Online Now 6048

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1555
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 2730
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Democrats are just creepy‏

  • sf2k4 said...

    It's one thing to acknowledge their plight and try to come up with ways to alleviate the issues. It's another to blame them for the problems.

    You actually have to give a shit to try and come up with ways to alleviate those issues.

    signature image

    !!!

    Grand Slam

  • Nole27 said...

    This is true. However, it's not just black Americans, it's poor Americans. Welfare reform is most certainly in order. A federal stipulation that they look for a job while on welfare would be a step in the right direction. Capping the amount of consecutive years you can be on welfare would be another. Removing the child tax credit for those on welfare with more than 2 children would also be a step in the right direction. If we're truly serious about welfare reform, then these folks must be educated. They must attend some sort of vocational training, along with these other stipulations, at the very minimum while on welfare.Once there vocational training is completed or their degree is earned they will have 1 year to find a job or start their own business, before welfare is removed. Now obviously some of the cost, probably a small portion would be offset by the reformation of the child tax credit. But it has to be paid for somehow, so a raise in taxes would obviously be necessary. But, as you can see this requires both sides of the aisle. If you were in congress do you think you'd vote for this kind of welfare reform?

    I'm going to ignore the vague use of the term 'welfare' here. Saying 'welfare' needs reform is like saying 'the economy is bad'. It is too vague to carry any real meaning.

    Federal stipulation that you look for a job in order to qualify for unemployment assistance? Sure. Sending out a minimum number of applications/year seems to make sense to me.

    Capping the amount of years you can be on unemployment assistance? Why? If you know that someone is applying for jobs, the year cap doesn't make any sense.

    Limiting the amount after 2 kids? HORRIBLE idea. All that will happen is that large families will go hungry. You are actually just punishing the kids. If you actually want to stop families without means from having kids, offer them birth control or abortion services.

    As for the vocational training - I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some type of assistance program for community colleges or trade schools being implemented. It should be voluntary, however.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    I'm going to ignore the vague use of the term 'welfare' here. Saying 'welfare' needs reform is like saying 'the economy is bad'. It is too vague to carry any real meaning.

    Federal stipulation that you look for a job in order to qualify for unemployment assistance? Sure. Sending out a minimum number of applications/year seems to make sense to me.

    Capping the amount of years you can be on unemployment assistance? Why? If you know that someone is applying for jobs, the year cap doesn't make any sense.

    Limiting the amount after 2 kids? HORRIBLE idea. All that will happen is that large families will go hungry. You are actually just punishing the kids. If you actually want to stop families without means from having kids, offer them birth control or abortion services.

    As for the vocational training - I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some type of assistance program for community colleges or trade schools being implemented. It should be voluntary, however.

    It's really not vague at all. Welfare isn't unemployment insurance. I understand the grey area with regards to extended unemployment insurance benefits, as both extended benefits and welfare draw from the same funding pool but that's a debate in and of itself. You have to meet requirements in regards to income and assets to receive a welfare check, not so with unemployment insurance.

    Limiting a tax credit would hardly lead to the dramatics you're suggesting. I'm also not suggesting that a limited tax credit be used as some form of birth control, there are many forms of free and readily available contraception available to most Americans at a health department near us.

    If we are serious about actually giving folks a ladder out of poverty, than vocational training shouldn't be an option, it should be a requirement. What good is minimum wage employment that nowhere near keeps pace with the cost of living? Currently, there are all kinds of existing government programs for those at or near the poverty line to get an education. Those in need should take advantage of them. To suggest it keep pace with the status quo is a HORRIBLE idea.

    Nole27 ●

  • Religion bashing. This is shocking.

    signature image signature image signature image

    DrStache

  • Tidepride30 said...

    Religion bashing. This is shocking.

    Yeah, I mean, religions don't ever say anything negative about non-religious people or groups, right?

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • CMXI said...

    Yeah, I mean, religions don't ever say anything negative about non-religious people or groups, right?

    I'm not sure. I don't go everywhere and listen or read everyone.

    signature image signature image signature image

    DrStache

  • Tidepride30 said...

    I'm not sure. I don't go everywhere and listen or read everyone.

    Dude. Come on. This thread contains no more religion-bashing than your average church sermon contains non-religious bashing.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • I'm just saying, as usual on this board, a political disagreement turns into religion bashing and it wasn't a religious guy that started it. Same story. Same board. Different day.

    signature image signature image signature image

    DrStache

  • Tidepride30 said...

    I'm just saying, as usual on this board, a political disagreement turns into religion bashing and it wasn't a religious guy that started it. Same story. Same board. Different day.

    Wait, what? TroyTide was the first one to bring up the word "worship."

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • Tidepride30 said...

    I'm just saying, as usual on this board, a political disagreement turns into religion bashing and it wasn't a religious guy that started it. Same story. Same board. Different day.

    That's what happens when you have an entire political party that bases it's ideals on religious principles.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • Nole27 said...

    It's really not vague at all. Welfare isn't unemployment insurance. I understand the grey area with regards to extended unemployment insurance benefits, as both extended benefits and welfare draw from the same funding pool but that's a debate in and of itself. You have to meet requirements in regards to income and assets to receive a welfare check, not so with unemployment insurance.

    Limiting a tax credit would hardly lead to the dramatics you're suggesting. I'm also not suggesting that a limited tax credit be used as some form of birth control, there are many forms of free and readily available contraception available to most Americans at a health department near us.

    If we are serious about actually giving folks a ladder out of poverty, than vocational training shouldn't be an option, it should be a requirement. What good is minimum wage employment that nowhere near keeps pace with the cost of living? Currently, there are all kinds of existing government programs for those at or near the poverty line to get an education. Those in need should take advantage of them. To suggest it keep pace with the status quo is a HORRIBLE idea.

    Which welfare programs specifically are you talking about, then? It's a terribly vague in that there is one program which provides assistance to single mothers, another to unemployed people, etc. etc. etc.

    And when their birth control fails (even when used properly, BC is not 100% effective), what then? There is 1 abortion clinic in all of Mississippi, and the governor of the state recently said his major goal in office is to shut it down.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • Nole27 said...

    This is true. However, it's not just black Americans, it's poor Americans. Welfare reform is most certainly in order. A federal stipulation that they look for a job while on welfare would be a step in the right direction. Capping the amount of consecutive years you can be on welfare would be another. Removing the child tax credit for those on welfare with more than 2 children would also be a step in the right direction. If we're truly serious about welfare reform, then these folks must be educated. They must attend some sort of vocational training, along with these other stipulations, at the very minimum while on welfare.Once there vocational training is completed or their degree is earned they will have 1 year to find a job or start their own business, before welfare is removed. Now obviously some of the cost, probably a small portion would be offset by the reformation of the child tax credit. But it has to be paid for somehow, so a raise in taxes would obviously be necessary. But, as you can see this requires both sides of the aisle. If you were in congress do you think you'd vote for this kind of welfare reform?

    I would be just fine with something like that. Much better than just handing them a check.

    TroyTide

  • brem22 said...

    Your views on individual accountability, btw? Very, very Southern Baptist. It's one of your central tenets. But you can't hold that up as a "Christian" belief.

    Fair enough.

    TroyTide

  • sf2k4 said...

    It's one thing to acknowledge their plight and try to come up with ways to alleviate the issues. It's another to blame them for the problems.

    Blame them no. But the fact is they are the majority of entitlement recipients in this part of the country, that is just recognizing the situation for what it is. It is something that should be recognized. You can't fix any problem if you can't recognize the scope of it.

    TroyTide

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    I'm going to ignore the vague use of the term 'welfare' here. Saying 'welfare' needs reform is like saying 'the economy is bad'. It is too vague to carry any real meaning.

    Federal stipulation that you look for a job in order to qualify for unemployment assistance? Sure. Sending out a minimum number of applications/year seems to make sense to me.

    Capping the amount of years you can be on unemployment assistance? Why? If you know that someone is applying for jobs, the year cap doesn't make any sense.

    Limiting the amount after 2 kids? HORRIBLE idea. All that will happen is that large families will go hungry. You are actually just punishing the kids. If you actually want to stop families without means from having kids, offer them birth control or abortion services.

    As for the vocational training - I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some type of assistance program for community colleges or trade schools being implemented. It should be voluntary, however.

    Birth control is free at most health departments and God knows abortion is more available than ever and often on the taxpayers dime. Fact is it is financially beneficial under the current system to pop babies out. The current system encourages them to have babies, which is stupid. It needs to be made clear that after such and such date any children you have beyond x amount it will be on you to pay for.

    And vocational training shouldn't be voluntary or no one would use it.

    TroyTide

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    Which welfare programs specifically are you talking about, then? It's a terribly vague in that there is one program which provides assistance to single mothers, another to unemployed people, etc. etc. etc.

    And when their birth control fails (even when used properly, BC is not 100% effective), what then? There is 1 abortion clinic in all of Mississippi, and the governor of the state recently said his major goal in office is to shut it down.

    It's really not vague. Welfare is welfare. If you are wholly dependent on the government for your income, you are on welfare. Most folks often group government programs such as WIC, medicare and medicaid together when discussing welfare reform, but imo these programs are similar to government subsidies, such as corporate tax breaks and the like and have no place in a discussion involving those on welfare.

    Were birth control the only form of contraception that were free or available to us, your argument would have more teeth. However, condoms are also in abundance at every health department and I'd think that if someone is serious about preventing an unwanted birth they should probably take every precaution. Though it is a woman's right to choose, if she can't have an abortion in Mississippi than she'll have to cross state lines. It's certainly less than ideal if you feel that abortion is your only option and I understand that, but that doesn't mean the government should dole out cash for those that have no desire to help themselves. This is why I think any serious welfare reformation proposal should include the mandatory education of those on the program. It will do far more to help those in need, as well as our economy in the long run.

    Nole27 ●

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    Which welfare programs specifically are you talking about, then? It's a terribly vague in that there is one program which provides assistance to single mothers, another to unemployed people, etc. etc. etc.

    And when their birth control fails (even when used properly, BC is not 100% effective), what then? There is 1 abortion clinic in all of Mississippi, and the governor of the state recently said his major goal in office is to shut it down.

    Well they could not ****. I mean if I was poor I would think it would be a bad idea to do anything that might cause me to have kids.

    They can't resist the pleasure of sex? Okay well they live with the consequences. Or we take their kids away. They shouldn't ever receive more money for more kids. Handing out checks for each extra child only encourages the poor to reproduce which is the worst possible thing for them, the kids, and the taxpayer.

    At the very least they should be required to provide receipts for all expenditures involving funds meant for children.

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    Birth control is free at most health departments and God knows abortion is more available than ever and often on the taxpayers dime. Fact is it is financially beneficial under the current system to pop babies out. The current system encourages them to have babies, which is stupid. It needs to be made clear that after such and such date any children you have beyond x amount it will be on you to pay for.

    And vocational training shouldn't be voluntary or no one would use it.

    False. Republicans have been making it increasingly difficult to get abortions of late by dodging every aspect of Roe v. Wade they can. See cases like Virginia, where they are attempting to shut down all abortion clinics by classifying them as hospitals (which require wider entryways, thus expensive repairs), or in Mississippi, where there is only 1 clinic in the entire state. While planned parenthood does get tax dollars for abortions, abortions compromise 3% of the spending at PP. It's not a huge expense.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • TroyTide said...

    Well they could not ****.

    And this is why you aren't actually "pro-life", you're just anti-sex. If you were actually pro-life, you would do everything you can to make sure that kids born into crappy situations are given the help they need. Instead, you want to force your personal morals about sexuality onto other people.

    This post was edited by ramssuperbowl99 on 1/18/2013 at 4:42 PM

    ramssuperbowl99

  • TroyTide said...

    Well they could not ****. I mean if I was poor I would think it would be a bad idea to do anything that might cause me to have kids.

    They can't resist the pleasure of sex? Okay well they live with the consequences. Or we take their kids away. They shouldn't ever receive more money for more kids. Handing out checks for each extra child only encourages the poor to reproduce which is the worst possible thing for them, the kids, and the taxpayer.

    At the very least they should be required to provide receipts for all expenditures involving funds meant for children.

    There's the fringe talk again. I doubt they're having sex and thinking to themselves, "I'm about to get paid!" I don't think having a tax credit for children leads to more children. However, at some point it becomes a financial burden and it's at that moment the credit should be revoked, but not as some form of birth control. It's really no different with corporate subsidization.

    Nole27 ●

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    And this is why you aren't actually "pro-life", you're just anti-sex. If you were actually pro-life, you would do everything you can to make sure that kids born into crappy situations are given the help they need. Instead, you want to force your personal morals about sexuality onto other people.

    LOL. I do not think abortions should be illegal and have no problem with sex, I do it myself. Help the kids yes, but not the parents.

    You assume way too much.

    TroyTide

  • Nole27 said...

    There's the fringe talk again. I doubt they're having sex and thinking to themselves, "I'm about to get paid!" I don't think having a tax credit for children leads to more children. However, at some point it becomes a financial burden and it's at that moment the credit should be revoked, but not as some form of birth control. It's really no different with corporate subsidization.

    The actually have sex and have kids because they received no sex education.

    http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-comparisions.asp?id=11&sID=801

    That's the number of unplanned pregnancies by state.

    Here are the number of teen pregnancies:
    http://womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com/file/view/preg.png/70840933/684x529/preg.png

    These are the states (grey) that accept funding for abstinance only sex ed:
    http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gpr1201/gpr120106c1.gif

    ramssuperbowl99

  • Nole27 said...

    There's the fringe talk again. I doubt they're having sex and thinking to themselves, "I'm about to get paid!" I don't think having a tax credit for children leads to more children. However, at some point it becomes a financial burden and it's at that moment the credit should be revoked, but not as some form of birth control. It's really no different with corporate subsidization.

    No they don't think that, they don't think at all, because they don't have to since there is always a safety net there. So they frolic around and if they have a kid so what, they will get cash from the government. some of which they can use for other things.

    TroyTide

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    The actually have sex and have kids because they received no sex education.

    http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-comparisions.asp?id=11&sID=801

    That's the number of unplanned pregnancies by state.

    Here are the number of teen pregnancies: http://womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com/file/view/preg.png/70840933/684x529/preg.png

    These are the states (grey) that accept funding for abstinance only sex ed: http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gpr1201/gpr120106c1.gif

    The sex ed argument is the dumbest thing ever. Everybody knows about birth control, condoms etc. And everybody knows babies come from sex. Fact is they just don't give a s***.

    I mean I have never accused poor people of being all that smart but apparently you think they are downright moronic. lol.

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    The sex ed argument is the dumbest thing ever. Everybody knows about birth control, condoms etc. And everybody knows babies come from sex. Fact is they just don't give a s***.

    I mean I have never accused poor people of being all that smart but apparently you think they are downright moronic. lol.

    It's just an amazing coincidence that states with better sex ed have lower pregnancy rates. Which is exactly why the spread of HIV is also higher in developed countries with abstinence only sex ed. I'm sure all the horny teenages are like, "Oh yeah I'll get AIDS and die? I don't give a crap."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943855
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17885460

    ramssuperbowl99

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports