Welfare was created in the 60s to combat the war on poverty. The problem is poverty levels haven't improved and got worse instead of better. Fiscal conservatives are always accused of being incompassionate, but wanting something changed that is not helping people is not being incompassionate and I resent the fact that someone doesn't think public assistance for all lacks compassion. Some of us actually want the system reformed so more are able to get out of poverty. I consider that a whole lot more compassionate than wanting to put a bandaid on a bullet hole.
But I'd love to hear exactly how you want the system reformed so that more are able to get out of poverty. How do you think the problem of poverty should be solved?
Yes, do tell! How does kicking people off of welfare benefit them? Are all those job creators going to magically produce jobs if the poor people ask really really nicely? Do you know that 1 in 4 African-American kids are considered underfed/food insecure?
By all means, let's just walk away from a multi-generational problem, sounds like a great idea...MEANWHILE, the richy riches haven't had this low of a tax rate since the 1920s.
I don't like getting into Bump feuds, but KC, your reputation from the Parenting board is proven in this post.
Where did I say kick everyone off welfare? Oh wait, I didn't.
To answer the questions, I think we should cap welfare spending since it's getting incredibly out of control and will not be sustainable long term (once the unemployment rate improves some, obviously). There should be more work requirements/time restrictions on programs. Welfare to work programs that have industry-specific training programs are something that should be utilized more and required once someone has needed welfare for 6+ months.
There needs to be a shift into more education programs in poor communities. If you accept assistance, you should be required to take a class on finances so you can do simple things like create a budget and balance a checkbook. A greater focus at the high school level of these skills, especially in low income areas needs to be implemented as well.
I think strengthening marriage to try to minimize the divorce rate is important as well. Not talking about "traditional marriage" or anything but divorce has an incredibly large financial impact on individuals.
They have had her checked out for reflux and other potential issues, but pedi has just suggested night weaning so far (friend is hesitant to do this, as she's still pumping during the day and night nursing is the only time she gets to nurse).
We went through the same thing with Ari - "just night wean him, he's being spoiled, etc." It was really frustrating, because I knew something was wrong & night weaning a baby only a few months old (who should still be nursing at night) was not going to fix anything. If she cries when she's laid down, that is a huge indicator of reflux. Not sure what to say if the pedi has actually checked into it thoroughly though.
It is amazing that there were so many haters in this post. As a pp, most countries have automatic assistance for families that is not income based, but considered just for the good of society. Oy vey.
And I also strongly agree with this. Every Canadian family with children under 18 gets $100 a month per child, regardless of income. Then there's also an income based cheque, which if you qualify, you get AUTOMATICALLY without having to apply. No one can accuse anyone of taking hand-outs because the government just decides that families with a certain income level obviously need assistance. They don't have to ask for it. That amount is anywhere from $100 to $800 a month. So a low income family automtically receives up to $1000 towards help with bills, food, recreation, etc. And any person who has worked 600 hours in the past year gets a year off work, paid at 55% of their income, to raise their child.
The situation in the U.S. hurts my heart. The well-being of the child is not respected at all.
Welfare was created in the 60s to combat the war on poverty. The problem is poverty levels haven't improved and got worse instead of better. Fiscal conservatives are always accused of being incompassionate, but wanting something changed that is not helping people is not being incompassionate and I resent the fact that someone doesn't think public assistance for all lacks compassion. Some of us actually want the system reformed so more are able to get out of poverty. I consider that a whole lot more compassionate than wanting to put a bandaid on a bullet hole.
But I'd love to hear exactly how you want the system reformed so that more are able to get out of poverty. How do you think the problem of poverty should be solved?
Yes, do tell! How does kicking people off of welfare benefit them? Are all those job creators going to magically produce jobs if the poor people ask really really nicely? Do you know that 1 in 4 African-American kids are considered underfed/food insecure?
By all means, let's just walk away from a multi-generational problem, sounds like a great idea...MEANWHILE, the richy riches haven't had this low of a tax rate since the 1920s.
I don't like getting into Bump feuds, but KC, your reputation from the Parenting board is proven in this post.
Where did I say kick everyone off welfare? Oh wait, I didn't.
To answer the questions, I think we should cap welfare spending since it's getting incredibly out of control and will not be sustainable long term (once the unemployment rate improves some, obviously). There should be more work requirements/time restrictions on programs. Welfare to work programs that have industry-specific training programs are something that should be utilized more and required once someone has needed welfare for 6+ months.
There needs to be a shift into more education programs in poor communities. If you accept assistance, you should be required to take a class on finances so you can do simple things like create a budget and balance a checkbook. A greater focus at the high school level of these skills, especially in low income areas needs to be implemented as well.
I think strengthening marriage to try to minimize the divorce rate is important as well. Not talking about "traditional marriage" or anything but divorce has an incredibly large financial impact on individuals.
And I also agree with this, which is what we have in Canada. If you are on assistance, you are required to be looking for work (they provide childcare while you are doing so), or going to school, and certain education programs are provided free of charge. If it were not for our universal child tax credit, DH would not be in school. We would not be able to afford for him to go because he would have to be working full-time. And he'd be working at a crappy minimum wage job, not making enough money to even qualify to pay taxes, for the rest of his life. Instead, he is a few years away from becoming a university professor, and actually contributing to society. This is as it should be. The whole welfare debate needs to look at the long-term.
Okay I'm going to stay away from the government assistance debate, and just tell you what worked for us. We were living in the city, and saved A LOT of money by moving into the suburbs. Have they considered moving to an area with lower taxes? If they moved to a neighborhood with lower property taxes, they might be able to bridge the gap.
We also bought a house with an attached legal accessory apartment. The rent from the apartment basically pays all of our property taxes, and we're finding that we actually kind of like have a tenant on the premises (i.e. she takes in the mail when we are away). These changes have made it possible for me to stay home.
Re: (Untitled)
Where did I say kick everyone off welfare? Oh wait, I didn't.
To answer the questions, I think we should cap welfare spending since it's getting incredibly out of control and will not be sustainable long term (once the unemployment rate improves some, obviously). There should be more work requirements/time restrictions on programs. Welfare to work programs that have industry-specific training programs are something that should be utilized more and required once someone has needed welfare for 6+ months.
There needs to be a shift into more education programs in poor communities. If you accept assistance, you should be required to take a class on finances so you can do simple things like create a budget and balance a checkbook. A greater focus at the high school level of these skills, especially in low income areas needs to be implemented as well.
I think strengthening marriage to try to minimize the divorce rate is important as well. Not talking about "traditional marriage" or anything but divorce has an incredibly large financial impact on individuals.
This is what we do.
And I also strongly agree with this. Every Canadian family with children under 18 gets $100 a month per child, regardless of income. Then there's also an income based cheque, which if you qualify, you get AUTOMATICALLY without having to apply. No one can accuse anyone of taking hand-outs because the government just decides that families with a certain income level obviously need assistance. They don't have to ask for it. That amount is anywhere from $100 to $800 a month. So a low income family automtically receives up to $1000 towards help with bills, food, recreation, etc. And any person who has worked 600 hours in the past year gets a year off work, paid at 55% of their income, to raise their child.
The situation in the U.S. hurts my heart. The well-being of the child is not respected at all.
And I also agree with this, which is what we have in Canada. If you are on assistance, you are required to be looking for work (they provide childcare while you are doing so), or going to school, and certain education programs are provided free of charge. If it were not for our universal child tax credit, DH would not be in school. We would not be able to afford for him to go because he would have to be working full-time. And he'd be working at a crappy minimum wage job, not making enough money to even qualify to pay taxes, for the rest of his life. Instead, he is a few years away from becoming a university professor, and actually contributing to society. This is as it should be. The whole welfare debate needs to look at the long-term.
Okay I'm going to stay away from the government assistance debate, and just tell you what worked for us. We were living in the city, and saved A LOT of money by moving into the suburbs. Have they considered moving to an area with lower taxes? If they moved to a neighborhood with lower property taxes, they might be able to bridge the gap.
We also bought a house with an attached legal accessory apartment. The rent from the apartment basically pays all of our property taxes, and we're finding that we actually kind of like have a tenant on the premises (i.e. she takes in the mail when we are away). These changes have made it possible for me to stay home.