I have to agree with you on a lot of that. However, and this is in part due to a lack in fincing yes, the student body as a whole (I am talking broad range, not one particular district) Does not get an end of year testing. They get tested on a particular study (say the bushman of the calihari) once, and that is immediately after learning about them. nothing is done towards retention after that. It is a proven fact that most classes in the united states spend the first two months of the school year, reteaching basic things (math aspecially) that the kids should be retaining but arent because retention is not a big issue.

On that note, I also agree with year round school. I am not talking baout no vacations or anything either. Just get rid of summer vacation (as a general rule) and break it up into four or five seperate vacations. This will actually give the kids time off more frequently, without losing everything they learned the year before.
A good example, would be give the kids so many days off after each marking period, along with Christmas/winter breaks and easter breaks, etc. You could still do a longer vacation in the summer months,just not AS long.

I am prior service as well, spent six years in, three of them overseas. I have looked at the college route in several different states since getting out, and the ones I have been to you have to pay prior to being enrolled. And you can not signover the gi bill in order to pay for it (I tried, lol). You have to pay for the schooling first, then apply for the gi bill. Yes htere are loans out there and grants, but you stil lhave to pay ahead of time, and the loans nowadays are based on your credit, even though a school loan is supposed to not be involved with your credit like a normal loan. So MOST soldiers getting out (poor and such like you said) can not get the loans because they dont scorr 700 on their credit score.

Child support is based off your pay check.

They also need to reform welfare. The need to make it a transition step and not just a cradle that drains the economy. Pay everything for a few years and get them into college or some kind of higher education which will get them some skills and allow them to make a decent living on their own. This would help get rid of the cycle of kids growing up on welfare and living off it themselves.

Michigans welfareprogram is a transitional program. You have a life maximum of four years (cumulative) to receive cash assistance. Period. If you are on cash assistance, you are required to go to a state funded fourty hour a week program that teaches youhow to write up resumes, apply for jobs, access the local internet engines etc. to search for work. They also teach people how to dress properly (which believe it or not isa big issue; you would not believe how many young ladies I have seen going in for an iterview in a kirt short enough she can not take a full step without showing her G-STRING, and a shirt that is cut off in the middle to show the bottom swelling of her breasts. And guys are just as bad). The state will pay for CERTAIN educational programs, like nurses aid, or phlebotomy. They will not assist with college at all unless you have less than one year towards graduation, AND YOU ARE NT ALLOWED TO ATTEND COLLEGE ON YOUR OWN MONEY, GRANT, LOANS WHATEVER IF IT INTERFERES WITH THE FOURTY HOUR A WEEK PROGRAM HOURS. You will be kicked out of the program and lose your cash assistance.
Now, is that a vaiable program? no.

Now, I agree with most of it, especially teaching resumes and interviews and such. HOWEVER, even if you have to pay for the college yorself, do not tell the person they cananot go to college because it is during program hours. The program is there to help you better your chances in the work force. How better can you get if your going to school? And what about for those that do not want a field in which they approve?

First let me say I am a 20 yr veteran of the US military. I applaud almost all the ideas being introduced to this discussion. However, I want to remind you all there is this thing called the 10th Amendment to the Constituton of the United States of America. I encourge you all to read it, if you have not done so already, before you start trying to introduce federal legislation that mandates things such as manditory military service or manditory schooling. None of these things are bad ideas in and of themselves. I obviously support military service but it's not right for everyone. Through the military I was able to earn my Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree. I obviously support education but it is not right for everyone. Each individual state's right given them by the 10th Amendment must be respected. You cannot mandate these things at the federal level.

I don't care if they don't get educated as long as they don't expect the government to pay them welfare. If you need more education to get a job to support yourself then the government should help, but it shouldn't just give you extra money because you don't earn enough at minimum wage jobs. I know thats how it can be here and some people would rather scrape by living off the government then making something of themselves and actually earning a better life then they currently have. Its not that the government should spend less its that it should spend wiser.

I agree with you whole heartedly. I don't like supporting people without ambitions to better them selfs either. But the sad truth is this is America... you have the right to be a bum if you want to. There are ideas on this thread that would motivate ppl to not be on welfare. The welfare program could mandate drug testing. People on welfare could be required to lose their right to vote until they can support themselves. Welfare programs could adopt time limits. But not even all these ideas will eleminate welfare. It is a program that some Americans can not avoid and desperately need. It is a slippery slope when you start imposing on personal liberties. When you start going down this road, where do you stop? It's okay to you now, but what will you think when it is you personally that is losing that civil liberty? The 10th Amendent is in place to protect you, not work against you. If your state does not agree with your point of view then move to one that does.

I agree that there are people that really need it, yet we know that there are also people that abuse it and thats what upsets me. If you want to talk about voting.. the founding fathers really only thought that landowners should vote since they actually had a stake in the welfare of the country. I do agree with the idea that people living off the governments bosom should have to relinquish their right to vote until they can support themselves.

And as far as where I live.. I will be moving as soon as I graduate lol. I should be able to go about anywhere with an engineering degree.

Voting is a right, not a priviledge for all citizens. Legally only citizens are supposed to be able to recieve cash assistance.

Are yousaying that someone who recieves cash assistance should be thought of as less than an American citizen?

If the government is going to provide “free” benefits to someone, some criteria are needed for this entitlement. The 9th Circuit federal appeals court has ruled when you take benefits from the government, you do give up some of your rights? The rights of a citizen to protection from government power are nullified if the government can buy them back by paying “free” benefits. These constitutional rights include the 4th Amendment right against search and seizure, the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the right to vote. Yet you give up the right to privacy if you draw welfare, you give up your right against self-incrimination when you file an income tax return, and in California some cities make you give up the right to vote against property tax increases when you apply for a building permit.

I am sorry star, I am having roblems pullng each topic out of your last post. It is all running into each other on me. Could you try and explain it a bit clearer please? Right now it is coming across that the ninth circuit court has already stated you do not have the rights of the fourth an dfifth amendments if you ar eon public assistance. I ma sure I misundestanding this.

You read it right. Look it up.

http://www.joecobb.com/blog/2007/07/23/welfare-rights/

The only adult citisens that cannot vote are convicted felons, and even they get that right back after a waiting period following a release from probation or parole;^]

Exaactly poet, thats the impression I was under. However, stars post is hard to understand, and definitely comes off sounding as if it is otherwise.

For example: "The 9th Circuit federal appeals court has ruled when you take benefits from the government, you do give up some of your rights" and "These constitutional rights include the 4th Amendment right against search and seizure, the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the right to vote."

The way it is written is that while I was recieving cash assistance, I did not have nay rights under the fourth and fifth amendments.


In the end the way this discussion is headed, it comes off sounding literally like this: "if you can not afford to live on your own, you are not a full american citizen". And since when did our forefathers or anyone else state that you had to make so much profit or whatever in order to be an American?

People don't give up any of those rights, I'm on dissability and the only ones I don't have is the gun rights and voting right, which is due to a criminal conviction and the voting right will be restored 2010 2 years after my probation expires;^]

I'm just trying to make you aware of what is going on in the 9th district of this country. If you don't like it, I'm just the messenger.

Yeah, several members of my family are on disability, and/or public assistance. I was on public assistance for almost two years after my divorce until I found a decent enough job (in other owrds one where I made just enough to only qualify for ten dollars a month assistance and told them to shove that ten, lol; I do not like my local office). I am still on food stamps (or supposed to be any way) and medicaid, and will probably be so for quite a bit longer, as I am a single parent, and the cost of day care is astronomically ridiculous. For example, average price per hour around here is 2.00 per hour PER CHILD; and when you only make 7.25 an hour BEFORE taxes, you end up paying over half your check towards child care. So if say I was working 80 hours a week, I would be screwed, because my food stamps would be dropped due to total income, yet I would only be taking home approximately 250 dollars a month after paying for child care. needless to say it is a screwed up situation.


But back to the subject, sorry about that, lol. When I was on full assistance I was still able to vote, I had a cps agent busted for coming into my house without permission/ or a warrant (invasion of property) and I could still own a fire-arm. I was (and still am) fully bonded due to my job working on a marine sea port.

But when you read stars statement, it literally does come across that I was not suppsed to have these rights. And possibly not now either cause I have food stamps and medicaid.

In my mind, it's really very simple. We need a president that's not in bed with multi national corporations. If given the opportunity, I will run to the voting booth to vote for John Edwards. Of course he would need to stay out of any slow moving motorcades.