happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 31, 2016 6:57:03 GMT -5
Not at all. I just want to see those that don't screw up finally rewarded for doing tthe right thing, for a change. Society used to punish wrong doing and reward the good. Now it's the opposite and we wonder why there's more bad behavior. Duh. I understand what you're saying. At the same time, though, if someone screws up, do we want the punishment to be life long?
Say, for instance, a 16 year old who gets pregnant because she foolishly thinks the BF will hang around and help support her and the baby. BF vanishes and now the 16 year old is left to raise the kid on her own. 16 year old foolishly assumes grandma or other family members will babysit the baby so she can continue school. That support falls through (or was never really there to begin with). 16 year old ends up a drop out, either living in poverty on what government money she can get (because it's never very much) or working a minimum wage job and spending most of her earnings on daycare. Teen moms are the teens most likely to never get a GED, never go to college, and spend their lives in minimum wage jobs, and their kids end up being raised in poverty.
Do we want to punish this person with a lifetime of marginal living on minimum wage jobs, because she made a poor choice at 16? (And yes I know there are people who manage to raise a kid, work a couple jobs and still get a college education, but those people are the exception, not the rule for teen moms).
Or - do we provide the daycare and the free tuition to get this person through HS and community college or a trade school so that she is no longer dependent on government subsidies?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 31, 2016 7:14:09 GMT -5
Not at all. I just want to see those that don't screw up finally rewarded for doing tthe right thing, for a change. Society used to punish wrong doing and reward the good. Now it's the opposite and we wonder why there's more bad behavior. Duh. I understand what you're saying. At the same time, though, if someone screws up, do we want the punishment to be life long?
Say, for instance, a 16 year old who gets pregnant because she foolishly thinks the BF will hang around and help support her and the baby. BF vanishes and now the 16 year old is left to raise the kid on her own. 16 year old foolishly assumes grandma or other family members will babysit the baby so she can continue school. That support falls through (or was never really there to begin with). 16 year old ends up a drop out, either living in poverty on what government money she can get (because it's never very much) or working a minimum wage job and spending most of her earnings on daycare. Teen moms are the teens most likely to never get a GED, never go to college, and spend their lives in minimum wage jobs, and their kids end up being raised in poverty.
Do we want to punish this person with a lifetime of marginal living on minimum wage jobs, because she made a poor choice at 16? (And yes I know there are people who manage to raise a kid, work a couple jobs and still get a college education, but those people are the exception, not the rule for teen moms).
Or - do we provide the daycare and the free tuition to get this person through HS and community college or a trade school so that she is no longer dependent on government subsidies?
The problem isn't this one 16-year-old. The problem is the other x 16-year-olds who decide getting knocked up isn't such a big deal since they're comfortable with the standard of living welfare provides for them and their children. Their children, growing up in this environment, may well be too. How big does x have to get before that first 16-year-old has to take one for the team? I have no problem with public charity so long as it's sustainable. By any objective measure, the system we have isn't.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 31, 2016 7:58:16 GMT -5
Not at all. I just want to see those that don't screw up finally rewarded for doing tthe right thing, for a change. Society used to punish wrong doing and reward the good. Now it's the opposite and we wonder why there's more bad behavior. Duh. I understand what you're saying. At the same time, though, if someone screws up, do we want the punishment to be life long?
Say, for instance, a 16 year old who gets pregnant because she foolishly thinks the BF will hang around and help support her and the baby. BF vanishes and now the 16 year old is left to raise the kid on her own. 16 year old foolishly assumes grandma or other family members will babysit the baby so she can continue school. That support falls through (or was never really there to begin with). 16 year old ends up a drop out, either living in poverty on what government money she can get (because it's never very much) or working a minimum wage job and spending most of her earnings on daycare. Teen moms are the teens most likely to never get a GED, never go to college, and spend their lives in minimum wage jobs, and their kids end up being raised in poverty.
Do we want to punish this person with a lifetime of marginal living on minimum wage jobs, because she made a poor choice at 16? (And yes I know there are people who manage to raise a kid, work a couple jobs and still get a college education, but those people are the exception, not the rule for teen moms).
Or - do we provide the daycare and the free tuition to get this person through HS and community college or a trade school so that she is no longer dependent on government subsidies?
If she agrees to mandatory birth control and continues to not screw up and do well, I'm all for it. My issue is baby daddy or daddies now seeing the free ride and coming along for it. No way to fix that unless she and baby are basically removed from the entire environment and put into a facility that will take care of her and the baby with no outside interference from "family members."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 31, 2016 9:36:06 GMT -5
Not at all. I just want to see those that don't screw up finally rewarded for doing tthe right thing, for a change. Society used to punish wrong doing and reward the good. Now it's the opposite and we wonder why there's more bad behavior. Duh. i guess i am not seeing how it is the opposite.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 31, 2016 10:32:04 GMT -5
Well, it's out there but maybe you're either removed from it or just used to it so it seems normal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 31, 2016 10:58:47 GMT -5
Well, it's out there but maybe you're either removed from it or just used to it so it seems normal. i am "removed from it", zib. i just don't encounter it in my daily life, at all. i think it is also fair to say that i am not looking for it. i try to see the good in everyone, so i am disposed against seeing wretchedness in the world, and truthfully, that attitude cost me dearly this last year. ended up loaning $10k to someone who i have not heard from in four months, now, and i got taken down HARD on FB by a dilettante musician who seemed to think way less of me than i ever thought of her. that has hardened up my edges a bit, but not enough to see things from your perspective.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 31, 2016 15:58:49 GMT -5
That's fine. May you always see the world the way you want to. There's nothing wrong with rose colored glasses.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 31, 2016 21:17:24 GMT -5
That's fine. May you always see the world the way you want to. There's nothing wrong with rose colored glasses. thanks, zib. yr a real human being.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 1, 2016 6:16:24 GMT -5
No, I'm serious. My Dad and DH both only saw the good in people and it made them happy people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 1, 2016 10:11:05 GMT -5
No, I'm serious. My Dad and DH both only saw the good in people and it made them happy people. i was being serious, too, zib. i took it exactly as you meant it. edit: FTR, my dad was an utter cynic, and my mom kept her opinions to herself. so, we both adopted the opposite of our parents.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 1, 2016 11:00:01 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying. At the same time, though, if someone screws up, do we want the punishment to be life long?
Say, for instance, a 16 year old who gets pregnant because she foolishly thinks the BF will hang around and help support her and the baby. BF vanishes and now the 16 year old is left to raise the kid on her own. 16 year old foolishly assumes grandma or other family members will babysit the baby so she can continue school. That support falls through (or was never really there to begin with). 16 year old ends up a drop out, either living in poverty on what government money she can get (because it's never very much) or working a minimum wage job and spending most of her earnings on daycare. Teen moms are the teens most likely to never get a GED, never go to college, and spend their lives in minimum wage jobs, and their kids end up being raised in poverty.
Do we want to punish this person with a lifetime of marginal living on minimum wage jobs, because she made a poor choice at 16? (And yes I know there are people who manage to raise a kid, work a couple jobs and still get a college education, but those people are the exception, not the rule for teen moms).
Or - do we provide the daycare and the free tuition to get this person through HS and community college or a trade school so that she is no longer dependent on government subsidies?
The problem isn't this one 16-year-old. The problem is the other x 16-year-olds who decide getting knocked up isn't such a big deal since they're comfortable with the standard of living welfare provides for them and their children. Their children, growing up in this environment, may well be too. How big does x have to get before that first 16-year-old has to take one for the team? I have no problem with public charity so long as it's sustainable. By any objective measure, the system we have isn't. See, I don't think that's how the 16 year old gets in this position in the first place. They don't get pregnant so they can get free handouts.
People don't start out life wanting to be poor. And living on welfare means you are always, chronically, poor. You get evicted from your house, you end up living in a two bedroom flat with 8 relatives, you go hungry, you live in a , you see your kids go without pretty much everything. No one signs up for that.
Sixteen year old girls don't think very far ahead. They have no idea what things cost. They think their BF or his family or their family will support them. They don't consider who will babysit the baby when they go to school, or when they go to work. They have no clue about how much work is involved in taking care of a baby. Then they get to a certain age and look around and realize they're poor, living a shit life, raising their kids in a crappy place.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 12:18:25 GMT -5
I think rewarding good behavior is a better idea than rewarding bad behavior. Good idea ! It can be put right on the income tax form as a "no drug related arrest/conviction" credit, or a "no traffic citation/conviction" credit etc. Now that's tax funded initiatives I would vote for.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 2, 2016 13:01:05 GMT -5
Most posters think they are moderate. Most posters think other posters are not moderate. I am happily on the extreme though. You should come join me there sometime and help fight the good fight. LOL, hickle! At my age, my moderate stance is pretty well set in stone, I'm afraid. I've had a lot of years to formulate my opinions on matters political, and those matters don't really change much. The changes to which we react are situational while the basics remain the same. I do think the further one is from the center the more likely that person is to perceive others as equally polarized. For the most part, I'm not bothered by what others might think, or support. We all come to our opinions based on our experiences. This board isn't moderate, and left-leaning posters outweigh right-leaning posters...it may not have always been the case, but it is now. Most posters aren't extreme one way or another, but to pretend like there isn't a definite lean of the overall board isn't accurate either.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 2, 2016 13:07:01 GMT -5
Moral Hazard for one thing.
I have danced on this slippery slope. I am a strong advocate for treatment of opiate addicts- including the prescriptions of opiates to them to satiate their addictions. One of the reasons that I support that is because it decreases the stupid crimes that addicts commit (and try to commit) to feed their habits.
I cannot go into the realm of actually paying people to not commit crimes. Can't go there.
I agree. How do you determine the crimes someone might have done? It's unquantifiable.
Pay them a 'wage' while they attend a trade school for free. That way they're improving their employability and will hopefully be too busy to continue their gang lifestyle.
In a way that same concept could be applied while somebody is on welfare, or other government subsidy in the form of helping the person become less likely to need those programs in the future. In each instance, there is a limit on how long that person is expected to be using the program; but this one I'm not sure there is one. I see this as a great way for certain government officials to build a voter base, but not so much of a good long-term solution for the problem.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 2, 2016 13:23:23 GMT -5
Yes, she was paid and paid well by taxpayer dollars to become a productive citizen. She's not overwhelmed by student loan debt. Why? Because she had a child. My daughter told me how the ones with babies got apartments to themselves and free everything while the ones that didn't, worked, got loans, paid for everything. What was their reward for not having a baby at 16? How is that fair? How about doing something for the kids who don't cause trouble in school? Who do well and don't get pregnant? I've watched the steadfast attention on those who cause the most problems while those that don't, get ignored. Your Dad got a free ride to Stanford? I'm assuming the GI Bill which isn't exactly a free ride. I'm not saying don't try to save someone who has made ONE mistake but I am saying STOP penalizing those that don't. Reward them. Treat them well and praise them. Honor them and point them out as examples to be followed. It actually brings up an interesting discussion, especially in terms or college grants and other forms of financial aid. For instance, assume two families who make about the same amount of income, but one family scrimps and saves to help pay for college while the other goes on vacations, buy newer cars, etc..when it comes time to get financial aid, the family who made those sacrifices may have more saved but gets penalized for it when the one who didn't save gets more financial aid to offset the cost. I actually think programs to help pay for college is a good investment, but there is something to be said about the programs at times being more helpful to those that didn't save (even if they could have done so). OTOH, there is also something to be said about how such programs often help those who come from worse-off backgrounds get a jump start on their lives because they come out with less loans than those who were considered "better-off" at the time of their senior year (i.e. students from lower socio-economic families almost getting a "free ride" while students from middle-class families who can't afford to pay for college are strapped with a decent amount of loans to do so). There are also great programs like the 21st century scholars programs that will pay for all of a student's tuition if they attend an in-state school; but the issue is that students are picked for that program in junior high in order to help encourage those who are considered "high risk" students in the sense of coming form lower socio-economic families. However, things change and there are many families who qualify for the program at that time, and things dramatically improve; but those students are still in the program and still get free in-state tuition...there are also many families that didn't qualify for the program when their kids were that age and things got dramatically worse, but because their kids didn't qualify at that specific age, they are left to try and find another way to pay for college. Most programs have good and bad though...the trick if figuring out how to minimize the bad.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 2, 2016 13:33:27 GMT -5
I think rewarding good behavior is a better idea than rewarding bad behavior. Good idea ! It can be put right on the income tax form as a "no drug related arrest/conviction" credit, or a "no traffic citation/conviction" credit etc. Now that's tax funded initiatives I would vote for. Then you get called a racist because of the "unfairness" others see in court systems about how certain demographics are more likely to be convicted of crimes...and then it gets used as an example of institutional racism whether it is or not. If we are going to pay for something like this from a government sponsored angle, maybe we think about it from the perspective of paying students who receive above a certain GPA and then government coverage of in-state colleges as well (some states already offer something like this for in-state college). In which case, encouraging more students to go to college and hopefully reducing some of these issues that way. If there were a program that rewarded students who have above certain GPA's with some sort of stipend, I am curious how much more involved parents would be in their kids doing homework and encouraging them to get good grades...especially in areas where that extra money could come in handy. I actually might not be opposed to a program like this because I think it could do some good, but I'm not sure how much money it would take to make a difference. It would need to be more than just some nominal amount like $250/semester...it would need to be enough to make people think "I really need to stay out of trouble and keep my grades up." Maybe a program like this would help encourage more kids to not go down the wrong path before it starts, and that seems like a cheaper alternative than paying them after-the-fact like the program mentioned in the OP. Such programs might also work to get more students in fields of need as well. For instance, offering stipends to families who have students highly involved in STEM areas or maybe something along the lines of paid tuition and stipends for students in STEM majors who keep above a certain GPA. Just some thoughts if you want to spend money in order to encourage certain behaviors anyway, while also helping fill a societal need.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 2, 2016 14:57:58 GMT -5
... If there were a program that rewarded students who have above certain GPA's with some sort of stipend, I am curious how much more involved parents would be in their kids doing homework and encouraging them to get good grades. ...And how much pressure would be applied to teachers to ensure that certain GPA's were obtained.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 2, 2016 15:00:15 GMT -5
... If there were a program that rewarded students who have above certain GPA's with some sort of stipend, I am curious how much more involved parents would be in their kids doing homework and encouraging them to get good grades. ...And how much pressure would be applied to teachers to ensure that certain GPA's were obtained. There is no doubt that would happen because it already does; but just like there are people who abuse social safety net systems now, it does not mean that you don't do them at all. If you are going to have these types of programs, it makes more sense to be proactive in keeping kids headed in the right direction, as opposed to trying to "turn them around" after-the-fact.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2016 16:08:06 GMT -5
LOL, hickle! At my age, my moderate stance is pretty well set in stone, I'm afraid. I've had a lot of years to formulate my opinions on matters political, and those matters don't really change much. The changes to which we react are situational while the basics remain the same. I do think the further one is from the center the more likely that person is to perceive others as equally polarized. For the most part, I'm not bothered by what others might think, or support. We all come to our opinions based on our experiences. This board isn't moderate, and left-leaning posters outweigh right-leaning posters...it may not have always been the case, but it is now. Most posters aren't extreme one way or another, but to pretend like there isn't a definite lean of the overall board isn't accurate either. It is a left leaning board. Many here say they are moderate but I am not sure what that means. They may be moderate in the sense they match the national population that is moderate. But they are not moderate in a philosophical sense. We are a country that wants big government and authoritarianism. That is not liberal. I do not think it is moderate. I think it is a board sorely lacking in liberal thought. I think it is a bunch of left leaning posters.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 3, 2016 12:27:03 GMT -5
the US is the least statist of all Western societies, and i think this board is fairly representative of that,
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 3, 2016 13:02:34 GMT -5
The problem isn't this one 16-year-old. The problem is the other x 16-year-olds who decide getting knocked up isn't such a big deal since they're comfortable with the standard of living welfare provides for them and their children. Their children, growing up in this environment, may well be too. How big does x have to get before that first 16-year-old has to take one for the team? I have no problem with public charity so long as it's sustainable. By any objective measure, the system we have isn't. See, I don't think that's how the 16 year old gets in this position in the first place. They don't get pregnant so they can get free handouts.
People don't start out life wanting to be poor. And living on welfare means you are always, chronically, poor. You get evicted from your house, you end up living in a two bedroom flat with 8 relatives, you go hungry, you live in a , you see your kids go without pretty much everything. No one signs up for that.
Sixteen year old girls don't think very far ahead. They have no idea what things cost. They think their BF or his family or their family will support them. They don't consider who will babysit the baby when they go to school, or when they go to work. They have no clue about how much work is involved in taking care of a baby. Then they get to a certain age and look around and realize they're poor, living a shit life, raising their kids in a crappy place.
I think this is one of the main issues with arguments sometimes..there are lots of people who do the same things, but have different levels of negative outcomes from them (i.e. lots of people have sex in high school, but not everybody gets and STD or gets pregnant). So it's not so cut and dry about people paying for their bad decisions in instances like a high school kid getting pregnant. It's one of the reasons I don't have an issues with social safety net programs, but I do have an issue with politicians using them to promote a level of dependence in order to keep a steady and loyal stream of voters. It's also one of the reasons I think there is a need to look at the underlying cause for why a person is in need of the program in the first place and working to address that in order to give the person a fighting chance to not need the program again. As I have mentioned multiple times, there is a difference between a person with skills necessary to succeed going through a rough patch versus somebody who barely lives above qualifying for the programs on a good day. However from a political viewpoint, it isn't wise for some to help break the cycle because they want people dependent on the programs to ensure their vote.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 3, 2016 13:04:14 GMT -5
the US is the least statist of all Western societies, and i think this board is fairly representative of that, I'm not sure how you see that representation; a lot of people on this board want to move more toward similar systems as those in other more socialistic societies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 3, 2016 13:19:49 GMT -5
the US is the least statist of all Western societies, and i think this board is fairly representative of that, I'm not sure how you see that representation; a lot of people on this board want to move more toward similar systems as those in other more socialistic societies. and a lot of people want the opposite of that. on balance, there is nothing that says to me that this board is an exception to that general truth. edit: i should also add that some people think that others want "more socialism", when in fact, that is not true. take me for example. i get accused of that all the time. but the fact is i want socialism completely out of about 1/3 of the federal budget- which is about the same as most conservatives here. it really comes down to WHAT socialism you want to end, and what you want to increase, not whether you actually want it or not- at least for most people. that is what i think, anyway.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 4, 2016 8:31:45 GMT -5
I agree. How do you determine the crimes someone might have done? It's unquantifiable.
Pay them a 'wage' while they attend a trade school for free. That way they're improving their employability and will hopefully be too busy to continue their gang lifestyle.
In a way that same concept could be applied while somebody is on welfare, or other government subsidy in the form of helping the person become less likely to need those programs in the future. In each instance, there is a limit on how long that person is expected to be using the program; but this one I'm not sure there is one. I see this as a great way for certain government officials to build a voter base, but not so much of a good long-term solution for the problem. How can enabling someone to find a marketable job skill not be a good long term solution for the problem? It's the ONLY long term solution to the problem - point them towards a good paying job and shake a carrot in front of them to reach for it.
Granted there will always be the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled people who can't benefit from job training programs, but every able bodied person getting government assistance should ONLY be eligible for benefits if they are also participating in a program to improve their job skills, whether that's more education, learning a trade, or learning how to create a resume and interview well.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 4, 2016 8:37:23 GMT -5
Good idea ! It can be put right on the income tax form as a "no drug related arrest/conviction" credit, or a "no traffic citation/conviction" credit etc. Now that's tax funded initiatives I would vote for. Then you get called a racist because of the "unfairness" others see in court systems about how certain demographics are more likely to be convicted of crimes...and then it gets used as an example of institutional racism whether it is or not. If we are going to pay for something like this from a government sponsored angle, maybe we think about it from the perspective of paying students who receive above a certain GPA and then government coverage of in-state colleges as well (some states already offer something like this for in-state college). In which case, encouraging more students to go to college and hopefully reducing some of these issues that way. If there were a program that rewarded students who have above certain GPA's with some sort of stipend, I am curious how much more involved parents would be in their kids doing homework and encouraging them to get good grades...especially in areas where that extra money could come in handy. I actually might not be opposed to a program like this because I think it could do some good, but I'm not sure how much money it would take to make a difference. It would need to be more than just some nominal amount like $250/semester...it would need to be enough to make people think "I really need to stay out of trouble and keep my grades up." Maybe a program like this would help encourage more kids to not go down the wrong path before it starts, and that seems like a cheaper alternative than paying them after-the-fact like the program mentioned in the OP. Such programs might also work to get more students in fields of need as well. For instance, offering stipends to families who have students highly involved in STEM areas or maybe something along the lines of paid tuition and stipends for students in STEM majors who keep above a certain GPA. Just some thoughts if you want to spend money in order to encourage certain behaviors anyway, while also helping fill a societal need. We live in GA where they have a hope scholarship that pays the tuition for any college student (no means testing) who keeps above a certain GPA. I can tell you that motivated us to motivate our DS to maintain that GPA. It paid about $10,000 per year for five years (he rotated through working a paid internship so it took him an extra year to graduate). I think that should be extended to trade schools and, for low income kids, it should provide a modest amount of money for living expenses, too. I think the carrot of free post HS tuition would be a great motivator for both the kids and parents.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 4, 2016 8:48:40 GMT -5
LOL, hickle! At my age, my moderate stance is pretty well set in stone, I'm afraid. I've had a lot of years to formulate my opinions on matters political, and those matters don't really change much. The changes to which we react are situational while the basics remain the same. I do think the further one is from the center the more likely that person is to perceive others as equally polarized. For the most part, I'm not bothered by what others might think, or support. We all come to our opinions based on our experiences. This board isn't moderate, and left-leaning posters outweigh right-leaning posters...it may not have always been the case, but it is now. Most posters aren't extreme one way or another, but to pretend like there isn't a definite lean of the overall board isn't accurate either. I suspect it might appear so because more of the topics we discuss seem to be social issues. More moderate voters generally think social issues should be handled by the states and ignored by the federal government. Abortion rights or gay rights shouldn't be part of the general election campaigns, because they distract from what should be the real focus of the federal government.
However, try starting a discussion about communal farms or having the government take over ownership of private industry - you wouldn't get much of a discussion on it because few posters would be supportive of that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 4, 2016 9:38:08 GMT -5
This board isn't moderate, and left-leaning posters outweigh right-leaning posters...it may not have always been the case, but it is now. Most posters aren't extreme one way or another, but to pretend like there isn't a definite lean of the overall board isn't accurate either. I suspect it might appear so because more of the topics we discuss seem to be social issues. More moderate voters generally think social issues should be handled by the states and ignored by the federal government. Abortion rights or gay rights shouldn't be part of the general election campaigns, because they distract from what should be the real focus of the federal government.
However, try starting a discussion about communal farms or having the government take over ownership of private industry - you wouldn't get much of a discussion on it because few posters would be supportive of that.
precisely. we have heated debates about "socialism" all of the time, but i would challenge you to find a single thread that offers a critique of capitalism. and that is because all of us "radical leftwingers" support capitalism.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 4, 2016 10:30:36 GMT -5
In a way that same concept could be applied while somebody is on welfare, or other government subsidy in the form of helping the person become less likely to need those programs in the future. In each instance, there is a limit on how long that person is expected to be using the program; but this one I'm not sure there is one. I see this as a great way for certain government officials to build a voter base, but not so much of a good long-term solution for the problem. How can enabling someone to find a marketable job skill not be a good long term solution for the problem? It's the ONLY long term solution to the problem - point them towards a good paying job and shake a carrot in front of them to reach for it.
Granted there will always be the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled people who can't benefit from job training programs, but every able bodied person getting government assistance should ONLY be eligible for benefits if they are also participating in a program to improve their job skills, whether that's more education, learning a trade, or learning how to create a resume and interview well.
I was agreeing with you on the concept (and have stated the same idea in the past) of providing people with benefits while they are working toward not needing the program in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2016 13:14:48 GMT -5
... If there were a program that rewarded students who have above certain GPA's with some sort of stipend, I am curious how much more involved parents would be in their kids doing homework and encouraging them to get good grades. ...And how much pressure would be applied to teachers to ensure that certain GPA's were obtained. Nothing wrong with working towards a tenured position versus coasting into one. Also helps justify those public service unions, always pushing for yet more outrageous teacher salaries. I have no problems with work in exchange for a good salary.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2016 13:30:26 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you see that representation; a lot of people on this board want to move more toward similar systems as those in other more socialistic societies. and a lot of people want the opposite of that. on balance, there is nothing that says to me that this board is an exception to that general truth. edit: i should also add that some people think that others want "more socialism", when in fact, that is not true. take me for example. i get accused of that all the time. but the fact is i want socialism completely out of about 1/3 of the federal budget- which is about the same as most conservatives here. it really comes down to WHAT socialism you want to end, and what you want to increase, not whether you actually want it or not- at least for most people. that is what i think, anyway. When you start talking about simply choosing what socialism you want, you're kind of making Goodman's point aren't you ? Quote; Modern liberalism is not completely collectivist; nor is it completely individualistic. It has elements of both doctrines. THE SAME IS TRUE OF CONSERVATISM. Neither view provides a coherent approach to politics, built up from first principles. Instead, they both reflect a process that is akin to picking items from a dinner menu. What is chosen is a matter of taste rather than a matter of thought. Just as people with similar tastes in food tend to frequent the same restaurants, people with the same tastes in politics tend to vote for the same candidates. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjEp8eejc3LAhWHtoMKHUnQDh0QFghPMAs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodmaninstitute.org%2Fhow-we-think%2Fclassical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalism-and-modern-conservatism%2F&usg=AFQjCNGTLkO9yCm6q3jOiJzjxI5olVbmWQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc
|
|