Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Invisibles in Mississippi and the US

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 29, 2012, 5:10 p.m. EST by GirlFriday (21771)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Before there was Clinton-Gingrich Welfare Reform in 1996 there was Mississippi Governor Kirk Fordice’s “Work First” pilot program in 1995.

“The women in this program were just trying to learn basic literacy skills, hoping they would be able to continue their education and get decent jobs in the future,” Burnett tells me. “Under the first President Bush women were allowed to pursue education while receiving welfare support. But the Mississippi pilot program changed that.”

...Women were quickly forced out of literacy and other education programs to work as security guards, shrimp pickers, fast food workers, in poultry plants, or other low-wage jobs.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20548) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

And some folks wonder why I hate repeliccans so much . . .

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 1 year ago

God......this system is so Corporate White Male.... and so is this stupid ass post!


[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Even New York Times reporter Jason DeParle recently noted research saying that “single parenthood explained about 40 percent of inequality’s growth.” He then suggested, “Marriage… can help make men marriageable.”

I read that Times article and this one comment stood out in my mind, too.. I was like "wow" - suddenly the Times is moving stage right.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

It's difficult to argue with the statistics. The children of single mothers are at a much greater risk of using drugs, dropping out of school, going to prison, and continuing the cycle of poverty. I'm not sure what the answer is though, I doubt marriage would change the fathers.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Yea. But, you know, the Right has been saying this for forty years.

It's very difficult for a single mother dealing with life alone to rein in a male adolescent who by his very nature is quite likely to challenge her, in the timeless evolutionary attempt to dominate the household. It doesn't occur in all cases but it occurs in so many... some boys begin challenging their parents before they can even walk, so... only a father can deal with that in adolescence on a male to male basis; it's about power, and it's the way we are.

Why is it only the Right knows these things?

The fathers won't change... but no woman should be having children with males that are so irresponsible, so careless... we enable them in providing this pseudo financial father.

I've talked to African Americans on a least three separate occasions that claimed to have fathered over thirty children by multiple women; I talked to one that claimed fifty six children by nine women; they assumed responsibility for none of them.

[-] 0 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

So the concept of marriage is a right-wing conspiracy?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

No, it's a religious construct.

King David, from the Bible, had numerous wives, concubines, and slaves.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Well, yea... the Left has always been very pro female independence, with single head of household supplemented by government as pseudo father. Now they are suggesting that women marry to avoid income inequality? I've noticed others have moved slightly to the right, too.

[-] 0 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

Hmm...you may have something there. The Left has been primarily responsible for the destruction of the black family...

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I'm not sure we can blame that one on the Left -except as relates to their support of the drug culture, which, has pretty much decimated the African American community. Nor do I believe we can really blame it on the Right.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

What would be your ideal drug policy?

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

That's a really difficult question. I favored complete legalization of all drugs until they started taxing cigarettes here at ten dollars a pack. I'm afraid if we legalized that government would enjoy the revenue too much and in an attempt to make it cost prohibitive attach a huge tax, thereby creating a black market all over again.

We could impose Sharia and execute the dealers; we probably should execute the serial rapists and child molesters but we don't do that, so... what's the chance of getting a death penalty for these other life destroyers?

In this political environment I don't believe there is an answer; on the other hand I don't think we can keep growing the jails.

We've been fighting oil prices for forty years and we failed at that; we've been fighting the war on poverty for fifty years and we failed at that, too - we're not going to win this war either. I'm not certain we will ever again win any wars in this kind of political environment.

What I am saying, is that I essentially see this concept of the pluralistic democracy as a failure - there are too many conflicting interests, many of which are detrimental if not destructive, that we are forced to entertain and endure.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I feel it should be legalized for people to use as they want but I have no problem with a huge tax. As we move more towards a national health care type plan people who deliberately chose to harm themselves should pay more into it.

Look at cigarettes and Medicare already. People smoke their whole life but typically don't come down with cancer or have huge end of life costs until after 65 when Medicare will pick up the tab. If people want to smoke, or do drugs, they should be able to. They should just have to pay a premium for it so the rest of use don't.


[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Sounds reasonable. But you know they're going to call that one discriminatory, right?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

How so?

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

The liberals would be up in arms because it would require drug testing and they'd call it discriminatory because it is primarily the poor who are doing those drugs as a matter of lifestyle. That's not the intent; the intent is to have everyone share the burden of the poor.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

If the drugs are legal, you would not need drug testing. The extra money paid into the"system" would be from taxes, just like their are now with cigarettes and alcohol.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

As we move more towards a national health care type plan people who deliberately chose to harm themselves should pay more into it.

If you want them to "pay more into it" then you have to have drug testing. Poor diet in general has more impact on our healthcare system than all of these things combined; are you going to attach a huge tax people to certain foodstuffs as well?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Food with zero nutritional value I would tax, yes. If we are going to be responsible for each other's healthcare costs, we will also have to be responsible for each other's health. I am not saying a single-payer system would be ideal, but if that is what we are going to go towards, we will have to have more sin taxes. Otherwise it would be extremely unfair for those who take great care of themselves.

I still don't see why you would have to drug test? Right now cigarettes are legal and those who choose to smoke them pay more in taxes than they would if they didn't smoke. No testing involved. Why wouldn't the same work for other currently illicit drugs?

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I assumed it was your intent to charge them more for insurance; I personally do not believe we will ever see single-payer in this country, anymore than we will ever again see a wealth tax. What I think is that fewer and fewer people in the future will have healthcare.

[-] 0 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

They are the ones that mde the government the father and the feminists told black women they didn't need a man.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Well, this is true. There is very little of good, or that is positive, that has come out of the 60s liberalism; the one exception being perhaps the music.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1170) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Ending the draft empowered the 1%. They have complete control now.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I've always been in favor of a draft, with a minimum two year service, for everyone in this country - before college.