I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[G.T.]

Welfare should be unpleasant, yes? People need an incentive to work towards getting off of it.

So, my father in law and I were talking about solutions to all of the inner city crime, violence, high school drop-out and failure rate, women who cannot afford to but continue to have babies - - - - -

And it struck me that it seems to be getting worse, and all of this Partisan rivalry blah blah isn't offering up any solutions to the problem so here's one.

Skip ebt cards.
Skip section 8 living.

Let's make camps. Sort of like internment camps (except not really). If you want/need any Government assistance in a rough time, or if you're just a mooch in General, you'd have to go to the Camp and receive it or else fend for yourself and leave the taxpayers out of it. Within said camp, and with all of the savings for ebt, section 8, etc - - - - - there would be very bland, very minimalist and awful tasting food provided for you by the taxpayer. The only goal here is to keep you alive, not pleasurable eating.

There will be cots, and duties for the able. No cable. No celly. There will be phones, mind you. But lines to wait and use them for a certain amount of time.

Here's the uncomfortable kicker.

Once you come to Uncle Sam for help, you cannot leave to go on back out of the camp and become a gang-banger, druggie, drop-out, etc.

In order to leave, you need to stay in school or actively be seeking a job. Otherwise, you're held. By force.

Sounds like that's not freedom, right? It is. You are completely free to choose to go to school and get out. You are completely free to choose to actively search for employment. You are not free to be a leech.

I would obviously have to think of loopholes for the legitimately disabled, or the worker who works in good faith and still cannot make ends meet. For those, it is society's burden to develop a system where the worst of jobs provide at least some minimal quality of life. I don't support a Country without that as its goal, quality of life.





I don't see the current memes of throwing more money at education working. I don't see the current system of allowing ebt cards to buy anything under the sun as working. I don't see child tax credits for men and women who won't work but have continuous babies, as being a legitimate solution to Anything.

 

[Skylar]

Sounds like that's not freedom, right? It is. You are completely free to choose to go to school and get out. You are completely free to choose to actively search for employment. You are not free to be a leech.

So by 'freedom' you mean they have to do what you tell them to do or be incarcerated....despite having commited no crime, nor violated any law, nor even been charged with such crimes.

I don't think 'freedom' means what you think it means.

 

[G.T.]

Sounds like that's not freedom, right? It is. You are completely free to choose to go to school and get out. You are completely free to choose to actively search for employment. You are not free to be a leech.

So by 'freedom' you mean they have to do what you tell them to do or be incarcerated....despite having commited no crime, nor violated any law, nor even been charged with such crimes.

I don't think 'freedom' means what you think it means.

Incarceration is involuntary, unless you count the crime as having been the voluntary part which is minutia.

This is a system where you came to the Taxpayer for help, and in return you must show a good faith effort to sustain yourself. This is done via education or employment.

You don't ever go to the camp by force. You show up voluntarily.

 

[Skylar]

Incarceration is involuntary, unless you count the crime as having been the voluntary part which is minutia.

Again, your proposal is to incarcerate people indefinitely without trial, without counsel, without charge and without any commission of any crime......unless they do exactly what you tell them.

You kinda fail the 'freedom' test the moment you imprison people without trial. The narrow conditions of their 'release' from unjustified incarceration are gravy.

 

[G.T.]

Incarceration is involuntary, unless you count the crime as having been the voluntary part which is minutia.

Again, your proposal is to incarcerate people indefinitely without trial, without counsel, without charge and without any commission of any crime......unless they do exactly what you tell them.

You kinda fail the 'freedom' test the moment you imprison people without trial. The narrow conditions of their 'release' from unjustified incarceration are gravy.

No, they show up voluntarily.

You can't leave that part out and then try to argue with the idea. You're arguing with your idea of what the idea is, but it's not the idea.

 

[g5000]

So if you want to take advantage of one of the government's social behavioral programs like a tax deduction, credit, or exemption you should go to a camp?

I like it!

People who use tax expenditures are mooching $1.2 trillion off the country.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LOL ^ Two monkeys with a football

 

[Skylar]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

 

[G.T.]

So if you want to take advantage of one of the government's social behavioral programs like a tax deduction, credit, or exemption you should go to a camp?

I like it!

People who use tax expenditures are mooching $1.2 trillion off the country.

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

 

[Skylar]

So if you want to take advantage of one of the government's social behavioral programs like a tax deduction, credit, or exemption you should go to a camp?

I like it!

People who use tax expenditures are mooching $1.2 trillion off the country.

Yeah, those fucking students and all those pell grants. And all those children getting money for food and housing. And how about medical care for these kids? Can you believe it?

WWJD indeed.

 

[G.T.]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

 

[Ravi]

What about the kids? You're gonna leave them living in a camp or take them away from their parents?

 

[G.T.]

What about the kids? You're gonna leave them living in a camp or take them away from their parents?

They can live there with their parents and also go to school.

Should they eat the shit food ebt allows them now, or a more nutritious but blander diet which is cheaper, better for them, and a way to mitigate their parents from spending our tax dollars, and their kids food money, on ciggs/beer/drugs, etc?

 

[rightwinger]

Poor people don't suffer enough

If we don't make them suffer they will not want to stop being poor

 

[Ravi]

What about the kids? You're gonna leave them living in a camp or take them away from their parents?

They can live there with their parents and also go to school.

Should they eat the shit food ebt allows them now, or a more nutritious but blander diet which is cheaper, better for them, and a way to mitigate their parents from spending our tax dollars, and their kids food money, on ciggs/beer/drugs, etc?

But you'd be holding children, probably involuntarily against their will for the sins of their parents.

I don't think there are really that many moochers. Most people on assistance are kids, mothers, elderly people, and Walmart employees.

I don't like your idea but I would go along with something like community food kitchens that served three healthy meals a day instead of handing out food stamps.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wouldn't it make MORE sense just to end all the stupid welfare programs, change to a national sales tax with no deductions and then handle "welfare" thusly?

Anyone who needs money can go get a job at their local city or county earning minimum wage tax free. Cleaning, painting, picking up trash, baby sitting kids of other needy people, whatever. Plenty to do in every community?

So, no more EBT, no more TIA no more SSI , no more WIC, no more HUD. No more NOTHING you want money from the taxpayers earn it. You don't want to earn it, go hungry

Small program set up to help those who simply aren't capable of course)

 

[Freemason9]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

 

[rightwinger]

Poorhouse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In England, Wales and Ireland (but not in Scotland[1]) a poorhouse was more commonly known as a workhouse. In early Victorian times (see Poor Law), poverty was seen as a dishonorable state. As depicted by Charles Dickens, a workhouse could resemble a reformatory, often housing whole families, or a penal labour regime giving manual work to the indigent and subjecting them to physical punishment. At a workhouse, men and women were split up with no communication between them.

 

[Skylar]

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

When you force them to stay against their will, that's when you run into problems. As you lack the authority to strip people of fundamental rights without say, the commission of a crime and a conviction. And you have none. Nor even a charge of such a crime.

People can't relinquish their freedom to walk away. Making the enforcement of such a 'social compact' unconstitutional. As the moment someone wants to leave, their right to freedom of movement trumps any compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

You run into more problems.The folks who get public assistance aren't getting a penny of your money. They're getting money from the government coffers. The moment you pay your taxes, you lose ownership of the funds in question. So you're not paying for anyone. The government is.

You are paying the government. And that degree of separation is ethically and practically profound. As the government funds all sorts of programs, some of which you agree with, others you don't. Alas, your personal agreement isn't the threshold government action. That would be the majority.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

Oh, forced incarceration backed with violence for the commission of no crime is quite extreme. And quite criminal. Its a pretty awful 'solution'.

 

[G.T.]

What about the kids? You're gonna leave them living in a camp or take them away from their parents?

They can live there with their parents and also go to school.

Should they eat the shit food ebt allows them now, or a more nutritious but blander diet which is cheaper, better for them, and a way to mitigate their parents from spending our tax dollars, and their kids food money, on ciggs/beer/drugs, etc?

But you'd be holding children, probably involuntarily against their will for the sins of their parents.

I don't think there are really that many moochers. Most people on assistance are kids, mothers, elderly people, and Walmart employees.

I don't like your idea but I would go along with something like community food kitchens that served three healthy meals a day instead of handing out food stamps.

^ there can be middle ground like this.

It wasn't sat there and philosophized over for hours, it was an idea on a whim.

But the children would not be held against their will, they'd be able to run/play/do whatever the fuck they wanted that any other kid could do after school. We already don't let minors live without supervision. Same thing in this case.