PDA

View Full Version : Planned Parenthood--- What It Does



Roger Perry
04-10-2011, 07:58 AM
What Planned Parenthood actually does

By Ezra Klein
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/plannedparenthood.jpg?uuid=QJyyvGIBEeCV6ZMHpLzxXw
(Planned Parenthood)
With Planned Parenthood being either the major obstacle to a budget deal or one of the major obstacles to a budget deal, itís worth taking a minute explaining what they do ó and what they donít do.

As you can see in the chart atop this post, abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthoodís activities. Thatís less than cancer screening and prevention (16 percent), STD testing for both men and women (35 percent), and contraception (also 35 percent). About 80 percent of Planned Parenthoodís users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line. Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. Itís also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.
So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isnít about abortion. Itís primarily about contraception and reproductive health. And if Planned Parenthood loses funding, what will mainly happen is that cancer screenings and contraception and STD testing will become less available to poorer people. Folks with more money, of course, have many other ways to receive all these services, and tend to get them elsewhere already.

And the Republicans want to end funding for Planned Parenthood:confused:

Franco
04-10-2011, 08:04 AM
Republican political suicide is what it is!

By making Abortion an issue for 2012, they just handed Obama his second term.

:mad:

I have warned that they need to keep the focus on the economy, the budgit and deficit. Those issues they could win with. But no, they had to awake the sleeping giant and it will be their downfall.

luvmylabs23139
04-10-2011, 08:15 AM
Planned parenthood is a private entity. The gov't should stop giving money to them for that reason alone.

Franco
04-10-2011, 08:21 AM
Planned parenthood is a private entity. The gov't should stop giving money to them for that reason alone.

In theory, yes.

But, instead of taking on an issue that will rally the opposition why not go after Corporate Welfare or Tax Loop Holes or cutting unneeded Depts like Education or Energy?

No doubt that private donations to PP to keep them providing the services they do will happen if they are defunded.

luvmylabs23139
04-10-2011, 08:34 AM
In theory, yes.

But, instead of taking on an issue that will rally the opposition why not go after Corporate Welfare or Tax Loop Holes or cutting unneeded Depts like Education or Energy?

No doubt that private donations to PP to keep them providing the services they do will happen if they are defunded.

Hey I'm 100% behind eliminating the Dept of ED and the Dept of Energy.
I'm also behind eliminating corporate loopholes. But I also think we need to eliminate all child credits.
I don't think the actual taxpayers should pay for other peoples' kids.
I can't support anything that gives my money to someone else and they have a negative tax bill.

Roger Perry
04-10-2011, 08:34 AM
I don't believe the Republicans have the clout to overturn Roe V Wade so they go after anything that has to do with abortion to try to pick abortion apart piece by piece. All they are doing is pi$$ing off the voters and are going to make abortion one of the main issues in the next election and not only hand Obama another term but keep more Republicans out of the House and Senate in the next election.;-)

Roger Perry
04-10-2011, 08:37 AM
Hey I'm 100% behind eliminating the Dept of ED and the Dept of Energy.
I'm also behind eliminating corporate loopholes. But I also think we need to eliminate all child credits.
I don't think the actual taxpayers should pay for other peoples' kids.
I can't support anything that gives my money to someone else and they have a negative tax bill.

Sooooooooooo, I take it then you support Obamacare because then everyone would contribute to the cost of health insurance.

Of course there is another alternative, The low income families could always flood the emergency rooms at hospitals because they do not turn down people there and the cost would sent your insurance premiums and health care through the roof to compensate for their inability to pay. Or, we could just let the low income people just die off one by one until there aren't any.

luvmylabs23139
04-10-2011, 08:47 AM
Sooooooooooo, I take it then you support Obamacare because then everyone would contribute to the cost of health insurance.

NO!!!!!! The welfare slime would pay nothing as usual! Get your facts straight. Everyone would not pay.
Obumma care costs me money. My rates went up.
OBUMMA CARE is redistribution of earnings.
IT IS BS!!!!!

luvmylabs23139
04-10-2011, 08:51 AM
Sooooooooooo, I take it then you support Obamacare because then everyone would contribute to the cost of health insurance.

Of course there is another alternative, The low income families could always flood the emergency rooms at hospitals because they do not turn down people there and the cost would sent your insurance premiums and health care through the roof to compensate for their inability to pay. Or, we could just let the low income people just die off one by one until there aren't any.


NON emergancies should not be treated at an ER end of story.
ILLEGALS SHOULD NEVER BE TREATED> They should be arrested and thrown
back over the fence as is.

Franco
04-10-2011, 08:52 AM
NO!!!!!! The welfare slime would pay nothing as usual! Get your facts straight. Everyone would not pay.
Obumma care costs me money. My rates went up.
OBUMMA CARE is redistribution of earnings.
IT IS BS!!!!!

Any chances we had at eliminating or limiting Obama Care just went out the window now that the Republicans have added abortion to the debate!

road kill
04-10-2011, 09:17 AM
Republican political suicide is what it is!

By making Abortion an issue for 2012, they just handed Obama his second term.

:mad:

I have warned that they need to keep the focus on the economy, the budgit and deficit. Those issues they could win with. But no, they had to awake the sleeping giant and it will be their downfall.

TAXPYER FUNDED abortion will play well.

Obama will NOT get a second term.

Wanna bet me Franco??

Name the amount, I'm in.
(this is for Franco, noone else)


RK

Franco
04-10-2011, 09:46 AM
TAXPYER FUNDED abortion will play well.

Obama will NOT get a second term.

Wanna bet me Franco??

Name the amount, I'm in.
(this is for Franco, noone else)


RK

Name the amount.

The GOP just shot themselves in both feet and thier brain.

bobbyb
04-10-2011, 10:42 AM
Anybody ever been to D.C. and Philly.??promise you there ain't no planned parenthood there.....only thing planned is how soon can i have another baby.. Really Chou Rouge !!!
BobbyB
cajun

Hew
04-10-2011, 11:02 AM
But, instead of taking on an issue that will rally the opposition why not go after Corporate Welfare or Tax Loop Holes or cutting unneeded Depts like Education or Energy?
LOL. You think Republicans trying to get rid of the Dept. of Education is LESS of a lightning rod than trying to axe Federal funding for a private entity that performs abortion? Really? Sunday morning coming down?

Uncle Bill
04-10-2011, 11:02 AM
Republican political suicide is what it is!

By making Abortion an issue for 2012, they just handed Obama his second term.

:mad:

I have warned that they need to keep the focus on the economy, the budgit and deficit. Those issues they could win with. But no, they had to awake the sleeping giant and it will be their downfall.


You are so jaded, you couldn't be more wrong.

It is all wishful thinking on your part. You ACTUALLY WANT OBAMA TO WIN AGAIN! HOW CAN WE NOT REALIZE THAT?

I should have seen it coming. Your claims to be anything but a bleeding heart for Obama are now exposed for what it is. Climb aboard the Roger wagon, Franco. Your thinly veiled libertarian bullcrap is just a front for your "atheism-above-all" agenda.

You and the rest of the "God-is dead" clan will soon discover that you are the real spineless group in this war against socialism. Hope you enjoy your side of the isle. You and the rest of the fractured Democrat party, with all their individual agendas...march in lock step for the downfall of this nation.

UB

Franco
04-10-2011, 11:08 AM
You are so jaded, you couldn't be more wrong.

It is all wishful thinking on your part. You ACTUALLY WANT OBAMA TO WIN AGAIN! HOW CAN WE NOT REALIZE THAT?

I should have seen it coming. Your claims to be anything but a bleeding heart for Obama are now exposed for what it is. Climb aboard the Roger wagon, Franco. Your thinly veiled libertarian bullcrap is just a front for your "atheism-above-all" agenda.

You and the rest of the "God-is dead" clan will soon discover that you are the real spineless group in this war against socialism. Hope you enjoy your side of the isle. You and the rest of the fractured Democrat party, with all their individual agendas...march in lock step for the downfall of this nation.

UB


This is about as silly a post from you as I've seen!

Uncle Bill
04-10-2011, 11:54 AM
This is about as silly a post from you as I've seen!

Well then STOP with your "atheistic views ubber alles". You can take the side of Satan all you want, just stop telling those of us that aren't in your clique that our views will sink the ship.

It's not gonna matter if we get a bible thumping warm body to run against Obama, with what we NOW know of his "hope and change" agenda, he can't get Aunt Jemima to vote for him. His only chance is by having single agenda voters like you constantly spewing what's wrong with his opposition, and it gives the Soros enablers all the fuel they need to rile up the rest of the idiots that continue to get their votes paid for.

If you buy into all conservatives thinking now was the time to defund PP, or all TEA party followers only believing defunding PP is their prime purpose for wanting to take back their country, you are mistaken. But you can take it to the bank that PP WILL eventually be defunded, as will several of the agencies you despise.

That's what will be the purpose of the 2012 election. Some of the more vocal TEA party members got the cart before the horse at this time. It's no more of "them exposing themselves for what they are", than it is you exposing yourself for what you totally believe.

Your concerns about the fanatacism of the religious right taking over the TEA party movement are only what you see through an atheists eyes. Try to look at it as getting this country back on track as the constitution writers envisioned it. None of us give a hoot you are blind to a God fearing nation. We will continue to pray for you to someday see the light, as Saul did. Not until you do, will you be able to recognize how pathetically shameful it is to take the lives of the unborn.

It must be difficult to have such an internal fight as you are going through; claiming to be Libertarian, but not caring about giving 300 million tax-payer dollars to an organization that should be on it's own. They are just as corrupt as the Education or Energy departments. But I'll agree, they all should be de-funded. The 2012 elections can make that happen.

UB

Roger Perry
04-10-2011, 12:05 PM
Well then STOP with your "atheistic views ubber alles". You can take the side of Satan all you want, just stop telling those of us that aren't in your clique that our views will sink the ship.

It's not gonna matter if we get a bible thumping warm body to run against Obama, with what we NOW know of his "hope and change" agenda, he can't get Aunt Jemima to vote for him. His only chance is by having single agenda voters like you constantly spewing what's wrong with his opposition, and it gives the Soros enablers all the fuel they need to rile up the rest of the idiots that continue to get their votes paid for.

If you buy into all conservatives thinking now was the time to defund PP, or all TEA party followers only believing defunding PP is their prime purpose for wanting to take back their country, you are mistaken. But you can take it to the bank that PP WILL eventually be defunded, as will several of the agencies you despise.

That's what will be the purpose of the 2012 election. Some of the more vocal TEA party members got the cart before the horse at this time. It's no more of "them exposing themselves for what they are", than it is you exposing yourself for what you totally believe.

Your concerns about the fanatacism of the religious right taking over the TEA party movement are only what you see through an atheists eyes. Try to look at it as getting this country back on track as the constitution writers envisioned it. None of us give a hoot you are blind to a God fearing nation. We will continue to pray for you to someday see the light, as Saul did. Not until you do, will you be able to recognize how pathetically shameful it is to take the lives of the unborn.

It must be difficult to have such an internal fight as you are going through; claiming to be Libertarian, but not caring about giving 300 million tax-payer dollars to an organization that should be on it's own. They are just as corrupt as the Education or Energy departments. But I'll agree, they all should be de-funded. The 2012 elections can make that happen.

UB

Oh please UB, the Tea Party has already made Planned Parenthood the focus of the 2012 Election. And on those grounds alone the Republican party will fail to get elected once again not to mention all the looney ideas the tea party will rally on.

Franco
04-10-2011, 12:13 PM
But I'll agree, they all should be de-funded. The 2012 elections can make that happen.

UB

Good, we agree on something!

If I am an Atheist, then I stand with our most influential founders.;-)

I've said on here before that I believe in a higher power and that I don't think mankind has figured it out yet.

Our founders believed is a small Fed Gov, liberty and shared a love for the Constituition. All the main principles of the Libetarian Party. Even you have said how much you agree with John Stossel, the most widely heard Libetarian of them all next to Judge Napolitano.

Give me Liberty!

Uncle Bill
04-10-2011, 12:21 PM
Oh please UB, the Tea Party has already made Planned Parenthood the focus of the 2012 Election. And on those grounds alone the Republican party will fail to get elected once again not to mention all the looney ideas the tea party will rally on.



Looney ideas...you mean like GAY marriage? Partial birth abortion? Paying welfare for unwedded baby mills?

Or do you mean the looney idea of bringing terrorists to the US for trials.

Or the looney idea of the AG of the USA no longer enforcing a LAW-OF-THE-LAND...or allowing the Obamacare bill that's been ruled unconstitutional to continue as if no Federal Judge had declared it such.

HEY!!! Here's a looney idea...wonder what your mother might have done when carrying you, had there been a PP organization in operation in your neighborhood?

UB

Roger Perry
04-10-2011, 12:43 PM
Looney ideas...you mean like GAY marriage? Partial birth abortion? Paying welfare for unwedded baby mills?

Or do you mean the looney idea of bringing terrorists to the US for trials.

Or the looney idea of the AG of the USA no longer enforcing a LAW-OF-THE-LAND...or allowing the Obamacare bill that's been ruled unconstitutional to continue as if no Federal Judge had declared it such.

HEY!!! Here's a looney idea...wonder what your mother might have done when carrying you, had there been a PP organization in operation in your neighborhood?

UB

Actually my sister and me were planned. ;-)

My parents were married in 1937 and me being the oldest was born in 1946;-)

So I guess I am one of those called a baby boomer.

huntinman
04-10-2011, 08:19 PM
Actually my sister and me were planned. ;-)

My parents were married in 1937 and me being the oldest was born in 1946;-)

So I guess I am one of those called a baby boomer.

Why?:confused:

Gerry Clinchy
04-11-2011, 12:55 AM
Why take such extreme views? PP is about more than just abortions. They provide other services as well. They provide a valuable service, but I'm not sure the govt should be funding them, or other non-profits.

Someone came up with the idea that the govt should take care of he needy, i.e. welfare & Medicaid. As surely as there are rules for qualifying for these stipends, there should be rules for limiting the # of children these people can add to the roles. If you go on welfare with one child, that's all you get paid for. Give birth control devices or tubal ligations at no cost, if necessary, but do not increase the stipend for future children. I think that might slow things down a bit. Even local non-govt homeless shelters have rules like "You can't stay here if you keep drinking."

Roger Perry
04-11-2011, 06:45 AM
Why?:confused:

Here is the definition of baby boomer just for you lil RK.

ba∑by boom∑er

somebody born in baby boom: somebody born during a baby boom, especially the one following the end of World War II

huntinman
04-11-2011, 08:53 AM
Here is the definition of baby boomer just for you lil RK.

ba∑by boom∑er

somebody born in baby boom: somebody born during a baby boom, especially the one following the end of World War II

I wasn't asking why you were a boomer. I was asking why you were planned.

Roger Perry
04-11-2011, 09:15 AM
I wasn't asking why you were a boomer. I was asking why you were planned.

I guess you would not know would you lil RK;-)

huntinman
04-11-2011, 09:37 AM
I guess you would not know would you lil RK;-)

You know Roger...Lil RK is not a bad thing... I'll take it and wear it as a compliment. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And you are imitating me, since I am the one who coined Little Rog...And Big Rog;-) Thanks for the compliment, but I would rather you not try to be like me... You are embarrasing yourself. If that is even possible.:rolleyes:

But there is one major difference. While you are complimenting me by imitating me, and nicknaming me after an obvious patriot like RK...

I am not complimenting Little Rog by comparing him to a complete lunatic (you). It is not a compliment to compare you to Little Rog and his many "online personna's"

Roger Perry
04-11-2011, 09:44 AM
You know Roger...Lil RK is not a bad thing... I'll take it and wear it as a compliment. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And you are imitating me, since I am the one who coined Little Rog...And Big Rog;-) Thanks for the compliment, but I would rather you not try to be like me... You are embarrasing yourself. If that is even possible.:rolleyes:

But there is one major difference. While you are complimenting me by imitating me, and nicknaming me after an obvious patriot like RK...

I am not complimenting Little Rog by comparing him to a complete lunatic (you). It is not a compliment to compare you to Little Rog and his many "online personna's"

Trust me, you couldn't fill RK's boots.;-) You're just a wannabe

Losthwy
04-11-2011, 10:22 AM
I can't support anything that gives my money to someone else and they have a negative tax bill.

And that point of view shared by many.

Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Richard_Nixon) signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Family_Planning_Services_and_Population_Research_A ct), amending the Public Health Service Act (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Public_Health_Service_Act). Title X (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Title_X) of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law enjoyed bipartisan support from liberals who saw contraception access as increasing families' control over their lives, and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare (Wikipedia).

Is it cost effective in the overall scheme for taxpayers, if it prevents 620,000 unintended pregnancies and 220,000 abortions?

Ken Bora
04-11-2011, 12:59 PM
how come there is a little roger and a little RK and not a little Ken Bora? Nobody ever wants to be just like me. Always left out of the cool cliques ;-)

UB, think of it as a shoot growing off a tree. You can ether nip it off early or have to deal with it once it grows. Imagine all the prison beds and welfare checks we would need without those contraception services alone. It is just cost effective, from a practical standpoint.
 
.

BonMallari
04-11-2011, 01:02 PM
how come there is a little roger and a little RK and not a little Ken Bora? Nobody ever wants to be just like me. Always left out of the cool cliques ;-)

UB, think of it as a shoot growing off a tree. You can ether nip it off early or have to deal with it once it grows. Imagine all the prison beds and welfare checks we would need without those contraception services alone. It is just cost effective, from a practical standpoint.
 
.


Ken you are cool without having to try being cool....you dont need a mini me character:D

huntinman
04-11-2011, 01:33 PM
Ken you are cool without having to try being cool....you dont need a mini me character:D

I'll second that one. dynamite in a beaver pond regards...

road kill
04-11-2011, 01:42 PM
Here is the deal.
Roger got compared to someone else and was offended.
Someone else got compared to Roger and was offended.

Me and Huntinman get compared to each other and we are proud of it (and who wouldn't be??).:D

Failed effort regards........

BTW--I'd be proud to be a "little Ken" as well.:cool:


RK

dnf777
04-11-2011, 01:43 PM
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And you are imitating me, since I am the one who coined Little Rog...And Big Rog;-) Thanks for the compliment, but I would rather you not try to be like me... You

Don't start having trophies to your own greatness engraved quite yet....

"Lil' X" has been used long before you think you invented it. RK was LittleGib, I was "littleYardley" long before you have a neuronal spark.

Given your self-congratulatory nature, I have a better name in mind for you....


Lil' AlGore regards.....

huntinman
04-11-2011, 01:49 PM
Don't start having trophies to your own greatness engraved quite yet....

"Lil' X" has been used long before you think you invented it. RK was LittleGib, I was "littleYardley" long before you have a neuronal spark.

Given your self-congratulatory nature, I have a better name in mind for you....


Lil' AlGore regards.....

So you are saying that others have recognized your less flattering qualities before me? OK, sorry Little Rog, I will hereby call you Little Yardley on Sundays in honor of your ability to type a whole lot without really saying anything;-)

huntinman
04-11-2011, 01:52 PM
Here is the deal.
Roger got compared to someone else and was offended.
Someone else got compared to Roger and was offended.

Me and Huntinman get compared to each other and we are proud of it (and who wouldn't be??).:D

Failed effort regards........

BTW--I'd be proud to be a "little Ken" as well.:cool:


RK

Sort of feels like the Wisconsin Supreme Court race:cool:

road kill
04-11-2011, 01:55 PM
Sort of feels like the Wisconsin Supreme Court race:cool:

Yeah, it was amazing how some people (well edumucated too!) knew all about it!!!


RK

Gerry Clinchy
04-11-2011, 01:59 PM
Imagine all the prison beds and welfare checks we would need without those contraception services alone. It is just cost effective, from a practical standpoint.


This presumes that the unwanted pregnancies that are aborted are primarily to low-income individuals lack the parenting skills to provide for the children that would result from those pregnancies.

If this is a correct assumption, then wouldn't it be just as easy arrange a doctor visit for women applying for welfare (or other assistance programs) if they are of child-bearing age. Establish the best method of birth control and proceed accordingly to provide it. Is there health risk associated with many birth control methods? Yes. Is there also health risk associated with pregnancy? Absolutely.

Again, if presuming the original assumption is correct, I would guess that if a limit were placed on the stipends (no more children than you start with on welfare), the incentive would be heightened to prevent unwanted pregnancies. You could even provide a little annual "bonus" for remaining non-pregnant each year :-) Would be a whole lot cheaper than adding all those new children to the assistance programs.

dnf777
04-11-2011, 02:00 PM
So you are saying that others have recognized your less flattering qualities before me? OK, sorry Little Rog, I will hereby call you Little Yardley on Sundays in honor of your ability to type a whole lot without really saying anything;-)

As you just demonstrated.....??

You guys ARE entertaining, if nothing else.

Roger Perry
04-11-2011, 02:04 PM
:monkey:
Here is the deal.
Roger got compared to someone else and was offended.
Someone else got compared to Roger and was offended.

Me and Huntinman get compared to each other and we are proud of it (and who wouldn't be??).:D

Failed effort regards........

BTW--I'd be proud to be a "little Ken" as well.:cool:


RK

Yeah, like two peas in a pod.:barf:

road kill
04-11-2011, 02:19 PM
Don't start having trophies to your own greatness engraved quite yet....

"Lil' X" has been used long before you think you invented it. RK was LittleGib, I was "littleYardley" long before you have a neuronal spark.

Given your self-congratulatory nature, I have a better name in mind for you....


Lil' AlGore regards.....

Now that you mention it, I did indeed implement the concept with "Lil' Yardley.":D

Often imitated, never duplicated.....settin' da standard......:cool:


RK

Ken Bora
04-12-2011, 06:25 AM
then wouldn't it be just as easy arrange a doctor visit for women applying for welfare (or other assistance programs) if they are of child-bearing age. Establish the best method of birth control and proceed accordingly to provide it. Is there health risk associated with many birth control methods? Yes. Is there also health risk associated with pregnancy? Absolutely.

Again, if presuming the original assumption is correct, I would guess that if a limit were placed on the stipends (no more children than you start with on welfare), the incentive would be heightened to prevent unwanted pregnancies. You could even provide a little annual "bonus" for remaining non-pregnant each year :-) Would be a whole lot cheaper than adding all those new children to the assistance programs.

that is a great idea, when are you running I wanna vote for you!!



.

Gerry Clinchy
04-12-2011, 09:55 AM
that is a great idea,

Step 2: All enrolled for these assistance programs, if they don't have a HS diploma, must proceed to acquire a GED. 1/2 the group take classes Mon & Wed; other 1/2 Tues & Thurs. Child care provided ... staffed by the 1/2 that have classes on the other two days.

Step 3: After acquiring GED, at least 2 days/wk, all enrollees must be in job training. Such job training can include child or elder day care training. Participants can choose job training they'd prefer combined with their skill levels as assessed through the performance in GED classes. At least 1 more day/wk (if not participating in job internships), must be given to community service ... which could mean anything from collecting litter in parks to child care for non-profits or govt-run facilities. I'd suggest that there be an hourly stipend for time spent on this community service, in addition to the regular assistance stipend.

Step 4: Random drug testing required. No set schedule.

The devil would be in the details of implementing such requirements.

I would also not be totally opposed to subsidizing wages for those who are successful in getting a regular job (no matter what it is). Less than full assistance, but enough to incentivize working rather than not working.

I guess this sounds a lot like "work-fare", and I think that assistance should be directed that way ... getting people into the groove of earning, not living totally on handouts forever. I think that builds self-esteem for the individual.

But what do I know?

mjh345
04-12-2011, 10:03 AM
Step 2: All enrolled for these assistance programs, if they don't have a HS diploma, must proceed to acquire a GED. 1/2 the group take classes Mon & Wed; other 1/2 Tues & Thurs. Child care provided ... staffed by the 1/2 that have classes on the other two days.

Step 3: After acquiring GED, at least 2 days/wk, all enrollees must be in job training. Such job training can include child or elder day care training. Participants can choose job training they'd prefer combined with their skill levels as assessed through the performance in GED classes. At least 1 more day/wk (if not participating in job internships), must be given to community service ... which could mean anything from collecting litter in parks to child care for non-profits or govt-run facilities. I'd suggest that there be an hourly stipend for time spent on this community service, in addition to the regular assistance stipend.

Step 4: Random drug testing required. No set schedule.

The devil would be in the details of implementing such requirements.

I would also not be totally opposed to subsidizing wages for those who are successful in getting a regular job (no matter what it is). Less than full assistance, but enough to incentivize working rather than not working.

I guess this sounds a lot like "work-fare", and I think that assistance should be directed that way ... getting people into the groove of earning, not living totally on handouts forever. I think that builds self-esteem for the individual.

But what do I know?

Way too much common sense in your proposal for it ever to be considered

dnf777
04-12-2011, 10:15 AM
Step 2: All enrolled for these assistance programs, if they don't have a HS diploma, must proceed to acquire a GED. 1/2 the group take classes Mon & Wed; other 1/2 Tues & Thurs. Child care provided ... staffed by the 1/2 that have classes on the other two days.

Step 3: After acquiring GED, at least 2 days/wk, all enrollees must be in job training. Such job training can include child or elder day care training. Participants can choose job training they'd prefer combined with their skill levels as assessed through the performance in GED classes. At least 1 more day/wk (if not participating in job internships), must be given to community service ... which could mean anything from collecting litter in parks to child care for non-profits or govt-run facilities. I'd suggest that there be an hourly stipend for time spent on this community service, in addition to the regular assistance stipend.

Step 4: Random drug testing required. No set schedule.

The devil would be in the details of implementing such requirements.

I would also not be totally opposed to subsidizing wages for those who are successful in getting a regular job (no matter what it is). Less than full assistance, but enough to incentivize working rather than not working.

I guess this sounds a lot like "work-fare", and I think that assistance should be directed that way ... getting people into the groove of earning, not living totally on handouts forever. I think that builds self-esteem for the individual.

But what do I know?

Norplant or depo-provera after one child on public assistance.
Totally reversible if someone turns it around. Otherwise, we won't be taxed to pay for more kids. My wife and I chose not to have anymore, so why should we have to pay for more?

huntinman
04-12-2011, 10:17 AM
Way too much common sense in your proposal for it ever to be considered

It would be considered racist at the core. Not by me, I think it sounds good. Just imagine Jesse, Al and the gang reacting to such a proposal...