CDZ Should Government Benefits be Earned By Able-Bodied Adults?

[Foxfyre]

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that in order for government largess to be viable, it MUST require that those who receive it become self-sustaining withing a specific time frame so that in lean times, if they do recieve government aid, it will not be a problem to stop funding them.

And to address the OP's debate item about people...the same should be done for those who receive government aid for their own personal life.

They should be required to perform a service to the community in which they live in order to receive benefits.
They should be required to further their education to provide themselves with a valued skill that can be used in the private sector.
They should be limited to the amount of time and frequency in which they can take government aid.

Of course, the exceptions are for people who, through no fault of their own, are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves.

We aren't really in disagreement, but we are arguing different subjects I think. I am arguing that people are helped far more efficiently and effectively in the private sector than is usually the case with government even when the private sector works hand in hand with government as things actually should be. You are arguing for what government policy should be when helping people, which I don't have a problem with, but I think government should be the absolutely LAST line of defense when it comes to helping people in the first place.

The only exception to that should be in the case of major disaster or catastrophe in which the government has the immediate resources to go in and provide immediate help in a way the private sector would not likely have the ability to do or when police or fire services etc. are warranted.

When it comes to welfare, let the local people organize that, perhaps in tandem with local government resources, and work out how to best do that efficiently, effectively, and affordable. I have never seen a local community administering help to people in need who made able bodied adults dependent on that help. The federal government, however, tends to make dependents out of just about everybody it presumes to 'help'.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The GOP Reaganomics policies have led us to where we are now. There is a massive lack of opportunity. We need to fix that. It costs money.

Unlike the nutters who have dished on this subject for eons.....I believe that all Americans are industrious and desirous of a good job.....and a life of dignity and prosperity.

Education.....education....education. Adequate nutrition from day one. Health care.....especially preventive care. Clean water and clean air. Safe streets. Mobility..........mass transportation. Access to the internet and modern communications technology for all from day one.

It all costs money. And it is worth it.

Not sure if you're aware of this.....but Reagan has not been President for 27 years. Unless you are saying multiple Democrat Congresses and Presidents have rubber stamped Reagan economic policies for the last three decades?

Is that what you're saying?

As for the rest....the questions in the OP are specific to direct benefits paid to Americans that have not specifically worked for those benefits.

I assume you agree able-bodied adult Americans should not have to work or earn the benefits they might receive. If so...simply say so. Any rationale you may have to support your point of view would be appreciated.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that in order for government largess to be viable, it MUST require that those who receive it become self-sustaining withing a specific time frame so that in lean times, if they do recieve government aid, it will not be a problem to stop funding them.

And to address the OP's debate item about people...the same should be done for those who receive government aid for their own personal life.

They should be required to perform a service to the community in which they live in order to receive benefits.
They should be required to further their education to provide themselves with a valued skill that can be used in the private sector.
They should be limited to the amount of time and frequency in which they can take government aid.

Of course, the exceptions are for people who, through no fault of their own, are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves.

We aren't really in disagreement, but we are arguing different subjects I think. I am arguing that people are helped far more efficiently and effectively in the private sector than is usually the case with government even when the private sector works hand in hand with government as things actually should be. You are arguing for what government policy should be when helping people, which I don't have a problem with, but I think government should be the absolutely LAST line of defense when it comes to helping people in the first place.

The only exception to that should be in the case of major disaster or catastrophe in which the government has the immediate resources to go in and provide immediate help in a way the private sector would not likely have the ability to do or when police or fire services etc. are warranted.

When it comes to welfare, let the local people organize that, perhaps in tandem with local government resources, and work out how to best do that efficiently, effectively, and affordable. I have never seen a local community administering help to people in need who made able bodied adults dependent on that help. The federal government, however, tends to make dependents out of just about everybody it presumes to 'help'.

No, we are pretty much in full agreement. I simply wanted to lay out a few realities when it comes to people who find that they simply cannot let go of any government program, regardless of the situation.

To them, as long as other people have money, then no program should ever face a downsizing or elimination when times are hard and choices of spending must be made.

 

[danielpalos]

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The GOP Reaganomics policies have led us to where we are now. There is a massive lack of opportunity. We need to fix that. It costs money.

Unlike the nutters who have dished on this subject for eons.....I believe that all Americans are industrious and desirous of a good job.....and a life of dignity and prosperity.

Education.....education....education. Adequate nutrition from day one. Health care.....especially preventive care. Clean water and clean air. Safe streets. Mobility..........mass transportation. Access to the internet and modern communications technology for all from day one.

It all costs money. And it is worth it.

Not sure if you're aware of this.....but Reagan has not been President for 27 years. Unless you are saying multiple Democrat Congresses and Presidents have rubber stamped Reagan economic policies for the last three decades?

Is that what you're saying?

As for the rest....the questions in the OP are specific to direct benefits paid to Americans that have not specifically worked for those benefits.

I assume you agree able-bodied adult Americans should not have to work or earn the benefits they might receive. If so...simply say so. Any rationale you may have to support your point of view would be appreciated.

You assume wrong. I have no problem with the federal government being the employer of last resort. Able bodied, sane adult Americans ought to work an available job which pays a living wage. That job ought to be guaranteed to every American citizen. Yes?

Since I believe that all sane humans are industrious by nature and will gladly work that job....I believe the number of refusals would be very limited and likely due to some mental illness.

See?

While we are ASSUMING.....I'll assume that you expect that able bodied adult to work a 40 hour week in return for a few hundred bucks in assistance.

 

[danielpalos]

1. No.
There is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government using the general fisc for charity.
States can.

2. The abject failure of the Liberal welfare scam proves that there is actually an ulterior motive for the largesse.......to accrue votes.

a. The cause for the system is illusory.
The classic understanding of poverty....no home, no heat, no food......is virtually unknown in America.


3. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that in earlier times, human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..


4. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...."
"Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

5. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

6. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.



7. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

Promoting and providing for the general welfare covers number 1.

 

[Darkwind]

1. No.
There is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government using the general fisc for charity.
States can.

2. The abject failure of the Liberal welfare scam proves that there is actually an ulterior motive for the largesse.......to accrue votes.

a. The cause for the system is illusory.
The classic understanding of poverty....no home, no heat, no food......is virtually unknown in America.


3. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that in earlier times, human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..


4. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...."
"Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

5. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

6. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.



7. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

Promoting and providing for the general welfare covers number 1.

Incorrect. There is no "providing" for the general welfare in the Constitution.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

Not sure what you're getting at.....but for the purposes on this thread income you earn through the result of your work or intellectual property.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

Not sure what you're getting at.....but for the purposes on this thread income you earn through the result of your work or intellectual property.

What about what you've inherited. Does that count?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The GOP Reaganomics policies have led us to where we are now. There is a massive lack of opportunity. We need to fix that. It costs money.

Unlike the nutters who have dished on this subject for eons.....I believe that all Americans are industrious and desirous of a good job.....and a life of dignity and prosperity.

Education.....education....education. Adequate nutrition from day one. Health care.....especially preventive care. Clean water and clean air. Safe streets. Mobility..........mass transportation. Access to the internet and modern communications technology for all from day one.

It all costs money. And it is worth it.

Not sure if you're aware of this.....but Reagan has not been President for 27 years. Unless you are saying multiple Democrat Congresses and Presidents have rubber stamped Reagan economic policies for the last three decades?

Is that what you're saying?

As for the rest....the questions in the OP are specific to direct benefits paid to Americans that have not specifically worked for those benefits.

I assume you agree able-bodied adult Americans should not have to work or earn the benefits they might receive. If so...simply say so. Any rationale you may have to support your point of view would be appreciated.

You assume wrong. I have no problem with the federal government being the employer of last resort. Able bodied, sane adult Americans ought to work an available job which pays a living wage. That job ought to be guaranteed to every American citizen. Yes?

Since I believe that all sane humans are industrious by nature and will gladly work that job....I believe the number of refusals would be very limited and likely due to some mental illness.

See?

While we are ASSUMING.....I'll assume that you expect that able bodied adult to work a 40 hour week in return for a few hundred bucks in assistance.

If you are able-bodied and would like to obtain Government benefits you should be be required to work for those benefits and be fairly compensated for your efforts. There is much work that needs to be done as I have stated. Let's exchange benefits for work.

And you and I agree....I think most people want to work. But at times Government policy discourages personal work (e.g. losing TANF benefits if you get a job).

 

[WelfareQueen]

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

Not sure what you're getting at.....but for the purposes on this thread income you earn through the result of your work or intellectual property.

What about what you've inherited. Does that count?

Sure....and there's nothing wrong in leaving money to your descendents. And remember....that income has already been taxed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The GOP Reaganomics policies have led us to where we are now. There is a massive lack of opportunity. We need to fix that. It costs money.

Unlike the nutters who have dished on this subject for eons.....I believe that all Americans are industrious and desirous of a good job.....and a life of dignity and prosperity.

Education.....education....education. Adequate nutrition from day one. Health care.....especially preventive care. Clean water and clean air. Safe streets. Mobility..........mass transportation. Access to the internet and modern communications technology for all from day one.

It all costs money. And it is worth it.

Not sure if you're aware of this.....but Reagan has not been President for 27 years. Unless you are saying multiple Democrat Congresses and Presidents have rubber stamped Reagan economic policies for the last three decades?

Is that what you're saying?

As for the rest....the questions in the OP are specific to direct benefits paid to Americans that have not specifically worked for those benefits.

I assume you agree able-bodied adult Americans should not have to work or earn the benefits they might receive. If so...simply say so. Any rationale you may have to support your point of view would be appreciated.

You assume wrong. I have no problem with the federal government being the employer of last resort. Able bodied, sane adult Americans ought to work an available job which pays a living wage. That job ought to be guaranteed to every American citizen. Yes?

Since I believe that all sane humans are industrious by nature and will gladly work that job....I believe the number of refusals would be very limited and likely due to some mental illness.

See?

While we are ASSUMING.....I'll assume that you expect that able bodied adult to work a 40 hour week in return for a few hundred bucks in assistance.

If you are able-bodied and would like to obtain Government benefits you should be be required to work for those benefits and be fairly compensated for your efforts. There is much work that needs to be done as I have stated. Let's exchange benefits for work.

And you and I agree....I think most people want to work. But at times Government policy discourages personal work (e.g. losing TANF benefits if you get a job).

Nah.....the number of people who refuse work so they can keep that pittance is minuscule. I've just got more faith in my fellow man, I suppose.

The myth of the welfare queen and the fear it has caused the uninformed has held back real progress.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

Not sure what you're getting at.....but for the purposes on this thread income you earn through the result of your work or intellectual property.

What about what you've inherited. Does that count?

Sure....and there's nothing wrong in leaving money to your descendents. And remember....that income has already been taxed.

Whatever........it isn't earned by the person who inherits it. It's the definition of a handout.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

Not sure what you're getting at.....but for the purposes on this thread income you earn through the result of your work or intellectual property.

What about what you've inherited. Does that count?

Sure....and there's nothing wrong in leaving money to your descendents. And remember....that income has already been taxed.

Whatever........it isn't earned by the person who inherits it. It's the definition of a handout.

If you give money to your kids that's between you and your kids. Nobody else's business.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

You are begging the question that all income is earned income.

Not sure what you're getting at.....but for the purposes on this thread income you earn through the result of your work or intellectual property.

What about what you've inherited. Does that count?

Sure....and there's nothing wrong in leaving money to your descendents. And remember....that income has already been taxed.

Whatever........it isn't earned by the person who inherits it. It's the definition of a handout.

If you give money to your kids that's between you and your kids. Nobody else's business.

Really? I didn't know that. You've really taught me something.

 

[prison/con.net]

there's nothing 'earned" in relation to such payments, to anyone. That money is just charity, extracted from the unwilling by gun-armed thugs, to be given to those who will then vote for the "givers'.

 

[Shrimpbox]

The myth is that there are no lazy people. The myth is the utopia that lone,proposes that has never worked in practice. The myth is not believing that there are millions of people who would like to make some money on the side but don't want to mess up their benefits. Why the hell do you think we have generational welfare. Why do you think we have people on tv saying Obama is going to buy me a house and give me a phone and make my car payment. Lone apparently has no experience in small business and dealing with lower wage employees.

I agree welfare. If we could get rid of regulations people who receive benefits could do daycare, they could do city beautification, at the very least they should be required to go to ged classes. Let's experiment with some micro lending in the inner cities. Let's clear some lots and start growing food. One of our new black employees told me the other day , he said, " you know, the most tired you can get is when you sit around and ain't got nothing to do". He is happier now that he has a job, is getting a paycheck, and is learning a new skill as a cook, and he says his Grama would be proud to see him now. He also told me that if anyone comes in asking about him to tell them that he is not lifting anything heavier than 20 pounds and is wearing a belt because he has a lawsuit pending. He tips the scales at 350 and has lost 100 pounds in the last year. Life ain't ever as simple as some want to make it which is why we need social and local entities running charity not the govt.

 

[danielpalos]

1. No.
There is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government using the general fisc for charity.
States can.

2. The abject failure of the Liberal welfare scam proves that there is actually an ulterior motive for the largesse.......to accrue votes.

a. The cause for the system is illusory.
The classic understanding of poverty....no home, no heat, no food......is virtually unknown in America.


3. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that in earlier times, human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..


4. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...."
"Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

5. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

6. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.



7. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

Promoting and providing for the general welfare covers number 1.

Incorrect. There is no "providing" for the general welfare in the Constitution.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. Providing for the general welfare is in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[WelfareQueen]

1. No.
There is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government using the general fisc for charity.
States can.

2. The abject failure of the Liberal welfare scam proves that there is actually an ulterior motive for the largesse.......to accrue votes.

a. The cause for the system is illusory.
The classic understanding of poverty....no home, no heat, no food......is virtually unknown in America.


3. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that in earlier times, human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..


4. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...."
"Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

5. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

6. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.



7. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

Promoting and providing for the general welfare covers number 1.

Incorrect. There is no "providing" for the general welfare in the Constitution.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. Providing for the general welfare is in Article 1, Section 8.

Article 1 Section 8 is highly specific as to the Federal Governments specific obligations for the general welfare. No where does it state "free healthcare," "food stamps," or "welfare checks."

I would encourage everyone to read Article 1 Section 8 carefully, as well as the necessary and proper cause. Please see the attached links.

Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute


Necessary and Proper Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[danielpalos]

1. No.
There is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government using the general fisc for charity.
States can.

2. The abject failure of the Liberal welfare scam proves that there is actually an ulterior motive for the largesse.......to accrue votes.

a. The cause for the system is illusory.
The classic understanding of poverty....no home, no heat, no food......is virtually unknown in America.


3. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that in earlier times, human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..


4. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...."
"Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

5. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

6. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.



7. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

Promoting and providing for the general welfare covers number 1.

Incorrect. There is no "providing" for the general welfare in the Constitution.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. Providing for the general welfare is in Article 1, Section 8.

Article 1 Section 8 is highly specific as to the Federal Governments specific obligations for the general welfare. No where does it state "free healthcare," "food stamps," or "welfare checks."

I would encourage everyone to read Article 1 Section 8 carefully, as well as the necessary and proper cause. Please see the attached links.

Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute


Necessary and Proper Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

How else can benefits be necessarily and properly distributed?