Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
>    I want to talk about people who do not have skills, motivation, good
>    health, or other resources to maintain a decent standard of living.
    
    Reskilling for the first group, health care for the third. For the
    second group, if 'a decent standard of living' isn't motivation
    enough, psychological help may be in order. 

Raise taxes and chop the bureaucracy that wastes the money raised by
taxes.  Stop looking at government as a political issue and think of
it as a humanitarian service.

-d

    I agree with .1.  I also say put out a financial statement as do
    businesses so we can see where the money is actually going.  The
    people on welfare that stay there because they are not skilled.  Let
    them be retrained, put their kids in State paid day-care for 12 weeks
    let them get trained and then subsidize their pay on the day care part
    so they can pay part and State can pay part.  We could put trained
    day care workers who are on Welfare in these positions to help keep the
    costs down.  They are collecting welfare let them work for it!  There
    should be a time limit as to how long you can stay on welfare so that
    too would be an incentive to get off your A-- and get retrained or get
    a job.
    
    It really burns me to see a young girl at home in the slums even with
    babies while the father is sitting there on his duff too.  He's not
    married to her so he doesn't get made to pay child support but if he
    were working he knows he'd have to give her money so they collect
    welfare.
    
    It also burns me there is a young mother who left her husband because
    she was being battered and he is also a drug addict and she's out
    working bringing home $230 per week and paying daycare $200/week for
    her two young ones.  She make too much money for welfare.  IMO she
    should be the one collecting some welfare benefits.  Once those kids
    are in school then they could be stopped because the daycare wouldn't
    be as expensive.
    
    Why is it we can have easy solutions and it takes years for the state
    to institute them? or listen?
    

    re .2
    RAISE TAXES?
    
    Somehow, it seems to me that if we only did the second part of your
    proposal, we not only wouldn't need to do the first, we could CUT
    taxes.  Perhaps it would be enlightening to ask how many w_noters can
    afford a larger cut for the gov'mint.
    
    It would also be well to consider the effect on the poor of Uncle Sugar
    getting a larger share of any increase in their creative endeavors.
    	[dale]
      

    Yes, raise taxes.  It may interest you to know that we in the US pay
    the smallest per-capita tax burden of *all* industrialized nations, yet
    we persist in demanding the most government services.  Look at the
    taxes paid by Brits if you think you have it tough.
    
    I freely admit that I don't want to pay more taxes just cos it's nice
    to hand over a bigger chunk of my salary; but if I could be assured
    that government services to the people (not the military!) would be
    improved thereby in direct proportion to the increase, I would pay more
    taxes without much complaint.
    
    Tax luxuries, don't tax necessities.  States with sales taxes that are
    not applied to foods or medicines show the way in this regard; states
    with excise taxes based on the price of a car rather than, for example,
    its weight, show the way, too.  Tax liquor and cigarettes; if Robin Doe
    can afford to buy an expensive bottle of Laphroaig Scotch instead of
    something cheap like Cutty Sark, s/he can afford to pay a bigger tax
    bite, too.
    
    Real estate taxes, fairly levied, could produce massive amounts of
    revenue without having a severe negative impact on poor people.  Yes, I
    know that apartment-owners would be hit; but this could be addressed by
    the proper legislation.
    
    -d

That is a great concept, but in real life it translates into giving people
that we do not trust, the power to make us to give them money that we do not
have, to spend in ways that we can not control......

How about you and I go find some deserving folks and help them out, instead
of getting a beaurocracy into the middle of it?

I don't trust them.  Which is why I said carefully that I would pay
more taxes IF I COULD BE SURE THEY'D BE PUT TO PROPER USE.  :-)

I'm already following your suggestion, Liu, to the tune of something in
excess of 10% of my total income.

-d

    This note could only have been initiated in the Peoples Republic.
    
    God, are there still some of you left?  We will always have the lazy,
    the worthless, and the free-loaders with us.  Why should I care?
    
    One step I'd like to see taken is an absolute limit on welfare 
    payments to "professional" mothers.  
    
    If a welfare mother has a second child, her check should be cut in
    half....not doubled.  Then halved again with the third; and finally
    eliminated altogether with the fourth.   If you put this in place
    and really enforced it, you'd be able to drive all the welfare
    mama's in Mass down to get their checks in one compact car.
                              

Re: .8

Richard, if you are being deliberately offensive you are certainly
accomplishing your goal.  If you really don't have a clue, pipe down
and learn a little.

	The owl isn't any wiser than the parrot.  He's just got enough
	sense to keep his head shut.

				- Paul L. Anderson.

-d

    
    deliberately offensive == disagrees with party line ..
    

    No.  deliberately offensive = deliberately offensive.
    
    E Grace

    well I'd've said provacative, but no matter.  Interesting that what
    ::lennard is suggesting is a lot like China's policy of punishing
    couples who have more than one child.  Even less drastic measures are
    coercive, which is (or should be) anathama to a free society.
    
    It sure is a dilemna.  How do we break a cycle of dependence on
    welfare, where it exists, without unduly forcing the will of citizens
    who have committed no crime?
    
    And btw, ::lennard, I can't remember which side you come down on in the
    abortion debate -- do I remember rightly that you oppose abortion, and
    birth control for teens?  If so, who's being inconsistent?  Even if we
    ignore the inconsistency, campaigning for (laudable but unachievable)
    goals of abstinence outside marriage as sole solution is pie in the
    sky.
    
    Sara
    

    How about a tax rebate for every year someone remains childless?
    
    HRH

    One problem is, how do we treat somebody who has children they
    can not afford to support? As criminals, as irresponsible, as
    ignorant, as ??? Maybe we have to offer these people a better
    alternative to the viscious circle. Like good education for good
    jobs. Like a healthy economy that provides those jobs. 
    
    Of one thing I am certain - massive government programs have
    not worked, and probably won't. They siphon off too much of
    the available resources. They make capital unavailable to
    entrepreneurs. And they _thrive_ on the misery of people they
    are intended to help. 
    

>And they _thrive_ on the misery of people they are intended to help.

 Thrive is a good word. Their continued existence is predicated on the
continuing misery of the people they are supposed to be helping up.

re .8


	Ogden Nash had the solution a long time ago. Eat the babies, that
	would provide food, eliminate the need to take care of the children
	and at the same time sufficiently punish the worthless woman who 
	have been so weak and stupid as to leave their man insetead of 
	accepting the punsihments they deserve for failing to make him happy.  
		

		In seriousness, anyone who thinks that people on welfare want
	to be there has never known many people there. The welfare system
	is all wrong, it degrades people and makes them dependent. It's rules
	punish people for trying to get off of welfare. It almosts guarantees
	that if you take a job you will be financially worse off. Counseling
	(something many of these people need most because of self-blame and
	depression) is unavailable. The system stinks not the people.

    in re .16
    
    I believe that was Johnathan Swift's Modest Proposal for a solution
    to the Irish problem.
    
    BJ

>    Of one thing I am certain - massive government programs have
>    not worked, and probably won't.

These massive government programs may not work as efficiently as
you or I would like, but they _HAVE_ worked. They have reduced the
infant mortality rate, put roofs over people's heads, fed people,
and treated them when they were sick.

I hope I never have to rely on the government to rescue me from
the consequences of hard times. But I'm glad the safety nets are
in place for people.

I'd like to see tobacco growers stop receiving subsidies though.

Kathy

    I thought my suggestion was a valid first step in breaking the
    cycle of dependence, now in its third generation in thousands of
    all-female households.  It removes a perceived reword for
    promiscuity.
    
    "Programs" will NEVER solve these kind of social ills.  Programs
    beget administrators/bureaucrats.  They in turn seek out job
    security.  Job security is a function of an ever-growing client
    base.  As programs mature, the percentage of program bucks going
    to the program clones every increases.  (Gee, this is starting to
    sound amazingly like our public education system.....)
    
    We must dismantle these programs and replace them with education
    that works, is mandatory, and prepares people to survive in the
    modern world.  As long as we allow 15-16 year old illiterates to
    drop out of school so they can get a job and buy that Camaro, nuthin'
    is ever going to work correctly.
    
    BTW, I am strongly anti-abortion...but don't get the connection you
    are trying to make.

    re .8:
    >God, are there still some of you left?
    
    No, there is only one God left, and it's me.
    (I've got lots of children, though -- I get larger welf...
     oops, sorry, that wasn't supposed to be revealed to mortals yet.)

    >BTW, I am strongly anti-abortion...but don't get the connection you
    >are trying to make.
    
    why am I not surprised.  Lennard, you rail against the evyl womyn
    welfare cheats, who have babies only to rip off the system; and against
    those irresponsible teenaged brats who are so promiscuous as to get
    pregnant.  The major reason you cite for your disapproval of this
    behavior is the impact it makes on your pocketbook.  (oops, wallet in
    your case, humble apologies)  Yet you disapprove of the single most
    cost-effective and practical method of reducing this burden; and of the
    second-most effective and practical method (b.c. for teens, boys and
    girls).  When you advocate continence outside marriage, you are flying
    in the face of reality, tilting at windmills, looking for pie in the
    sky.
    
    The reality is here and now -- and just as you are unlikely to convert
    all Americans to your religion, you are unlikely to convince all
    Americans to adhere to your moral standards.
    
    Please think up a consistent set of standards and morals, that can work
    in the real world we live in!  emphasis on last phrase.
     What is going to WORK?
    
    Sara
    

    Mr. Lennard it appears that you are willing to starve children to death
    to punish them for their mother's "promiscuity and ignorance" after
    they are born.  But will take great pains to keep them alive until
    after birth.  Do you really think threatening people with increased
    poverty is going to stop them from having sex?  
    
    Kids have known for years how babies get made, has it stopped babies
    from having more babies?  However birth control is still expensive,
    difficult to get, and training to break the poverty cycle is even
    harder to get.  If a person makes one dollar a month too much
    (approx 500.00) they lose not only any moey from their grant, they also
    lose medicaid, day care assistance, and the stuff that can help a
    person until they are employed in a highly enough skilled job to
    qualify for insurance, and make enough to feed a family of 2-3 without
    dumpster diving.  
    
    What this country probably needs to break the cycle of poverty is:
    
    1.  Better job training.  (not necessarily beyond HS, some people are
    not college material)  This could include skilling for jobs which can
    be done without 4 to 8 years of additional training out of high school.  
    
    2.  A good apprentiship program for skilled labor, we will be needing
    more people in these areas as the years go on and the labor pool
    shrinks. 
    
    3.  Get people out of the high-rise rat-warrens referred to as public
    housing, and into less poverty stricken living situations, so walking
    out the door isn't a life and death challenge.
    
    4.  Involve this country in harm reduction policies, instead of the
    current WOD that is turning urban areas into virtual jungles.  Provide
    free condoms, syringe exchange programs, and treatment and education,
    rather than stomping people further into the ground.
    
    5.  Come to the realization that female headed househoulds aren't
    necessarily bad, and start treating those heads of households as
    adults, capable of making adult decisions.
    
    6.  Provide a national health care system, starting with well baby care
    and working it's way up, so that people don't wind up forced onto
    welfare to get health problems fixed.
    
    7.  Offer free birthcontrol on demand to anyone.
    
    8.  Support programs which build self esteem in those who need to have
    it most, the women who will more than likely raising the next
    generation and more than likely on their own.
    
    Meg

    
    Thanks, Sara, for exposing the blatant, shameless hypocrisy
    in Lennard's replies.
    
    Seriously, though.  Isn't reducing a welfare family's check
    because a woman has another child *really* hurting the
    children in that family most of all?  I see a lot of people
    paying lip-service in this file to the welfare of children,
    but what could be more blatantly anti-child (and creating even
    more child poverty) than reducing such a family's monthly
    check?  Can the hypocrisy.
    

>When you advocate continence outside marriage

 Um, I would hope that marriage is not a requirement for continence! Perhaps
abstinence is what you have in mind. :-)

>Yet you disapprove of the single most
>    cost-effective and practical method of reducing this burden

 I would hope that cost effective is not the major argument, as it could 
probably be shown that sterilization is pretty cost effective...

 The Doctah

    I personally feel that to eliminate poverty it has to come from the top
    down.....The government needs get involved in helping to fund training
    programs and get people skilled and we needs jobs.....how are we going
    to get people off welfare and to stop homelessness if we don't have any
    jobs....
    
    I see a president living very comfortable and I many other officials in
    our government living very comfortable and I don't see them pulling any
    money out of their pockets to help those who need it... 
    
    I would for once would like to see someone like him (president) to roll
    up his sleeves and really do some work when it comes to helping  the
    poor and the improvished.....
    
    Until there is some real change in how the upper ranks think about
    poverty we will always have welfare rolls and people in need.....
    
    
    denise
    

    Man, I've heard abortion called everything, but never a cost-effective
    solution to a social problem.  Oh well.
    
    Probably the long-term solution for this country is free schooling to
    whatever level an individual wishes to strive, coupled with a system
    of family allowances and broad all-encompassing national health care, 
    all of which are almost a standard in all western democracies except
    the United State of Bush.
    
    I too would like to see him get off his fat ass and DO something rather
    that jaw-bone the issue of the week.  But you see, he doesn't have to.
    The American electorate is so ill-educated, so uncaring, and so
    generally stupid, that he knows that all he has to do to win the next
    election is find another Willie Horton.  Fly-Free-or-Die Sununu will
    take care of that little task for him.
    
    So we will sit here in our ignorance, continuing to think we are the
    smartest, richest, best educated, healthiest people in the world, all
    because some idjit like Bush or Reagan tells us it is so......and we
    could have it all for 1/3 of our obscene defense budget.
    
    You wanna hear a real good one?  A senior manager from my organization
    transferred to Geneva a couple years ago.  Even with his high salary
    and all the "perc's" which accrue to international relocatees, his
    wife still gets a check every month from the Swiss government as a
    family allowance for his kids.
    
    Oh, I'd still penalize welfare momma's as I previously described.  You
    see, I'm not that nice of a guy.

if you start educating children, when very young, to respect their sexuality,
understand it, and continue that education all through the school grades,
AND provide birth control, on demand, to anyone who asks for it....while making
"having babies" while still in school a very UNCOOL thing to do, like something
really stupid and square through advertising on TV, radio, posters, rock stars
testimonials (this includes rap stars, of course)....then you MIGHT be able to
make a dent in the pregnancy rate for the poverty stricken.  If you can also
convince the recipents of welfare that there is MORE HONOR AND DIGNITY - again
making the connection between being COOL - in working for pay rather than in
just making money (the incentive for drug dealing, etc.), then maybe you get
a dent in the problem of keeping kids in school.

If you can keep the children in good schools, with enough male and female
roll models to go around, with enough attention to the children to be sure
they can read when they are supposed to be able to read...and have them
tested for dyslexia when they cannot learn to read, then maybe you will have
students with the basic education needed to skill train.  The primary
difference between children of poverty vs children of the middle class in
the schools in Chicago was found to be parental participation in the education
of the child.  Uneducated parents simply did not stress the importance of
education, the need to do well in school, and the cycle of poverty is 
unbreakable...when a program to train teenage mothers to learn to read
themselves and then to read to their infants, to participate in their children's
homework, to work WITH their children to get them educated was started in
one neighborhood, it DID WORK.  However, it was manpower intensive and
expensive...and it was not continued.

Headstart back in the late '60's and early '70's also worked to get kids
actually participating in school...but it was discontinued.  The bottom line
is that programs to fix the problems cost LOTS OF money and must be grounded in
realities like "children start having sex sometimes after the age of 13 and
MUST BE EDUCATED TO AVOID PREGNANCY LONG BEFORE THAT AGE", "children do things
that are COOL and don't do things that are UNCOOL (or replace with your 
favorite word for cool and uncool)...any program to modify behavior for them
must be sold with this in mind", and finally, "the children can be saved, but
many of the parents cannot be saved".  Poverty eventually destroys the victim.
Hard realities that we seem not able to face.

    Having gagged over .27, I now know what we'll never make it.  In
    all that verbiage, where is the mention of morality, religion, right
    and wrong?  You apparently assume our children are nothing better
    than animals, and will fornicate at will in ditches unless we can
    somehow convince them it is uncool?  Hopeless, absolutely hopeless.
    
    Oh, BTW, Head Start is still a very active program....reduced, yes,
    but still there.

    Re: .28
    
    Richard, .27 is talking about the real world, the world in which the
    average age at which people lose their virginity is probably about 13,
    the world in which critically ill people wait as long as 17 hours due
    to overcrowding in hospital emergency rooms, the world in which
    millions of children go to sleep (not bed, they haven't any) hungry
    every night, the world in which the hamburger beeves that can be grown
    on a hundred acres of clear-cut rainforest are more important than the
    miracle medicines that could be gotten from the plants that used to
    live there, the world in which there are parts of cities into which the
    police DO NOT GO.
    
    What world are you talking about?  It sure as hell ain't this one!
    
    -d

    "Morality, religion, right and wrong" are things that there will
    never be general agreement on. (Opinion, stated as fact, but which
    I believe to be fact anyway. Then again, *all* my opinions are
    fact...)

    As such, these things can never be relied upon to create a
    systemic change in society. Different viewpoints of morality,
    rightness, wrongness, and especially religion, work against each
    other and (to some extent) cancel each other out.

    What it really comes down to is this: homo sapiens *is* a kind of
    animal, and to assume we're substantively different than, say,
    carpenter ants (with bigger tool belts, and opposing thumbs) is
    (to my mind) self-delusion.

    Lennard, try, just try to see for a minute.  I have stated elsewhere,
    where you presumably can have read, that I abhor abortion as a
    birth control option.  But what you have said here, in effect, and in
    combination to your strong opposition to abortion, is that teens
    and welfare moms, if they get pregnant, MUST have the baby, which you
    are then willing to abandon and condemn (knowing what you do!) to a
    life of depravation and poverty, as punishment to the mother; all so
    that your pocketbook will not suffer.
    
    ideologue.  try idealism, it's more flexible.

    >Where is the mention of morality, religion, right & wrong?
    
    Morality...And will *you* be the judge of what is morally correct?
    Religion...Exactly what God should I worship and what are the tenets
    of that religion?
    Right & Wrong...Sex isn't wrong...irresponsible, uninformed sex is
    wrong.  Sex is just that...sex.  And you're never going to be able
    to tell kids they can't do something that feels really good and costs
    nothing to do it.  So you might as well teach them how to do it right.
    
    
    
                                  L.J.

historical fact:

the age at which people married during the middle ages (yes, by then they
had found "God") was 13 - 14 years old.  They were adults then, you see,
capable of making babies, living, and dying in wars.  They also pretty
much petered out by the time they were 45 years old and died.  This is fact.

In more modern times, we, as humans, have figured out how to live into our
60's and on up.  We have also, during the same period, EXTENDED our
interpretation of "childhood" to encompass the teenage years....the years
during which, for the record, young women are at their most fertile, and
young men are at their most physically virile.  We DECIDED they are still
children, and our culture has a heavy investment in this decision.  HOWEVER,
the realities are that these CHILDREN HAVE ADULT BODIES WITH ADULT HORMONES
RAGING THROUGH THEM.  I don't want the "children" to have sex.  I am just
as heavily endoctrinated to think of them as children, and non-sexual, as
you are, but I am also NOT armoured against fact.  The teenage birthrate
in this country is an unavoidable fact.  Somebody is having sex out there,
a whole lot of somebodies, and they are NOT equiped to deal with the
consequences because we have raised them to be children still...even though
their bodies are operating on an entirely different agenda.

If you want to teach your children "moral" abstinence, then I applaud your
decision...and I will fight for your right to do so.  It is a basic tenet
of this country that religeons shall be respected.  However, I also will
NOT, if given the chance, deny your child information he/she may need to
UNDERSTAND his/her body and what is happening to it in the teen years.  I
actually do believe that the children can better decide when to have sex
if they KNOW about their own sexuality.  Honest.  I wasn't sexually active
until I was in my 20's...in spite of the "free love" of the hippy days...I
was also aware of my sex drive and knew how to avoid too much temptation before
I was ready to deal with it.  I wasn't raised in a religeous home, but a
sensible one.  I remained virgin much longer than the national average for
the time.

I think you need to examine YOUR OPINION OF WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE...I never
said that I felt all children would be fornicating madly in ditches if we 
offer real information and access to birth control...YOU DID.  I simply said 
we need to make the information and the tools to avoid pregnancy available 
to the people who MAY need them.  Quite frankly, I think that once we remove
the shroud of mystery from sex and make it a healthy part of adult living,
most children will wait a little longer to try it.  Nothing tempts like a
mystery.

For the record, I do believe that humans are animals...we are ALL animals,
mammals to be exact.  I don't see anything wrong with recognizing this fact
about ourselves.  Perhaps, it is my non-religeousosity that gets me here...
I don't see what the problem is.

    This note string is a prime example of how different opinions are
    squashed by the party line. There are some people here who do not want
    a discussion, they want a stage. There is a difference between
    discussion and debate. OH, I forgot there is only the party line.



    		Wayne

    I would be willing to say that COOKIE::LENNARD and TYGON::WILDE
    might be seeking a `stage', but they certainly haven't stifled
    discussion!
    
    Let's take today's replies as an example, okay?
    
    I think there's been a pretty reasonable range of debate.  No one has
    yet said `You can't say THAT in this notesfile!'.  I haven't seen
    ANYONE squashed -- certainly neither of the authors I've mentioned
    above sounded squashed to me!
    
    In my opinion, your case is not proven.
    
    By the way... if you want to see a `party line', please read the
    conference notice.  Plenty of references to parties in there;-)
    
    Bob

     Whenever I read (or hear) someone proclaiming that the solution to
    poverty is education, I have to shake my head. It is a very small part
    of the solution (assuming you believe there is a solution). It is
    perhaps the easy part, the "no-brainer." Providing education is the
    short part of the battle; getting people motivated to apply themselves
    is the tough part.
    
     Regardless of what the government provides, there will always be a
    segment of the population that refuses to earn their way- even when
    given all the tools and sent down the path. I swear that some people
    refuse to believe that people can be lazy. My God, look around you.
    
     The unfortunate part of life is that it is not fair. And some of the
    lazy are already living off the fat so they are not so apparent as the
    ones who take what they can get from those of us who work while we try
    to address the needs of those who have real needs. There is no doubt
    in my mind that many of the people on welfare have no desire to be
    there; it can't be all that good of an existence. But some people don't
    mind; it's something for nothing- the american dream.
    
     And I do wish people would get off the sexism kick (regarding the
    claim that complaining about welfare cheats is an attack on women.)
    Some of the laziest SOBs I've ever seen on welfare were male. (Pissed
    me right off, too. Eating awesome steaks, drinking imported brew,
    watching a 27" color TV with cable while talking on a $150 phone, and
    the 4 year old doesn't even have a bed! Arrgh!) 
    
     You cannot force people to spend their money wisely. You cannot force
    people to raise their standard of living. I would be happy if I
    believed that the government was making an honest effort to give
    everyone the opportunity to make something of themselves, to be
    successful (however they personally defined success) and have a decent
    life. There will always be people in the gutter. You cannot save
    someone that does not wish to be saved. But damn it all, you've got to
    provide an avenue to get from temporary assiatnce to self-supporting.
    And we don't. And that blows.
    
     Of course, the fact that so many people take advantage of our goodwill
    so that the people who really want temporary assistance have to make do
    with less, or we have to fork over more and end up needing it
    ourselves, does not sit well either.
    
     The Doctah

    The solution to poverty isn't education, but that's not because of
    laziness. I'm very lazy, for example, too lazy to do an acceptable job
    as a dishwasher, but I'm still far from poverty at this point in my
    life. There simply aren't enough paying jobs for everyone. It's mighty
    cute to call good education the "no-brainer" part, though.
    
    As for attacks on welfare, I don't think anyone is claiming that there
    are no lazy men, just that making assistance even rougher than it
    already is is going to effect women more. Given the proportion of poor
    women to poor men and the proportion of single-parent families with
    women in charge to those with men in charge, I don't see how that can
    be denied.
    
    Ray

    Can I suggest a completely different strategy to eliminate poverty ?
    
    I would imagine that the amount the US Govt. spends on welfare is 
    relatively small compared to the amount it spends on defence. 
    
    I'm not just talking about the ridiculous amounts spent on nuclear
    weapons but the even the smallest bits of equipment that is "standard
    issue". 
    
    In my time in the TA (Territorial Army) here in the UK, I have come 
    across quite a few US soldiers. It seems that the US would spend
    millions developing a new name badge. Also the amount of kit issued
    in relation to what a Brit squaddie gets issued is, to us Brits, un-
    believable. Half of it seems totally unnecessary or overkill. The
    British soldier is fairly poorly equipped in comparison but has better
    training and therefore makes for a better soldier (on one training 
    exercise on a notoriously unfriendly area in Wales the US Rangers
    attached to us could not believe the bad conditions that the Brit soldier 
    takes for granted).
    
    It may seem trivial to talk about "standard issue kit" but, when
    totalled up across the entire US military, we are talking tens or even
    hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary expenditure. 
    
    This alone would help quite a few poverty striken people and it would
    *not* compomise your national security.
    
    I also suspect that, to change tack totally, you will never eradicate
    the welfare cheats - whatever rules are brought in to get rid of them
    will make it harder for genuine cases to get any money and the cheats will
    also soon find a way round the new rules. It is far better IMHO to
    spend loads of money to prevent the people getting there in the first
    place (I know - easier said than done).
    
    
    Jerome.
    
    P.S. -  I hereby apologise to any members of "The best g*ddam corps
            in the world" for any offence caused above   #-)  
                                                             

    
    re.25 
    >I personally feel that to eliminate poverty it has to come from the top
    >down.....The government needs get involved 
    
    Never works. A) the people at the top will always secure their own lives
    first. B) The government bureaucracies siphon more out of the system
    than they put in. 
    
    
    >in helping to fund training
    >programs and get people skilled and we needs jobs.....how are we going
    >to get people off welfare and to stop homelessness if we don't have any
    >jobs....
    
    See above. Government spending has stifled the creation of new jobs in
    this country, by creating huge deficits which cause borrowing from the
    pool of available funds. This causes higher interest rates (or
    inflation, which is the same thing in disguise) which makes it harder
    for new businesses (read: jobs) to start.
    
    >I see a president living very comfortable and I many other officials in
    >our government living very comfortable and I don't see them pulling any
    >money out of their pockets to help those who need it... 
    
    See above. All those tax loopholes are written for the 'haves'.
    
    >I would for once would like to see someone like him (president) to roll
    >up his sleeves and really do some work when it comes to helping  the
    >poor and the improvished.....
    
    They don't vote.
    
    >Until there is some real change in how the upper ranks think about
    >poverty we will always have welfare rolls and people in need.....
    
    No, until us ordinary folks start doing it ourselves and stop
    relying on government we will always have 'welfare rolls and people
    in need'.
    
    re.26
    >Probably the long-term solution for this country is free schooling to
    >whatever level an individual wishes to strive, 
    
    Sure, do it! I'd much rather be in a classroom sucking up credits than
    here driving a forklift!
    
    >coupled with a system
    >of family allowances and broad all-encompassing national health care, 
    >all of which are almost a standard in all western democracies except
    >the United State of Bush.
    
    Which assumes that there is unlimited wealth to go around. Sorry.
    
    >The American electorate is so ill-educated, so uncaring, and so
    >generally stupid,     
    
    See above. Everybody wants more security than they can afford. 
    Insurance companies _fail_ if _everybody_ collects.
    
    >Oh, I'd still penalize welfare momma's as I previously described.  
    
    One thing I'm slowly accepting is that punishment has very limited
    use in changing people's attitudes for the better. 
    
    dana

    
    I was reading a book a while ago & it was talking about the concept of
    workfare, which I thought it said had been tried with a great deal of
    success in a few states. I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned it
    here. Basically the idea was that if someone starts earning whilst on
    welfare, their welfare's not cut completely, so they are better off
    than not working at all. I mean supposing someone on welfare got a job
    earning $20 a week, only deduct $10 from the welfare. Keep the
    proportion the same as the amount they earns increases, until
    eventually when they are earning 2x original amount of welfare, when
    you won't have to pay them any more. And from then on it's an even
    bigger incentive for them cos they get to keep all of any increase. Add
    to this some training programs to help them get started - I'm sure it
    won't get everyone off welfare, but it would certainly provide some
    means & some motivation. I'm sure the book that I read said that in
    these states that had tried it, it had worked well & had led to
    decreased welfare costs overall. Does anyone know anymore details ?
    
    Sarah.

>    The solution to poverty isn't education, but that's not because of
>    laziness. [...] There simply aren't enough paying jobs for everyone.

 What makes a job a "paying" job? Presumably it's a job that needs to be done
that either requires a skill set or is sufficiently unattractive that you have
to be willing to fork over some bucks to get someone to do it. In order to
acquire skills, you have to be open to learning- willing to expend the effort
required to acquire the skills. Not everyone is willing to do this, even in the
face of free education. The problem of insufficient jobs being available can
be addressed by reducing the national debt and mandating balanced budgets
(actually, the best idea is to take in more than we spend on new things until
the national debt is zero.) Our economy is struggling because of the tax
and spend, borrow and spend more nature of our government. That seriously
affects the number of available jobs.

>    As for attacks on welfare, I don't think anyone is claiming that there
>    are no lazy men, just that making assistance even rougher than it
>    already is is going to effect women more.

 The point is not to make "assistance rougher than it already is." The point is
to reduce the burden on the system by weeding out the undeserving and
removing positive feedback loops. And most importantly, to make assistance
assistance and not open ended support (except where it's needed.)

 The Doctah

    
    
    First off provide affordable housing.  There is no reason on earth in
    this "rich" nation that folks should have to be homeless with more
    than half of these folks being kids.  There is no reaon why folks
    should have to work 40 hours a week and still not afford a roof over
    their heads.  
    
    This I beleive is the most important thing we can start with.  If a 
    person does not have an address they can not get a job, get any type
    of benefits, etc.  Without an address the system does not recognize
    you, and  you cant even help yourself if you are trying to do so.
    
    Once we address this basic issue the others will fall into place.
    Now the question is how do we convince the powers that be that
    this is a solution that if given a chance will work?  
    
    Michele

    re.42 Not so easy to deal with the homeless kids. Many have been 
    through the system long enough to prefer the streets. Broken homes,
    abusive parents, foster homes that they hated, etc. It would be 
    nice to live in a world where every child has aan intact, healthy
    family, but we don't. So, _is_ there a solution?

    
    
    re -1
    
    It really is not the kids which you describe which need to be
    taken care of first.  Yes they do need to be taken care of, but
    it is the homeless families which need to be taken care of first.
    It is the men and women who are working full time yet can not
    afford to live on what they make.
    
    I saw a program on tv a few days ago which did address the issue
    of fulltime workers who could not afford a roof over their heads.
    There were two developments highlighted which were built by builders
    who were given incentives to build homes for the homeless.  So it
    can be done.
    
    Michele

    RE the last couple of notes...
     Here in Atlanta we have a "shelter" called "Our House",,it was 
    started by a group of local churches and set up as a shelter for
    homeless FAMILYs. We provide housing,meals,daycare,counseling etc.
     MOST IMPORTANTLY,,Our House provides 3 or 4 families with a legal
    address and phone numbers to be used on job applications,bank account
    forms etc.( The name "Our House" does NOT appear on phone bills etc
    so the prospective employer can't discriminate on *that* basis)
     Stays at Our House are limited on a flexible basis,,,our goal is
    to get families back into the mainstream,,counseling on interviews,
    savings/budgeting,referrals to state/local/charity groups etc all
    contribute.
    
     IT WORKS,TOO !!  some of the current volunteers are former residents!
    
     Yeah,,I *know* it's only a verrrry small drop in the bucket,,but it's
    a start,,and a couple more like it are in start-up phases now..
    
    Doug

    Didn't Pres. Bush visit a special community of housing built
    by those who were homeless, for themselves, alnog with a big
    group of volunteers?  (It was on TV...)
    
    HRH

    First, you eliminate every federal and state poverty program in
    its entirety....including all the professional poverty pimps, i.e.,
    bureaucrats.
    
    Then you take all the money, in cash, and you put it in containers
    on every street corner, and ask people to take what they need.  There
    would be signs that say:  "Take all you need -- Spend all you take".
    
    With tongue only slightly in cheek....bet it would cost less than the
    mess we have now. 

    ::lennard may well have a point.  I remember reading somewhere that it
    costs a whopping $50,000 dollars a year to maintain a family of three
    on ADFC.  I don't know about anyone else, but that is a sizable amount
    more than I make.  I remember one of the populist democrats, who ran
    for president in 1976 saying that maybe a "reverse"income tax might be
    an answer.  If every household was guaranteed, say 10K a year, then
    there could be some headway made against the welfare octopus.  This was
    not exactly socialism, as you had the oportuniity to go out and earn
    more than that.  With the potential savings of not having 5 layers of
    buracracy to support a few people below the poverty level, it is
    possible the tax burden would be lower for the rest of us. (use the
    IRS, to send the amount out monthly or whatever.
    
    However, I guess a few indiviuals would haveto go out and actually get
    real jobs then.
    
    Meg 
    
    

Greetings:

   As a child who grew up in poverty, I feel that I have a certain understanding
of it as well as an interest in eradicating it.

   My feeling is, however, that any problem, whether it be social or otherwise,
must be completely understood before any solution can be found.

   Part of the understanding of any problem must entail the discovering of its
causes. Once the root causes are understood, the next phase would be in
outlining a strategy to "attack" those causes. Of course, one important aspect
of the strategy must be the intention of removing these causes permanently.

   This discussion proposes some interesting ideas and describes some real
actions that are being taken against poverty. It is not, however, addressing
the causes of poverty. Until it does, any solutions proposed here will be
band aids which will treat the symptoms, but not the disease.

   I can say the above with great assuredness, being one who grew up in poverty
during the country's "war on poverty". It is so ironic that by the end of
this "war" (and by the time I and members of my family had lifted themselves
out of poverty) the poverty problem was worse. And do not let the conservatives
fool you: poverty is getting worse in this country every year.

   I strongly suggest that we start looking at poverty's causes. Only when
we have done so can we find anything similar to a solution.

                                                        -Robert Brown III

    I think you are right, Robert.  I know a lot of people seem to feel
    that eliminating the symptom means eliminating the cause, but I have
    never understood that reasoning.
    
    Thank you,
    
    E Grace

	Eliminate welfare for (virtually) everyone, and make the 
	government the employer of last resort. There are very few
	people who cannot do *something*. For those in need of education,
	split the work week into equal shares of training and work.

	Unfortunately, the real answer is that eliminating poverty is
	neither possible, nor even desirable. People have a right to
	be impoverished, if that is how they choose to live.  Note that 
	being impoverished does not mean that one is also automatically 
	unclean or tattered or ill-educated. Some people choose to
	put their time and energy into things other than meeting other
	peoples standards of living.

						Tom_K

So, instead of giving welfare mothers money how about giving them food? Or
providing communal dining centers so no one has to go hungry? 

Give companies tax breaks for items they make that are donated to welfare
centers for distribution. Things like diapers and TP.

And never build another high rise low cost housing center. They are not livable.
Parents are too far removed from everything. Low cost housing should be in
areas with good transportation and child care facilities. liesl

    Companies already recieve either tax breaks or writeoffs for donating
    food to food pantries.  Many folk who work in a pantry complain about
    shelves groaning with all but useless stuff like shake and bake,
    breadcrumbs, overage dairy, jimmies and other cake decoration.
    
    Just cause it edible doesn't mean it's food.  I think this kind of
    donation is a cynical use of tax credits and a cruel use of humans.
    
    IMHO, the great cheese giveaway some years ago was cynical activity. 
    Lots of it was mouldy and foul.  Also, while it was indeed a food stuff
    with some practical use, many poor folk suffer from hypertension and
    heart problems, cheese is a terrible food for folks with those health
    problems.
    
    I agree with Liesel about the need for livable housing.  Jane Jacobs
    has been writing about that for years and they still build those stupid
    highrises and labryinth-like villages that are unfit for habitation.
    
      Margaret 

I think that mothers on welfare should FIRST receive training on how to parent.
This would be the most valuable tool we could offer - and it might
be the way to force some "cracks" in the cycle of poverty begatting poverty
that we see out there.  Children that are taught to learn, learn much more
willingly - they can THRIVE in the schools while the child that is under-
stimulated as an infant, never read to, never encouraged to cope with his
environment or THINK has a devastating disadvantage from first grade on up.
We see the results of that everywhere you look these days.

    
    Ignorance talks.... ( I say that because I really don't know)
    
    
    Education on food...
    
    do many people get an education in basic living?  ie, brown rice
    is nutritious, Cocoa Puffs are not.   I have read that many welfare and
    food stamp dollars are spent on "junk" food.  Is that really true?  I
    know I lived for about six months at one point on $10/week for both me
    and my fur-face.  I knew enough about nutrition to put together a cheap,
    but very healthy veggie diet.  But I learned that on my own; school
    pushed the basic four (or is it five?)
    
    Jamd

    re: food pantries
    
    One of the DECcies who is very active in our synagogue is also very
    active in one of the local food pantries, which has a collection box in
    the lobby of our synagogue building.  He said that the shelves at the
    food pantry are real bare this time of year, and then get filled up
    next week when most of the local synagogues do a food drive at Yom
    Kippur, and again when the local churches do one at Christmas time. He
    also said that foods that need to be "cooked" are not popular with the
    people who use the food pantry.  I had a bunch of coupons for blueberry
    muffins and such stuff, which are mixes to which you add water and an
    egg, and he called this more "cooking" than most of the people would be
    interested in doing.  Ditto for things like sacks of potatoes.  The
    big sellers are canned soups and canned ravioli and such stuff, and
    non-food staples like toilet paper.  Most of the needy people locally
    are elderly people, so there isn't even much call for jars of baby
    food.  Someone once had the idea that things like spices (oregano,
    pepper, basil, etc.) might be nice so people relying on the food pantry
    for food could add a bit of variety to their meals, but those things
    were not popular items either, so I stopped providing them.
    
    /Charlotte

    Those on welfare need to care...about themselves, the low cost
    housing they are provided with, and about getting out from
    the welfare loop.....
    Someone I know was telling me about the low cost housing that
    they are "re-re-building", because the tenants were such destructive
    slobs that the complex had to be vacated and re-renovated.  The
    tenants ripped out walls, broke doors and windows, stole the fire
    alarms and the batteries, painted graffiti along the hall walls,
    tore out the bathroom fixtures and sold them, etc. etc.
      
    HRH
    
    
    HRH

    
    How do they know for sure that "tenants" did the damage?
    
    It could have been anyone, especially if it was in a
    "bad" neighborhood, as these projects often are.
    

    
    pretty clear who does the damage when its done inside the unit...

    And on the other side of the coin there have been several examples of
    tenant managed public housing that have maintained the property in
    better condition than some private apartment dwellings.
    
    

    Tom_K (back a few)
    
    Brilliant note on the government as employer. (We agree on something.
    The sky must be falling :-).
    
    Eileen

	Hey, we are already paying the money out, might as well get
	some return for it...

					Tom_K

    I watched a news magazine show the other night (48 hours?  20/20?  ??)
    that did a piece about a catering service in Washington, DC who caters
    very large and fancy parties... Anyway, some very enterprising
    individual has a service whereby he has built a reputation with the
    catering companies...
    
    When a large function is over and the catering complete, the leftovers
    (and there are LOTS of leftovers) are donated to a kitchen; this
    gentleman is called and he picks it up and delivers it to the storage
    fridge.  
    
    The next morning, an experienced chef works with several "trainees" in
    this kitchen... taking inventory of what was picked up the night
    before, preparing a menu to best stretch and make the most of what was
    there, and then actually prepare the meal.  The news commentator said
    that only 50% of the people who start the program finish, but those who
    do are then able to go out and get a job as a chef.  Also, the food
    that was brought in from one night was stretched to feed about 200
    people good, hearty meals.  As was said at the end of the piece,
    "everyone wins."

    BTW:  It appears to me (but was not stated) that the experienced chef
    is donating her time.  The program is a social program and the chef
    "trainees" are unemployed/unskilled folks on welfare programs.  

    RE: .63
    
    > The news commentator said that only 50% of the people who start the 
    > program finish, but those who do are then able to go out and get a job 
    > as a chef. 	
    
    Actually, they said that the people who finish can NOT go out and get 
    jobs as chefs, but they can get work in the food service industry (and 
    employers get people who have developed some skills, not the least of
    which is dependability, eg good attendance and good work attitudes.)
    
    It's a good program where everyone does indeed win.

    I believe that the woman who is the chef at the 
    Nashua Soup Kitchen was a highly-paid professional
    chef/caterer before she worked at the kitchen. 
    She said that working at the Soup Kitchen was much
    more fun (not to mention rewarding).
    
    Whoever said that the Soup Kitchens need things like
    toilet paper was right. They also need soap (both for
    people and clothes), toothpaste, shampoo---and that
    stuff doesn't rot on the shelf.
    
    	june