President Trump Signs Executive Order To Reduce Poverty and Reform The Welfare System.

a reply to: NerdGoddess

if two people have a kid, they are more likely to get out of poverty if they stick together. there's is only one rent payment, electric bill, ect... where as if they are living in separate homes, the costs are increased greatly. the two people who were just barely scrapping by together don't stand a chance in supported the two homes.
so ya, if the two people can at least live together in moderate peace, they are better off staying together. but, ya know, the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, and, it's easier to just bail out when the going gets tough and all that. and they whole idea of marriage before children is just so outdated!!
that is about as far as I will agree with them on that. once a child enters the picture, you are better off sticking together unless there is extreme circumstances like abuse.
now if they are saying that they want to go back to the time where every women has a husband behind her supporting her, or danged well should have.... I strongly disagree with that. marriage shouldn't be coerced or forced onto people.

I think the welfare recipitants should be bused to road side and beach side locations to pick up and recycle trash. The trash should be turned into recyclables and sold for cash. Then they get their welfare check when they have contributed back to society. Plastic production from scratch should be illegal until all the roadways, beaches, lakes, rivers, streams, woods, and shopping parking lots in America are cleaned up. The ocean should be mined for plastics. Welfare people should work on this job site too. Really. If they expect a hand up and out they should be used immediately as a work force for the public. I like the drug testing idea too. An organized business President should be able to do this. It would be amazing!

a reply to: frugal

so, you gonna bus their kids also???
how much is this gonna cost compared to what it's costing us now to provide for them? what if they already have jobs, just not jobs that are paying enough???

a reply to: CB328

Yes, cutting benefits sucks when you've been spoon fed dependency for 8 years. Surely no one wants to live independently of government oversight of their daily lives. We should all be so lucky to have our entire livelihoods depends in a government check every month.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NerdGoddess

if two people have a kid, they are more likely to get out of poverty if they stick together. there's is only one rent payment, electric bill, ect... where as if they are living in separate homes, the costs are increased greatly. the two people who were just barely scrapping by together don't stand a chance in supported the two homes.
so ya, if the two people can at least live together in moderate peace, they are better off staying together. but, ya know, the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, and, it's easier to just bail out when the going gets tough and all that. and they whole idea of marriage before children is just so outdated!!
that is about as far as I will agree with them on that. once a child enters the picture, you are better off sticking together unless there is extreme circumstances like abuse.
now if they are saying that they want to go back to the time where every women has a husband behind her supporting her, or danged well should have.... I strongly disagree with that. marriage shouldn't be coerced or forced onto people.

Ah that makes more sense thank you. My family consists of me, my son, and his father. We aren't married but we do live together and as you said it's a big money saver. I guess I was so stuck on the marriage part instead of the family part that it threw me way off. I was sitting here wondering how anything would be better if we were legally married and couldn't think of too much.

-Alee

a reply to: NerdGoddess

The whole thing is meaningless BS. A check mark on a list to indicate he did "something" when in reality not really.

The country is screwed up because people are easy to fool and mislead. The citizens are the lowest priority.

a reply to: NerdGoddess

my definition of marriage doesn't include the necessity of a piece of paper that is recognized by the church or state. although you might find some disadvantages of not having that piece of paper later in life. of course there might be some advantages of not having it also...
it might be a good idea to evaluate just what those advantages and disadvantages are and keep an eye on weather or not they change in the near future (to "promote marriage" of course)..

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
Maybe it's just me, and I can accept that if so but....

Promoting marriage and family as a way out of poverty?

LOL.

I feel like there should be more to it than that. Something tells me if two poor people have a child, that it's not really going to take them out of poverty but it's likely to exacerbate it. Then if they get married.... how on earth does that change anything?

I see people complaining all the time that people are just having children to make money.... well... now our own government is advocating overpopulation. Or am I taking this way too far?

Input anyone? I'm lost on that particular bullet point.

-Alee

Statistically, marriage is the easiest way out of poverty. Only 2 percent of people who do the following things are in poverty: Finish high school, wait till 21 to get married and have children, and get a full time job.

Welfare has destroyed the black community. In particular, the early policies implemented in the late 60s/70s basically disintegrated the black family. The rules did not allow a man in the home to receive benefits. As such, you had a ton of families broken up or never properly formed in order to get on the government tit. The end result was creating a sub culture that unfortunately became mainstream in which it is ok to be a single mother and/or have "baby mamas".

Almost 75% of black children are born out of wedlock and this is directly related to the war on poverty. In 1965, the out of wedlock birth rate in the black community was under 25%. Let that sink in. Kids raised in single parent homes are worse off in EVERY SINGLE measure than those raised in two parent homes. About the only thing a kid raised in a single parent home has better odds of success in is becoming a rapper or pro-athlete.

Anything that can be done in encourage marriage and proper family formation is a good for society as a whole. The incentive structure is all screwed up. Welfare benefits should be increased for being married, not being single. They should be increased for not having more kids, not having kids. They should be increased for getting a job, not taken away.

We literally have generations of hood rats on welfare. Daughters, mamas, and grandmothers...

a reply to: carewemust

Number four seems like double-speak: He wants to give states the power to control how they handle poverty and other associated things, but wants to hold them accountable to government standards of results?

The rest seems great to me, but as always, the devil will be in the details.

originally posted by: Edumakated

Anything that can be done in encourage marriage and proper family formation is a good for society as a whole. The incentive structure is all screwed up. Welfare benefits should be increased for being married, not being single. They should be increased for not having more kids, not having kids. They should be increased for getting a job, not taken away.

While I agree with the rest of your comment and the point of it all, in reality, these things listed above should not be rewarded by government handouts, either.

But I get your overall point, and something definitely needs to be done concerning what the federal government did to the black (and other low-income sectors) community in general with it's, IMO, intentionally designed welfare system that keeps these poor people in a perpetual state of welfare in a system designed to impede one's ability to get out.

I view the welfare system, as it currently exists, like the throat of the loggerhead sea turtle.

Good luck escaping that sarlacc pit.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe he's a big fan of General Patton:

Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results. -George S. Patton

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe he's a big fan of General Patton:

Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results. -George S. Patton

That sounds more like Pelosi referring to Obamacare prior to its passing. LMAO

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Edumakated

Anything that can be done in encourage marriage and proper family formation is a good for society as a whole. The incentive structure is all screwed up. Welfare benefits should be increased for being married, not being single. They should be increased for not having more kids, not having kids. They should be increased for getting a job, not taken away.

While I agree with the rest of your comment and the point of it all, in reality, these things listed above should not be rewarded by government handouts, either.

But I get your overall point, and something definitely needs to be done concerning what the federal government did to the black (and other low-income sectors) community in general with it's, IMO, intentionally designed welfare system that keeps these poor people in a perpetual state of welfare in a system designed to impede one's ability to get out.

I view the welfare system, as it currently exists, like the throat of the loggerhead sea turtle.

Good luck escaping that sarlacc pit.

I agree... just saying if feds are going to provide welfare, the incentives should be aligned with getting people off it. To me, success of the program should be measured by how many people get off welfare, not how many are on it.

Want to get out of poverty...find someone to marry.

a reply to: Edumakated




You are spot on!

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Edumakated

Anything that can be done in encourage marriage and proper family formation is a good for society as a whole. The incentive structure is all screwed up. Welfare benefits should be increased for being married, not being single. They should be increased for not having more kids, not having kids. They should be increased for getting a job, not taken away.

While I agree with the rest of your comment and the point of it all, in reality, these things listed above should not be rewarded by government handouts, either.

But I get your overall point, and something definitely needs to be done concerning what the federal government did to the black (and other low-income sectors) community in general with it's, IMO, intentionally designed welfare system that keeps these poor people in a perpetual state of welfare in a system designed to impede one's ability to get out.

I view the welfare system, as it currently exists, like the throat of the loggerhead sea turtle.

Good luck escaping that sarlacc pit.

I agree... just saying if feds are going to provide welfare, the incentives should be aligned with getting people off it. To me, success of the program should be measured by how many people get off welfare, not how many are on it.

I can't seeing anyone reasonable disagreeing. The only thing is that the cuts shouldn't come before people are able to become independent. Seems the Trumpster wants to cut benefits to force people to become independent. This leads to mindset that poverty is only because of people are not trying hard enough, which may be accurate in some cases but certainly not most.

This EO is so vague, he might as well have tweeted it instead.

a reply to: frugal

It's cheaper to buy new plastic from China, than to scoop it up in the ocean and refine it. Making people on welfare work is basically a good idea I think, but it won't solve the problem of poverty. It's not like they'll be able to produce that much plastic, not nearly as much as sweat shops in third world countries. So from a purely business perspective it's not sound.

a reply to: dawnstar

Yeah, what a god damn project it would be. Guaranteed it will be more expensive than just paying the welfare. Otherwise the government wouldn't have to do it, private business would hire those people to do it instead.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

If it worked for Melania?

a reply to: Edumakated

Absolutely, sir.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
Maybe it's just me, and I can accept that if so but....

Promoting marriage and family as a way out of poverty?

LOL.

I feel like there should be more to it than that. Something tells me if two poor people have a child, that it's not really going to take them out of poverty but it's likely to exacerbate it. Then if they get married.... how on earth does that change anything?

I see people complaining all the time that people are just having children to make money.... well... now our own government is advocating overpopulation. Or am I taking this way too far?

Input anyone? I'm lost on that particular bullet point.

-Alee

The incentive structure is all screwed up. Welfare benefits should be increased for being married, not being single. They should be increased for not having more kids, not having kids. They should be increased for getting a job, not taken away.

I think that welfare recipients with 2 or more kids should get an increase if they show proof of sterilization. One step further would be to make the procedure free. A program like that would pay for itself in no time.

I'm sorry Donny, I hate to break it to you...... But

A- Trying to kick people off of medicaid; and
B- Promoting Marriage and family as a way to escape poverty.........

.......... Is a really good way to keep people in poverty.

Forcing more people to pay top dollar for insurance (when their taxes are already paying for medicaid) will have people take more sick days, decrease their income through copays and scripts, and lead to poverty.

Promoting family and marriage to escape poverty? Are you F'ing kidding me? Having children is one of the most expensive things you could possible do. Also, the marriage tax break only helps you break even, tax bracket wise; you really don't "save" anything.

What a massive idiot.

It's almost as bad as Democrats wanting to raise taxes to pull people out of poverty (that's right, that doesn't make sense either)