Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!well!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Welfare
Message-ID: <113@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 21:30:50 EST
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.113
Posted: Mon Mar 24 21:30:50 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:24:42 EST
References: <6052@kestrel.ARPA>
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 72

In article <6052@kestrel.ARPA>, king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) writes:
> 
>    From: mahoney@bartok.DEC
>    Newsgroups: net.politics
>    Date: 17 Mar 86 19:56:27 GMT
>    Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
> 
> 	2) When someone enters Welfare they immediately get put into
> 	   job training.  The person will have a number of choices.
> 	   If they do not have a high school eduction the first course
> 	   of action will be to get them one.  When they are trained
> 	   for the job then there will be job placement.  Now people
> 	   obviously won't be able to get great jobs when they start
> 	   so the government will help to compensate.  They gradually
> 	   lose the compensation as they move up the salary level.
> 	   Say they lose one dollar for every three dollars they make
> 	   over a certain level or something like that.
> 
> No!  The subsidy decreases at a statutory speed.  There should not be
> a motivation to remain in a low-paying job!
> 
  Right.  Because everyone knows that there are just *LOADS* of jobs for
semi-skilled workers in today's economy, and upward mobility is easy, all 
you have to do is *WANT* it!  After all, everyone is "created equal", right???

>        3) Now if a woman/or man lives alone and has children the
> 	  standards will be a little different.  If she has children
> 	  under 6 then she/he can stay home with them.  Once all the
> 	  kids are of school age then she also goes into job training.
> 	  Appropriate day care can be setup for when the children get
> 	  out of school to be paid by the state.
> 
> With one exception: no child conceived while on welfare or within six
> months either way shall be counted, either for total benefits or for
> determining things like whether there is a work requirement.
> 
   Of course!  The infant is the guilty party here, quite obviously.  So
we won't feed it, or provide it with shelter, or health care, or a mother
to raise it.  That'll teach those shitty little poverty-stricken babies
to get born into *THIS* world, yessirreee!

> 
>        6) To check up on abuses there would be people who would make
> 	  random checks.  They would make surprise visits to see that
> 	  everything is going alright on both ends.  Such as maybe the
> 	  people need something more or maybe a boy friend has moved
> 	  in.  This is sort of like a parole officer.  I think there
> 	  might be a better way of doing this but I can't think of it.
> 	  This seems a little dictatorial but I don't know a better
> 	  way.
> 
> This was rejected by the courts.  Seemed like a good idea to me...
> 
   Not surprised.  You probably think cops should have free reign in 
investigations, the Miranda decision only protects the guilty, and obviously
being poor is a crime, so those bastards have no right to basic human
decency, dignity or privacy.


   Oh, and Dick, while we're at it, let's reduce the Social Security checks
to the old folks every year too...after all, they're not being productive,
and they really need less and less as the years go by, don't they?
-- 

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)