, let alone do the work.

The other thing is that, in PA, they lump all minority businesses, women businesses, etc. into one category called "disadvantaged business enterprises" (DBE's).  And the DBE requirement usually runs about 5-15%, depending on the project.  It is nowhere near 23% like you mention for IN.  Also, DBE's are limited in size.  Once they reach a certain threshold of revenues, they no longer qualify for special treatment.  They generally tend to fill niche specialties like environmental or geotech, or surveying tasks, though some do offer full service engineering.

I don't know how it works in IN because we haven't done work in that state.

[G-Man]

The problem is that, if you have kids, you can't afford child care on min wage.......  Furthermore, if you are working, you need transportation.  Cars, gas, and insurance are expensive.  And many poor people don't live near public transportation.  And then, most min wage jobs have no insurance, which you would lose Medicade if you worked.  Also, min wage jobs tend to not have regular schedules (to arrange child care) nor are they entirely reliable.  When I was working one, I might work 20 hrs one week, and 38 the next.  You can't count on it.

So everyone else has to pay for all the CHOICES that you listed for people not working.  It is a CHOICE to have kids.  It is a CHOICE to live far from public transportation.  If one is relegated to minimum wage jobs, then somewhere they CHOSE not to finish or do well in school, or CHOSE not to learn a trade, or CHOSE not to go back to school because they CHOSE to have kids that are interfering with their ability to make better CHOICES.  CHOICES, CHOICES, CHOICES!

Yes, there are those that CHOSE the better path and something happened beyond their control, an illness, or a bad economy for their particular field.  But this is NOT the norm.  These are the smaller percentage of those on the dole.  These are the folks that need our help, not the ones who CHOOSE to be parasites

I choose not to get a degree in business, because 1, I'm no good in math and 2, I'd have clawed my eyes out from sheer boredom.
my hats off to those that did well and do well through better educating themselves, i'll just keep on trucking 

You CHOSE the learning a trade route!  A trade that will probably always keep you employed, one way or another.  A good Choice!