dumbing down of america

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

    I don't think Bush gets it on this one. He has always lived rich; I don't think he realizes that it is damn difficult to move out of the poverty level bracket without an education. It is possible to go to school and work full time, but it is extremely difficult, especially with kids. He is sabotaging the efforts of those who want to better themselves by getting an education. This also undermines the whole family values concept by taking the parent out of the home for 40 hours plus whatever extra is devoted to education. I received my LPN back in '84 as a single mother on welfare with a Pell grant. I worked about 20 hours a week waitressing while raising my 2 boys and going to school 40 hours a week. I can't imagine having had to work full time on top of it all. I have more than paid back that $1300 grant (1984 dollars!) with the federal taxes that I have paid in since. I believe educating poorer Americans is an investment in Americas future.

    What is your take on this?
    •  
  2. 66 Comments

  3. by   LasVegasRN
    I think it's very easy for people in office who were born with silver spoons in their mouths to THINK they know what's best for a population they can never relate to.
  4. by   Sleepyeyes
    Yeah, rich people are people who don't realize that husbands can just abandon their families and leave them in poverty, or that an intact, uninsured family can get wiped out by an illness, or how many of us live from paycheck to paycheck....
    or that some people===you know?=-- some people just haven't got the intelligence and the personal drive to do much for themselves or their families.... i can think of one girl offhand--she's so damaged that she aint coming back. And nothing is going to make her any smarter or better--she's an emotional cripple and will always be dependent on society.
    But our system has no provision for this subculture....only scorn. And it's really awful for them--the mentally ill, the emotionally crippled, the handicapped, the elderly....far too many fall through the cracks.
  5. by   OBNURSEHEATHER
    Well, my internet connection seems to be laggin terribly today, and I can't get the link you posted. For some reason, the only thing I can get to work is allnurses, everything else says "page cannot be displayed." So I'll have to try the link again later.

    But I understand what you're saying. Education is the only thing that will offer opportunity to this population, not a 40+ hour work week.

    Heather
  6. by   MollyJ
    I think Dubya probably suffers from Congenital Cluelessness. Remember when his dad was in office, he was exclaiming in wonderment over Optical Character Readers at check-outs, which he'd never seen! They'd been in stores for decades.

    Dubya's definitely acribes to "the floggings will continue until morale improves!"

    Doesn't being rich equate to moral superiority?
  7. by   Lausana
    Unfortunately the hardworking members here who may have needed temporary assistance are not the norm receiving welfare. I don't neccesarily disagree with Bush on this one. Are the majority of welfare recipients pursuing an education, NO...so why shouldn't they work a full work week. Wouldn't that help to eliminate some who are needing help? To me it just doesn't make sense to require someone to work 30 hours but not 40 like any full time employee. Unless, of course there is a physical reason they cannot. Maybe I'm looking at it too simply.

    I do like the senate committee's suggestion of putting college credit hours toward the 40 hours & uping the money toward child care assistance. It is a neccesity to work less & go to school unless you want to take a decade to do it.

    Interesting
  8. by   kelligrl
    One proposed "loophole" he criticized would let welfare recipients count college classes toward their work requirements.

    "Under the way they're kind of writing it right now out of the Senate Finance Committee, some people could spend their entire five years -- there's a five-year work requirement -- on welfare going to college," Bush said.

    "Now, that's not my view of helping people become independent and it's certainly not my view of understanding the importance of work and helping people achieve the dignity necessary so they can live a free life, free from government control."
    -------------------------------------------------

    This little part says it all... Does he have any freaking idea how hard it is?? I doubt it...disgusting...If you allowed them to go to college and actually be able to finish, they'd be much less likely to end up on the other forms of assistance (beside the actual cash payments, which are the only thing the 5 year limit applies to). Even if your five years is up on actual payments in cash, you can still get food stamps, Section 8 housing, and medicaid for an indefinate amount of time, meaning as long as they can show need, meaning forever if necessary. (Probably other stuff too) Perhaps if you let them go to school, they might be able to provide these things themselves to their own family instead having to rely on the gov't. I would say that that would make them more "free from government control" than the way they're currently doing it.....Nice that a guy who had everything handed to him can see fit to tell the rest of us how easy it is to just pull yourself up by the boot straps...
  9. by   LasVegasRN
    Someone please tell me if it is realistic for someone to complete college in 5 years working part-time and raising a family. Last I knew, it took 4 years going to school full-time, not working and not having a family.
  10. by   kelligrl
    Originally posted by LasVegasRN
    Someone please tell me if it is realistic for someone to complete college in 5 years working part-time and raising a family. Last I knew, it took 4 years going to school full-time, not working and not having a family.
    Exactly, as we all know, it takes waay longer than 2 years to get an ADN, which is supposed to be a 2 year degree. It takes 3-4 years, depending on whether you're going full time, because of the prereqs.
  11. by   oramar
    "Some people are born with silver spoon in hand, boy don't they help themselves," Credence Clearwater Revival
  12. by   Q.
    Maybe I am missing the argument, but I am all for mandating welfare recipients to work 40 hours a week (full time). I don't see how that is so horrible or unreasonable.

    I am not sure how I feel about NOT allowing college classes to be counted as work; it depends. What's the actual completion rate of people in this circumstance? Who's paying for the schooling?

    I think Bush is trying to have these people GIVE BACK to the economy a bit more WHILE receiving our money, rather than simply taking it, as it's been for a long time.

    I work full time AND go to school full time. Yes it can be done, yes it is difficult. But why should it be easy for others and not for all? Why can't I drop to part time while I go to school? BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT. It's that simple. So I have to make sacrificies to do so.
  13. by   LasVegasRN
    The difference between you and those born into poverty, REAL poverty, is that you have the choice of making sacrifices. They do not.
  14. by   Q.
    Originally posted by LasVegasRN
    The difference between you and those born into poverty, REAL poverty, is that you have the choice of making sacrifices. They do not.
    Elaborate on that. What do you mean?

    I know that those BORN into poverty didn't have a choice in the matter. But they DO have a choice in how they manage their lives - right?

    But still - why is everyone against making them work FULL TIME? (and only 40 hours a week - really.) Why is that bad? HOW can it be bad?

close