Skip School, Skip Welfare!

[Danny]

New rules from the Michigan Department of Health Services. Parents of children who are in welfare, food stamps and medical assistance if your child miss 10 days or more of school, they will cut off absolutely from those services.

On Fox 2 round table dicussion show Let it Rip a black Detroit single mother will lose her wefare benefits by November 1st becuase her children missed more then 10 days of school.

Do you think this law puts of heavy burden on low and fixed income families just to get their kids a good quality education or its improve the system to get families back on track

Any thoughts?

[Honky Tonk]

Personally speaking? If it wasn't for my parents, I'd either be in the slammer, or on assistance today. It was my upbringing outside the classroom that made the difference. To blame it all on the teacher for the lack of your childs education is ridiculous. At some point, the parents have to take on the responsibility.

[Danny]

There is way for low and fixed income families to stay on the DHS welfare cheese package!

1. If your child is sick and can't go to school. They MUST comply immediately with their public or charter board rules by calling in sick [[basically to the school nurse so she can make a report to the principal or school board director). Those medical leave reports will be issued to your DHS case worker.

2. If your child miss school for family issues, loss of property or long term medical reasons [[ i.e. hospital care) for more than 10 days that parent MUST report to its DHS case worker immediately. The DHS case worker will not cut you off from any assistances under the Family and Medical Leave Act on 1993.


Parents, foster parents, any kin, it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to send your child to school, keep them healthy and keep them out of trouble. Welcome to motherhood and fatherhood. Your play time is over until your children grows up and leave you for good.

My mom and dad did the same to me. I'm for survival before convenience. Society is changing. Time to adapt, evolve or die, your choice.

Spread the word to the ghetto!

[SWMAP]

Not sure what Honky tonk is saying here.

I do think that this rule will be onerous for many families. But kids can't learn if they aren't PRESENT. And they don't know about getting up in the morning if they don't have someplace that they are required by their parent to be. This may be just the basic life requirement that these families need. There are things you have to do in life to get to a place where you can have a job. Showing up at school every day is one of those basic things.

[MidTownMs]

There are no more foods stamps. People who receive gov't. assistance are issued a card [[Bridge) with both food and cash beneifts on the same card. It is my understanding that only cash benefits would be cut off.

[rb336]

it's not "missing ten days of school," it's ten unexcused absences. We have to end cyclical poverty, and that requires education. If you don't know what your kid is doing when they are supposed to be in school, your kids will end up in jail instead.

Time to be responsible parents

[Danny]

DHS can do whatever they want with their recipients [[whatever their programs called wefare/ cash assistance, EBT/food stamps) doesn't matter what the word says. If you all sign up for the system, FOLLOW THE RULES and they won't bother you.

[Wesley Mouch]

Seems like a simple rule to follow. No more than ten [[10) unexcused absences. Break the cycle.

[DetroitPlanner]

It makes little sense for these kids to be out of school unexcused. Particularly under these situations. It is proven that education is a way out of poverty. Not only that, many kids best meals come from the school. With these children being impoverished, from families receiving assistance, they pretty much automatically qualify for free meals from school.

I am all for it, as mentioned before, its the parents responsibility to ensure their children get the best education they possible can. If the parents are failing in providing the most basic thing they are able to give their child, I say hurt em where they will feel it the most. The jails are disproportionately full of the uneducated. They are not doing their kids any favors by keeping em in poverty.

[Detroitnerd]

Seems like a simple rule to follow. No more than ten [[10) unexcused absences. Break the cycle.

Oh, I'm sure we'll find out more about this after it passes. This is how it's done: They frame the issue in a way that appears reasonable to those who consider themselves middle-class.

Then, when a student has a chronic respiratory problem or other disease or condition, and needs to stay home much of the time, is living with their auntie, who can't afford a phone, and can't walk down the street because she is handicapped, and couldn't make the phone call in time, and this happens 11 times over the course of a long school year... does it still seem like a simple rule to follow? You end up cutting off assistance to the people who need it most. And it appears reasonable, because all of you nice, well-intentioned people don't understand all the possible ways this well-intentioned legislation could possibly go wrong.

This is how politicians gut the safety net. A little bit at a time. And all the while they keep you nodding and feeling reasonable while destitute people in horrible situations get cut off the rolls.

And then, no doubt, they'll show lower welfare rolls proudly, as if they meant more prosperity!

[Danny]

it's not "missing ten days of school," it's ten unexcused absences. We have to end cyclical poverty, and that requires education. If you don't know what your kid is doing when they are supposed to be in school, your kids will end up in jail instead.

Time to be responsible parents

Actually missing ten days of school without report is unexcused absences. Ending cyclical poverty take more than education. Its needs regional institution of economic employment. Our governments try to do that from over 100 years and get a little bit of results and more meaningless talk!

During the Great Depression it took President Roosevelt to force our U.S. Congress to get Americans back to work. They answer with WPA, New Deals welfare and food stamps. If that didn't work, Roosevelt would have to come up with new ideals to establish more employment institutions to train out of work Americans. When World War II came, Roosevelt sought the opportuntity to create a heavy military industry to export weapons to England, France and Poland to fight Nazi Germans. When Pearl Harbor, Hawai'i attacked by Japan, Americans not only went to war, they went to work. Unemployment in the U.S. in 1944 was just 2.1 percent decreased from 29% from 1938.

Folks we need to put our kids to school while they are healthy and strong and get their education. We need to end meaningless cyclical poverty by training people back to work. Just talking about jobs, economy and education and putting stricter laws other social problems will go away. American families need help, will your help them or excuse their mess? You decide.

[Bluenote132003]

No, it has to be hard. Detroitnerds hypothetical situation indicates lack of mother, father, siblings, friends, schoolmates, counselors all who should be willing to assist. Have someone walk to school [[or drive, or bus, etc) with the child, if the child is too sick to make it one day, they can take a note to the school and bring the missed homework home. Arrange for an official at the school to be aware of the situation. Most would be glad to find alternative solutions rather than cutting off support for the family...just look at all the commercials saying how much Detroit teachers care. Free or extremely low cost phones are available to those who need them, get one and don't abuse it. Anyone with a medically affected child, parent, sibling, or friend realizes there is more responsibility in that kind of relationship. Sitting back doing nothing, crying "woe is me" or just saying "oh well, it's the eleventh time... not worth it anymore" has to stop. Noone's saying welfare has to stop, but people have to demonstrate a little initiative and a willingness to help themselves and each other.

[Honky Tonk]

"Not sure what Honky tonk is saying here"

Sorry for the rant. My point was that you can't expect kids to just "show up and learn" on their own. It takes parental involvement and follow-up after classes to make sure they are showing up, doing assignments, and are actually absorbing what is being taught. I hear too many parents blaming the teacher for their child's outcome. A teacher can only do so much. Maybe the new rules would make parents more accountable.

[Detroitnerd]

No, it has to be hard. Detroitnerds hypothetical situation indicates lack of mother, father, siblings, friends, schoolmates, counselors all who should be willing to assist. Have someone walk to school [[or drive, or bus, etc) with the child, if the child is too sick to make it one day, they can take a note to the school and bring the missed homework home. Arrange for an official at the school to be aware of the situation. Most would be glad to find alternative solutions rather than cutting off support for the family...just look at all the commercials saying how much Detroit teachers care. Free or extremely low cost phones are available to those who need them, get one and don't abuse it. Anyone with a medically affected child, parent, sibling, or friend realizes there is more responsibility in that kind of relationship. Sitting back doing nothing, crying "woe is me" or just saying "oh well, it's the eleventh time... not worth it anymore" has to stop. Noone's saying welfare has to stop, but people have to demonstrate a little initiative and a willingness to help themselves and each other.

You fit the profile of the type of person who is supposed to support this, namely in that you don't really seem to understand just how poor so many Detroiters are, and that this legislation is designed to appeal to your limited knowledge and knee-jerk emotions. Demagoguery, no matter how reasonable it appears, is still demagoguery.

[Goose]

poor kids don't need to be in school.... in the past, it was a way to indoctrinate them into liberal thinking and make them good democrat voters...

today democrats have learned that giving away free stuff [[phones, money) it buys the vote so school indoctrination is no longer needed....

[gameguy56]

today democrats have learned that giving away free stuff [[phones, money) it buys the vote so school indoctrination is no longer needed....

Stop spreading disinformation. Are you referring to the 'Lifeline' program that was enacted during the Reagan Administration?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

[bailey]

You fit the profile of the type of person who is supposed to support this, namely in that you don't really seem to understand just how poor so many Detroiters are, and that this legislation is designed to appeal to your limited knowledge and knee-jerk emotions. Demagoguery, no matter how reasonable it appears, is still demagoguery.

wow that's rich... demagoguery? pot, kettle much?

Then, when a student has a chronic respiratory problem or other disease or condition, and needs to stay home much of the time, is living with their auntie, who can't afford a phone, and can't walk down the street because she is handicapped, and couldn't make the phone call in time, and this happens 11 times over the course of a long school year... does it still seem like a simple rule to follow? You end up cutting off assistance to the people who need it most. And it appears reasonable, because all of you nice, well-intentioned people don't understand all the possible ways this well-intentioned legislation could possibly go wrong.

I don't know if this [[cutting off bennies) is the right solution, but c'mon man, that example you're trying to sell is so ridiculous it undercuts whatever point you're trying to make. Frankly it's pretty much as patronizing and dismissive as anything I've heard from the other side.

Sure sounds to me that what you're trying to say is that there may be those receiving assistance that are just too helpless to comply with even the most basic requirements of participating in society so we should just keep writing blank checks for everyone with no limitation ever...because there might be this one case where it would be really mean to do so.

I just left the dentist office where in the waiting room I saw the same commercial 4 times advertising a free cell phone"250 FREE Voice Minutes & 250 FREE Texts added automatically, you do nothing!" for those on medicaid or food stamps so that they can call the doctor, use it in an emergency, talk to family..etc. Arguing a kid's people couldn't get word to the school for over two weeks of unexcused absences and then extrapolate that to be some sort of common or expected experience? I mean, talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

The questions I have, that no one seems to be discussing as they volley back and forth between "it's mean" vs. "poor should be hard!" are; is there a rampant truancy problem for which this will help solve? Or, is this simply another "welfare queen" bit of mythology and it's exceedingly rare that any kid has 11+ UNEXCUSED absences in any given year?

My next question would be what are you going to do with the family [[that could have multiple other children all going to school with perfect attendance) now that you've cut off the benefits because the 15 yr old didn't want to go to school?

Finally, for all you rugged individualist Teabaggers out there, at what point do we demand individuals be accountable for their actions? only at 18? or 16? or 21? Is the incorrigible 13 yr old NOT responsible for his decision to skip school no matter what lengths the parents go to to get him to go to class?

[Wesley Mouch]

Oh, I'm sure we'll find out more about this after it passes. This is how it's done: They frame the issue in a way that appears reasonable to those who consider themselves middle-class.

Then, when a student has a chronic respiratory problem or other disease or condition, and needs to stay home much of the time, is living with their auntie, who can't afford a phone, and can't walk down the street because she is handicapped, and couldn't make the phone call in time, and this happens 11 times over the course of a long school year... does it still seem like a simple rule to follow? You end up cutting off assistance to the people who need it most. And it appears reasonable, because all of you nice, well-intentioned people don't understand all the possible ways this well-intentioned legislation could possibly go wrong.

This is how politicians gut the safety net. A little bit at a time. And all the while they keep you nodding and feeling reasonable while destitute people in horrible situations get cut off the rolls.

And then, no doubt, they'll show lower welfare rolls proudly, as if they meant more prosperity!

Are you ever open to the possibility that someone might be sincere in their desires to improve the world -- even if in a way you might not 100% agree with?

[Detroitnerd]

wow that's rich... demagoguery? pot, kettle much?

Hey, dude, I think I'm sticking to the actual issues pretty well here. I don't see any legions of people whose prejudices I am milling into any political support for little old me. Perhaps you're just more comfortable turning this into a debate about me instead of the issues at hand.

I don't know if this [[cutting off bennies) is the right solution, but c'mon man, that example you're trying to sell is so ridiculous ...

Life is sometimes ridiculous. Life in Detroit is full of ridiculousness. When you pile on the problems -- when people don't have cars, don't have reliable public transportation, have high rates of diabetes and asthma, when you have lots of single parents and an admittedly messed-up school system that may or may not remember to write down a call or may neglect to fix an error -- you're going to have mistakes made that throw decent people trying to abide by the rules off the rolls.

And I get the sense from some posters' eagerness to dismiss what could go wrong a certain callousness. That, given an overwhelming desire to sock it to "eaters" there's no concern whether decent people trying their best get swept up in the net.

Argue all you like. Call me names. But if this rule hurts innocent people, it's a bad rule. Pure and simple.

[cla1945]

If any student has a chronic or acute problem, they've had it long before school started. A parent, relative, friend, or someone can notify the school of the problem and hopefully get the help for the child and the family won't be affected with cuts.

To say that the child needs to stay home, living with someone other than a parent, can't afford a phone, can't walk, can't make the phone call on time, are all blatant excuses. There is no one without a phone these days, and usually they are iPhones or expensive 4G phones that people walk around with. There is Safe-Link, Assurance, and other government programs to acquire a phone, totally free.

Again I say, parents need to take responsibility for their actions. Quit blaming the government for your woes.

[Detroitnerd]

Are you ever open to the possibility that someone might be sincere in their desires to improve the world -- even if in a way you might not 100% agree with?

I think I've acknowledged that. That many supporters of this bill are well-meaning and simply see the world only from their perspective, and thus don't understand the actual harm this could do.

Bear in mind, sir, nobody ever got much pull by claiming they wanted to make the world worse for people. All the world's most noxious demagogues and tyrants always claimed they were working for the betterment of the world, yes? And many of their followers and adherents considered themselves "mainstream" and not "extremists."

And that's why "sincerity" is a poor replacement for actually doing the hard work of research and trying to understand what happens. You stop looking for what's true and just go with what sounds "truthy" to you. That's not a well-informed electorate. That's a peanut gallery.

[Detroitnerd]

If any student has a chronic or acute problem, they've had it long before school started. A parent, relative, friend, or someone can notify the school of the problem and hopefully get the help for the child and the family won't be affected with cuts.

To say that the child needs to stay home, living with someone other than a parent, can't afford a phone, can't walk, can't make the phone call on time, are all blatant excuses. There is no one without a phone these days, and usually they are iPhones or expensive 4G phones that people walk around with. There is Safe-Link, Assurance, and other government programs to acquire a phone, totally free.

Again I say, parents need to take responsibility for their actions. Quit blaming the government for your woes.

Ooooooh. Tell it like it is, tough guy!

[Goose]

Stop spreading disinformation. Are you referring to the 'Lifeline' program that was enacted during the Reagan Administration?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

it doesn't matter who started it or when, it matters where and who the people receiving it believe they are getting it from... and right now it's called the Obama-Phone....

you don't see videos of people claiming they are going to vote republican because Reagan or Bush gave them a free phone or other "stuff"......

and I was being somewhat sarcastic anyway.....

[poobert]

Stop spreading disinformation. Are you referring to the 'Lifeline' program that was enacted during the Reagan Administration?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

While Reagan is still obstensively revered as the Eternal President by these folks, even he's a liberal compared to today's right-wing nutballs.

"poor kids don't need to be in school.... in the past, it was a way to indoctrinate them into liberal thinking and make them good democrat voters...

today democrats have learned that giving away free stuff [[phones, money) it buys the vote so school indoctrination is no longer needed...."

Brilliant. How's November looking for you and your ilk anyway, scary guy? Not so hot, huh? Might want to dial it back a bit.

Anyway I'd be in favor of a moderated version of this program. As bailey brings up, what happens when an incorrigible teenager ends benefits for an entire family?? Make it for elementary-aged kids, introduce the possibility for waivers [[hell, the military has 'em), and tack on a couple days. This doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

[Detroitnerd]

What happens when an incorrigible teenager ends benefits for an entire family?

That's a really good question. And that gets right to the heart of things. Even if the family is decent and trying to get a kid to go to school, they're going to get the stick. This is one of those "tough shit" laws drawn up by people who haven't thought through all the possible ways this could go horribly wrong.