To provide job training, funding options for going back to school, etc etc.
Actually states try really hard to both provide assistance to needy families AND help families move off of assistance. To provide job training, funding options for going back to school, etc etc.
We have been doing this as a nation - job training program go back to the 1960's, GED programs go back to the 40's, this form of funding has been the approach for multiple generations, that is what is meant by keep throwing money at a issue/problem.
My daughter (who is adopted) has issues that i think will keep her from really being truly independent (in terms of being able to manage life...manage time, money, steer clear of bad influences etc) and yet to look at her she looks totally normal. But i can only imagine her showing up to her first job interview and filling out the app in some kid-like scrawl, everything misspelled, or giving someone odd answers to questions and being passed over even if she was capable of doing the actual work. Had she stayed in the environment she was born into i could totally see her getting pg as a teenager, ending up on welfare, living in subsidized housing and having NO idea how to get out of that cycle.
This sounds like adoption as a way out of the problem situation, where am I wrong here in what I am reading?
So you are or aren't saying adoption? I seem to read adopt out from your posts, that's not correct?
what I don't get is adoption in your case did this and that is OK because it's not being done in other communities??
recognizing that there are "invisible" issues that may greatly contribute to an individual's inability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (that is, they may not just be "lazy" or "lack motivation" or "not want to work") and #2) finding a way to identify these kids early on so they can learn the skills necessary to hopefully help them be more independent...that last one is easier said than done...my daughter goes to a really nice, suburban, wellfunded school and its been difficult to get teachers to REALLY see the extent of her learning issues despite her being in spec ed part time and having an IEP.
again, we are doing this already -children receiving medical assistance, WIC,etc are already being seeing by professionals from birth or a very early age, IEP can be done within the community (as was pointed out when it was mentioned about the autism comment) without removing the child for adoption, and frankly even via adoption you can still end up in a bad school
The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.
Are you only saying adopt these children out to better off parents in better school districts? this is how it is coming off - your child was removed for a better life so that seems like this is an option?
Under which circumstances?
under all circumstance should there be a plan that does not include going from quitting a job to assistance (this is a general comment) as I said prior a plan (in ANY case of harassment or similar - you have "a plan" - and I put more at the bottom here- you plan what to do)
Unemployment insurance is insurance in a very real sense, each state being unique, but you have to meet a criteria that always includes working prior and the reason for your leaving has to be legal.
If you quit a job and do not take another, go to a class, enter the army, leave to have a baby, etc - you have a gap- employers want to know why.
Your chances of getting a job greatly increase if you do not have gaps or a way of explaining for the gaps.
It is also not advisable to fabricate your reason(s) for leaving if that does not match with what they are going to say when a potential employer calls for a reference.
Your chances of getting a job are usually far better if you have a job- any job and take another, even if you don't plan on staying long at it.
How is your decision to leave a job where you were being harassed when you didn't have another lined up different from someone else's identical choice?
I left and got lawful unemployment (you do know you pay into so that you can collect it back?) and took classes. I also made sure I secured a letter of reference for my resume as part of my settlement. I did not leave without a plan and I did not leave a gap to call into question. I did not go from a job to assistance because of my choice.
OT-I will say that unless your state has some really odd laws, you are required to file while still on the job over harassment with your employer (and some states if you don't dot your "i" right they throw it all out) or have proof via a police report, you will have little to no chance of pursuing it once you have left the job. It is not like the LL fair pay act. Without legal proof it's after the fact hearsay and it can cost you should the turn the table and sue you for deformation. (this is a general comment)
when you know you need to leave a job you should make a plan - if that means you have to contact who ever or do what ever prior you should do so, that's prudent - you plan what your next step is (to avoid a gap) you make a plan, I do not know that it is ever advised that one goes from quitting to public assistance as a plan-I have never heard of any career adviser that would say it
Edited by serenbat - 2/3/13 at 5:33pm