A New Concept in Handling Welfare

[Full-Auto]

If you take a welfare check, you need to stand a post on a border for 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, and attend a college 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, until such time as you earn at minimum, an AA degree in something NOT OF the liberal arts. Since you will be either working on defending the borders, a law enforcement degree would go a long ways. If you are assigned to work on roads or bridges, an engineering degree toward those disciplines would be a good idea. If you are put to work picking up trash along the highways, waterways, or city streets, a degree in waste management would be appropriate.

The point being. If we're going to feed and house your ass, we expect some effort from you in return. And we'd like to see a return on our investment, meaning that you apply your education go getting a job and paying taxes; helping to reduce the need for wealth redistribution.

Or you can go hungry.

Freedom, its a hard thing, because it does not mean you have the freedom to take what is Mine.

So the women with children, abandoned by the father just gets the fuck you?

 

[Moonglow]

Whether through government agencies or private non-profits, the need and expenditures would remain the same – the taxpayer would realize no ‘savings.’ Indeed, as a consequence of the needless complexity and waste inherent in such a proposal, the individual taxpayer would likely end up spending more on public assistance and getting less in the way of services.

The collection of funds for the "Welfare Corporation" , we'll call it is volunatary. No longer mandatory part of our tax money so our tax money, as it is could go to driving down the deficit or brought back to tax payers in terms of tax cuts.

Moreover, such a proposal would contribute to an increased likelihood of fraud and abuse on the part of the private non-profits, requiring additional government monitoring and oversight with the usual added expenses, including those associated with criminal investigation and prosecution.

The Welfare Corporation would be a for "profit organization".

Last, there is an array of Federal and state laws, policies, and case law which govern the appropriate and efficient administering of public assistance programs, including the effectiveness of the programs and accountability. Public monies are public monies, regardless how collected and administered, the above proposal would require the creation of a whole new bureaucracy to meet those accountability requirements.

This is a state issue, not a federal program. It would be open to audit as any private business would be.

As with most other conservatives, the OP has succeeded in exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the subject of public assistance, motivated only by animus toward those less fortunate and the least able to protect themselves from political attack.

There is no animus meant for those least able to protect themselves but a program to meet the needs of those most in need of help. With the focus first on employment, education and skills trades and temporary fiscal help for able bodied people to become marketable again.It is meant for those at the bottom to eventually come out of poverty, not dwell in it.

it just eats at you to see people get welfare. get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much.

Aside from the fact that it destroys character, is this, "get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much" what you did when the bigger kids took your lunch money?

I didn't have lunch money, I had a lunch ticket that they punched. When I was picked on in elementary school I rolled up inna balll and let them beat on me, no worse than the beatings I got at home from my drunk Dad.
But after becoming and weightlifter and olympic wrestler, no body ever punched or beat me again, and to this day i am still ask what pro team I played football on, but that is my secret.
Destroys character!? Ha, what facts are you basing that assumption upon, uteer poverty is a better character chruncher than getting to eat. I know I have been at the point where I hadn't eaten in so long I thought I might die. You ever been there?
true compassion and empathy comes from the heart, just like the love of God, and no good deed will go unrewarded, but you people have the heart of a balck soul, lookong down upon those less fortunate, and those asking for help.
Like I said before there are those that abuse the system and you know, every system has them. They drain and steal from others to have or exists. but bad for character?
Ever had to steal to eat, or to work?
Ever have to sleep outside in the extreme heat or cold?
Ever ask for help and be confronted by hard hearted souls as yourself, that tell you to get a job you bum?

bad for character? Yeah maybe to some, but not to the majority, that are using SNAP to help feed their family during these hard times.
Remeber that God let's the rain fall upon the righteous and the wicked. All receive Gods' bounty and gifts, he doesn't whine about one or the other needing to get a job, or being a worthless character bent on teet sucking.

 

[eflatminor]

Your inability to process facts does not make the fact that businesses' fail and are no better at handling money than the govt.

Wow, just wow.

The most ignorant thing ever? I dunno...but close.

The most ignorant is you, from falling on your head when you were born.

Very mature...

Do you like to be hateful instead of conversational?

Never said I hated you. I did say you are extremely ignorant, which your statement demonstrates quite clearly.

But hey, you want to converse? Tell us with specificity how government or any entity without competition and with the power to encarcerate anyone that doesn't fund their activities can be equally adept at "handling money" as a private concern that must meet demand and make profit or fail. Come on, thrill us with your acumen.

 

[Darkwind]

If "Private enterprise has always proven to be the most effective managers of money." why do we always have to bail them out?

"always have to bail them out?"

Really - you bailed out the banks jackass, oh and then seized GM...

You act like you're bailing out main street....

My position was let the banks fail and let GM fail....

Your inability to process facts does not make the fact that businesses' fail and are no better at handling money than the govt.

I'll tell you what.

You gather the number of businesses that have failed, and divide them by the number of businesses in the United States, and then tell Me if that number equates to 100.

I won't wait.

Your fallacy is that your statement assumes all business fails. It does not, but nearly ALL government programs fail. Or at the very least, fail at a rate of 99:1 over private.

 

[PoliticalChic]

it just eats at you to see people get welfare. get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much.

Aside from the fact that it destroys character, is this, "get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much" what you did when the bigger kids took your lunch money?

I didn't have lunch money, I had a lunch ticket that they punched. When I was picked on in elementary school I rolled up inna balll and let them beat on me, no worse than the beatings I got at home from my drunk Dad.
But after becoming and weightlifter and olympic wrestler, no body ever punched or beat me again, and to this day i am still ask what pro team I played football on, but that is my secret.
Destroys character!? Ha, what facts are you basing that assumption upon, uteer poverty is a better character chruncher than getting to eat. I know I have been at the point where I hadn't eaten in so long I thought I might die. You ever been there?
true compassion and empathy comes from the heart, just like the love of God, and no good deed will go unrewarded, but you people have the heart of a balck soul, lookong down upon those less fortunate, and those asking for help.
Like I said before there are those that abuse the system and you know, every system has them. They drain and steal from others to have or exists. but bad for character?
Ever had to steal to eat, or to work?
Ever have to sleep outside in the extreme heat or cold?
Ever ask for help and be confronted by hard hearted souls as yourself, that tell you to get a job you bum?

bad for character? Yeah maybe to some, but not to the majority, that are using SNAP to help feed their family during these hard times.
Remeber that God let's the rain fall upon the righteous and the wicked. All receive Gods' bounty and gifts, he doesn't whine about one or the other needing to get a job, or being a worthless character bent on teet sucking.

"Destroys character!? Ha, what facts are you basing that assumption upon,..."

First...unlike Liberals, wherein feeling passes for knowing, I don't assume.


Second, read and learn:


From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.


2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

a. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.


b. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.


3. Prior to the War on Poverty, black families remained intact, and the vast majority of black babies were born into two-parent families, with a 28% illegitimacy rate in 1965. Then 49% in ’75; 65% in ’90; 75% in ’95. See also The Weekend Interview with Walter Williams: The State Against Blacks - WSJ.com


For further edification...see post #41.....if you dare.

 

[Darkwind]

If you take a welfare check, you need to stand a post on a border for 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, and attend a college 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, until such time as you earn at minimum, an AA degree in something NOT OF the liberal arts. Since you will be either working on defending the borders, a law enforcement degree would go a long ways. If you are assigned to work on roads or bridges, an engineering degree toward those disciplines would be a good idea. If you are put to work picking up trash along the highways, waterways, or city streets, a degree in waste management would be appropriate.

The point being. If we're going to feed and house your ass, we expect some effort from you in return. And we'd like to see a return on our investment, meaning that you apply your education go getting a job and paying taxes; helping to reduce the need for wealth redistribution.

Or you can go hungry.

Freedom, its a hard thing, because it does not mean you have the freedom to take what is Mine.

So the women with children, abandoned by the father just gets the fuck you?

Do you read or did some partisan hack read it to you?

 

[Darkwind]

Conservative advocacy of ‘charities’ as some sort of replacement for current public assistance programs is classic reactionary ignorance and Dickensian naïveté - it’s no longer the 19th Century, no matter how much most conservatives wish it to be.

Classic deflection.

Expecting a return for our generosity is not unrealistic or even, as the other guy said, black-hearted.

No where in the Constitution does it allow for you to take from one person to give to another, just to assuage your guilt at seeing someone less fortunate than you are.

No one, on either side, advocates for the elimination of a safety net. But when it is provided, there are expectations that must be met. That is not unreasonable, nor cruel.

 

[Jackson]

Conservative advocacy of ‘charities’ as some sort of replacement for current public assistance programs is classic reactionary ignorance and Dickensian naïveté - it’s no longer the 19th Century, no matter how much most conservatives wish it to be.

Classic deflection.

Expecting a return for our generosity is not unrealistic or even, as the other guy said, black-hearted.

No where in the Constitution does it allow for you to take from one person to give to another, just to assuage your guilt at seeing someone less fortunate than you are.

No one, on either side, advocates for the elimination of a safety net. But when it is provided, there are expectations that must be met. That is not unreasonable, nor cruel.

Well said, Darkwind.

 

[francoHFW]

Blaming the victims of Pub depression/obstruction...

 

[Jackson]

Putting welfare in the hands of states and the community would offer each needy person the chance to get ahead, not merely exist as it is now. The first and foremost opportunity would be employment and then education to get gainfully employed. The states and the community would support each individual in their endeavor to achieve that American dream and no longer be a victim.

 

[bucs90]

how can it cost less when you add profit to the cost?

jesus you people are idiots

Because TM, dont you realize that EVERYTHING the private sector and for-profit companies do is superior to the public sector? Morally, financially, any type of "ly" you can add a prefix to, the private, for profit folks are superior.

For example................

Have you taken a look at the sidewalks in our downtowns around America? They are all government funded and maintained sidewalks. New York, Atlanta, LA, Houston....my home city Charleston. Tens of thousands or millions of people walk on government sidewalks every day, what do we get from it? Nothing.

NOW...what if we privatized all city sidewalks?? The private, for-profit folks take them all over. Every street corner, or every 50 feet or so, there could be one of those subway turn gates. Yep. Pay 25 cent for every 50 feet of sidewalk you consume, er, use.

Brilliant right? All this time, there has been profits to be made from people walking downtown, and the government has blocked it!! Hell, it'll "create jobs!!!!!"!!!

Privatize US sidewalks. Make people pay to fucking walk.

Is the Tea Party really that far away from suggesting it? Nope.

 

[bucs90]

Conservative advocacy of ‘charities’ as some sort of replacement for current public assistance programs is classic reactionary ignorance and Dickensian naïveté - it’s no longer the 19th Century, no matter how much most conservatives wish it to be.

Classic deflection.

Expecting a return for our generosity is not unrealistic or even, as the other guy said, black-hearted.

No where in the Constitution does it allow for you to take from one person to give to another, just to assuage your guilt at seeing someone less fortunate than you are.

No one, on either side, advocates for the elimination of a safety net. But when it is provided, there are expectations that must be met. That is not unreasonable, nor cruel.

Nowhere?? What about the govt's ability to tax? Thats in there. What about the gov'ts ability to maintain a standing Army? Thats in there. So they take from some, to give to Army employees, right?

 

[Jackson]

Conservative advocacy of ‘charities’ as some sort of replacement for current public assistance programs is classic reactionary ignorance and Dickensian naïveté - it’s no longer the 19th Century, no matter how much most conservatives wish it to be.

Classic deflection.

Expecting a return for our generosity is not unrealistic or even, as the other guy said, black-hearted.

No where in the Constitution does it allow for you to take from one person to give to another, just to assuage your guilt at seeing someone less fortunate than you are.

No one, on either side, advocates for the elimination of a safety net. But when it is provided, there are expectations that must be met. That is not unreasonable, nor cruel.

Nowhere?? What about the govt's ability to tax? Thats in there. What about the gov'ts ability to maintain a standing Army? Thats in there. So they take from some, to give to Army employees, right?

They are paying the army for the job they are doing...defending our country. That is not the case with general welfare.

 

[eflatminor]

I dont see anything there to PROVE helping people hurts people.

back your lies with some facts

Thank you for asking that!
Exactly the entre I was looking for:



1. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the problem is that, with government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.



2. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



How'd I do?

C'mon...admit it: hit it out of the park!!!

The moron walked right into that one!

Deflection, Ad hominem, non sequitur or 'crickets' in 3...2...1...

Crickets it is!

Shocking, I know...

 

[ba1614]

I have a novel concept too, if you have your health fuck off and look after yourself.