I'm sorry I jumped on the wrong part of the topic here: Kudos Steve for doing a "Good Thing". That girl will remember you and your family for many years, I'm sure. I echo Dave's suggestion to: See if you can assist in getting her involved in some local education group like 4H, GSA, etc
As did I. Yes, Steve, good job but we all already know you have a good heart. =)Originally Posted by KC2UGV
"A night sky full of cries. Hearts filled with lies. The contract: is it worth the price?"
Classic case for contraception, but I'm sure her religion forbids it. :roll:
"People Who Don't Want Their Beliefs Laughed at Shouldn't Have Such Funny Beliefs" -AD5MB
"If someone tells you he believes in and talks to an invisible bunny named Harvey, you put him on medication and a regimen of therapy. If someone tells you he believes in and talks to God, well, that's perfectly acceptable. Why that's the case is impossible for me to fathom." - WP2XX
Latest ClubLog entries.
Good job with the computer, Steve. Let's hope that this young student will find a way to break out from the mold her mother has created and become a successful individual. I have seen it happen with other kids.
Did this system you describe start in the 90s? You know, keeping them down and not allowed to have a savings acct?
If it didn't before it does now.
Honestly, I don't know.
If you recall, Reagan and Gingrich were responsible for "reforming" the welfare system. I wouldn't be surprised if what was actually accomplished was to make it more punitive.
Well, Clinton got more credit for Welfare to Workfare. But you know, all those moms driving new DeVilles.
"Where would we be without the agitators of the world to attach the electrodes
of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?" ~ Professor "Dick" Soloman
I don't know about that. It may depend on the location, too, as some states have different rules regarding how they distribute welfare funding.
I think the real issue, though, is simply this: No matter how lofty and noble the proposed laws are, and no matter how lofty and noble (and constructive) the goals are... the actual rules and procedures are written not by the law makers, but by the bureaucrats that run the agencies. Too many of these rules are written to actually serve THEIR needs -- to keep their jobs, to keep their control & power(such as it is), and to make their lives easier.
So, for example, a desired outcome of a rule might be that no one with significant assets should receive public assistance... as they clearly have the means to support themselves. Sounds like a good idea, right? But -- where do you draw the line? What is "significant" in this situation... a house? a car? a savings account with $50,000 in it? $5000? $50?
Better & easier -- for the bureaucrats -- to frame the appropriate regulations to just prohibit a savings account, period. Besides, if you're saving money, then The Government must be paying you too much, right?
It just takes a few rules based on fractured logic like this to set up a system that is designed to keep people in, instead of giving them the means to find a way out.
“Nobody is going to feel sorry for us. 90% of the people don’t care, the other 10% are glad it happened.” — Clint Hurdle, 2019
BAN THE DH!
Fudd's First Law of Opposition: If you push something hard enough, it WILL fall down.
Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law: It goes in, it must go out.
"The 2020 election wasn't stolen, and speaking the truth is only a crime in countries ruled by tyrants" - Liz Cheney
“Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Trump golfed.” — Bernie Sanders
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
