Hawt Owning guns is a right, paying a low price for them is not

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
seems to be a popular opinion here that low income people receive a ton of money and squander it...is anyone taking into account those that need the $ and live of of it every month such as a mentally or physically ill individual which accounts for a high % of welfare recipients?

No. The discussion is about parents that don't give a shit about their kids - grades included, and the amount of $$ that gets poured into schooling trying to circumvent the lack of parental involvement to help the kids. So far, there isn't much, if anything, that works.
 

Mortlach

Erect Member
Nov 8, 2012
1,624
16
41
South Jersey
No. The discussion is about parents that don't give a shit about their kids - grades included, and the amount of $$ that gets poured into schooling trying to circumvent the lack of parental involvement to help the kids. So far, there isn't much, if anything, that works.


I hear it, sorry for the diverging point then
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
In Chicago, the CPS schools get a formula based allocation of Fed money that is primarily based on how many students in total show up for school on the first day. This somehow establishes 'need.' CPS actually has a marketing campaign to make sure as many kids as possible show up on the first day. Unintended consequence = no one cares after the first day cuz nothing is hinged on it.
 

Mortlach

Erect Member
Nov 8, 2012
1,624
16
41
South Jersey
I get your point. I think this is just a segmented part of the welfare recipients that possibly can be helped. The failed kid ends up as an unintended consequence of a broken system.


it's a much higher percentage than people think... popular opinion thinks the majority are not disabled when in fact the majority very much are

Those that abuse the system give the others a horrid reputation. Yeah and I agree about the kids
 

Mortlach

Erect Member
Nov 8, 2012
1,624
16
41
South Jersey
In Chicago, the CPS schools get a formula based allocation of Fed money that is primarily based on how many students in total show up for school on the first day. This somehow establishes 'need.' CPS actually has a marketing campaign to make sure as many kids as possible show up on the first day. Unintended consequence = no one cares after the first day cuz nothing is hinged on it.

a random unlisted day would be smarter
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
73,388
24,685
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
The child income tax credit is one of the largest credits we have. When removed, that 47% who pay no federal income tax drops to under 20%. That would make Romney happy, I think.

These low income people already receive a ton of free money. What makes you think THIS money will make the difference?
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
they were the ones that set the day?
That and the significance of them needing to know the specific day.

It's the same bullshit when the kids take all the standardized tests now. The educators all know what's going to be on the test, they know their school will be graded on it, and for 2 weeks before the test they pump the kids with the stuff they don't normally teach (because it will show up on the test) and they pump the kids full of "here's how you need to take the test so you can do your best" and then they go through days of helpful hints. Further, the parents get sleeping and diet instructions to help the kids as well. Sadly, all this 'help' only gets dished out when money is the incentive.
 
Last edited:

Mortlach

Erect Member
Nov 8, 2012
1,624
16
41
South Jersey
That and the significance of them needing to know the specific day.

It's the same bullshit when the kids take all the standardized tests now. The educators all know what's going to be on the test, they know their school will be graded on it, and for 2 weeks before the test they pump the kids with the stuff they don't normally teach (because it will show up on the test) and they pump the kids full of "here's how you need to take the test so you can do your best" and then they go through days of helpful hints. Further, the parents get sleeping and diet instructions to help the kids as well. Sadly, all this 'help' only gets dished out when money is the incentive.


in this country, $ is the ONLY incentive
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
573
kansas city
I don't think you're this stupid. I think you're just acting this stupid. I've said I think three times now that hinging the money these families expect on the performance of their children will cause stress. If that family can't function without that money, then yes, that is akin to child labor. Studying is not labor.

Amstel and I are interested in solving an issue with our shitty education system, recognizing that it will cost money -- but less money than what we currently spend for endlessly modifying school infrastructure and bloating DoE's across the country.

Just say you don't want to spend money and people should take care of themselves. Done. But proposing an education program with the primary purpose of saving money is disingenuous to the debate. So what are you trying to solve?

You also can't be this stupid. you give people an entitlement, they become dependent on it. This is the situation we are having now... So give them another entitlement (100 month or whatever for good grades), how long before they become dependent on it and it devolves into your child labor high stress situation?

I think adding extra benefits will get identical results to what I'm proposing, only cost more. Whereas what you are trying to avoid by adding extra benefits instead of using current entitlements will eventually happen anyways.
 

Casper

Bobbert Cheapstein
Oct 6, 2009
8,299
365
41
You also can't be this stupid. you give people an entitlement, they become dependent on it. This is the situation we are having now... So give them another entitlement (100 month or whatever for good grades), how long before they become dependent on it and it devolves into your child labor high stress situation?

I think adding extra benefits will get identical results to what I'm proposing, only cost more. Whereas what you are trying to avoid by adding extra benefits instead of using current entitlements will eventually happen anyways.

If it's campaigned to the public as a bonus I don't think that will happen. On top of it, these kids will graduate or drop out. The money is very temporary.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
73,388
24,685
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
If it's campaigned to the public as a bonus I don't think that will happen. On top of it, these kids will graduate or drop out. The money is very temporary.

Of course it will just become part of their spending money, just like when YOU get a raise. T

his is a group of people who clearly lack personal responsibility. You just can't throw money at that problem. Here is what will happen: The kid will get bad grades, the parent will lose the money, it will be someone else's fault, and a teacher will get shot.
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
573
kansas city
13 years if you start at kindergarten. I'm not sure what age/grade they start with standardized tests though, which is what I think you'd have to base the kids performance on.

Casper, we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't think they'd see extra as a bonus, it's become expected just like fly said, whenever people get a raise they raise their expenses because it's expected income, it's not going to ever be treated as just a bonus except maybe the first few times they get it.

And I still maintain it'll prevent people from having kids just for a welfare payment (if that's actually a problem) because forcing them to be a decent parent might turn them off to the idea.