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

[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

How else can benefits be necessarily and properly distributed?

That question is what this entire thread is about. As you can see from the links I provided....Article 1 Section 8 is highly specific as to the Federal Government's responsibilities. The benefits of the modern Social Welfare State are not referenced at all....nor are they implied.

However, Congress has passed laws establishing the structure of the Social Welfare State.

The questions contained in this thread are basically this : Is the structure of the Social Welfare State sound when able-bodied adults can receive benefits they have not earned (i.e. not worked for)? Is that moral? Is it reasonable?

Your opinion in this matter is most welcome.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

That question is what this entire thread is about. As you can see from the links I provided....Article 1 Section 8 is highly specific as to the Federal Government's responsibilities. The benefits of the modern Social Welfare State are not referenced at all....nor are they implied.

However, Congress has passed laws establishing the structure of the Social Welfare State.

The questions contained in this thread are basically this : Is the structure of the Social Welfare State sound when able-bodied adults can receive benefits they have not earned (i.e. not worked for)? Is that moral? Is it reasonable?

Your opinion in this matter is most welcome.

Both terms, to promote and provide are to be found in our supreme law of the land should there be Any need to quibble.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

No, of course not. If you attended college on a subsidized student loan, ship your degree back, now.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

That question is what this entire thread is about. As you can see from the links I provided....Article 1 Section 8 is highly specific as to the Federal Government's responsibilities. The benefits of the modern Social Welfare State are not referenced at all....nor are they implied.

However, Congress has passed laws establishing the structure of the Social Welfare State.

The questions contained in this thread are basically this : Is the structure of the Social Welfare State sound when able-bodied adults can receive benefits they have not earned (i.e. not worked for)? Is that moral? Is it reasonable?

Your opinion in this matter is most welcome.

Both terms, to promote and provide are to be found in our supreme law of the land should there be Any need to quibble.

And both terms should be applied within the parameters of what 'general welfare' meant to the Founders who included it. Even a cursory examination of the documents they left behind makes it clear that they viewed the 'general welfare' as that which applied to all without prejudice or malice, and certainly was not intended to benefit only the individual or group or demographic or special interest at the expense of everybody else.

The Founders, particularly Madison, understood that the general welfare clause could be abused. In Federalist Paper 83, Madison wrote:


If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

Thomas Jefferson called the phrase “a mere ‘grammatical quibble’ that has countenanced the general government in a claim of universal power”. He mistakenly believed that the Founder’s had clarified their intentions and meaning, and debate over the meaning of the phrase would cease.

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders.

Those who sought to expand government’s powers chose to ignore the explanations offered by the Founders. Corrupted by bad philosophy, they rejected the principles of the Founders and of the Constitution.
The Founders and the General Welfare - Capitalism Magazine​

Further research into the Founding documents will show that the Founders strongly opposed any concept of a welfare state at the federal level.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Of course it doesn't.

1. 1. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.
   2. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers? If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government by Walter E. Williams

It seems that you mistake the United States for a monarchy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

1. Newt Gingrich's discussion about welfare reform: Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m. According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190). Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.


a. Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich s To Save America 7 Welfare Reform Health Care James Ramblings

1. 1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

The problem is that you are ignorant of the meaning of 'general welfare.'

The Roosevelt Court altered the Founder's concept of 'general welfare' to the bogus one that you advance.

1. During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. The General Welfare Clause

a. Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. The General Welfare Clause



Now for the national consequence caused by folks who use what passes for thinking as unlimited use of the public fisc:
1. Consider the national debt. Approaching eighteen trillion dollars. How did this happen? A "General Welfare Congress" [session after session] made this happen. With no limits on their taxing and spending power, they became like children in a candy store.
Ibid.


If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once. Brant, Irving “The Fourth President - A Life of James Madison,” p. 257.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Charity is not charity when it is forced.
Forced charity breeds bad feelings.
Toss in third party mis-management {government} and you are just looking for a fight.

Nothing about "EARNED" benefits is "charity".

In answer to the OP, of course the able-bodied can ans should be able to EARN benefits.

Its bizarre that anyone would think otherwise and smacks of the same discrimination that some want when they say only those who own property or are employed should be able to vote.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

No, of course not. If you attended college on a subsidized student loan, ship your degree back, now.

Next, they'll want to do away with the GI Bill.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

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

Just curious. Can posters now add their own rules to the CDZ?

Or have the CDZ rules changed to include "no profanity"?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

That question is what this entire thread is about. As you can see from the links I provided....Article 1 Section 8 is highly specific as to the Federal Government's responsibilities. The benefits of the modern Social Welfare State are not referenced at all....nor are they implied.

However, Congress has passed laws establishing the structure of the Social Welfare State.

The questions contained in this thread are basically this : Is the structure of the Social Welfare State sound when able-bodied adults can receive benefits they have not earned (i.e. not worked for)? Is that moral? Is it reasonable?

Your opinion in this matter is most welcome.

Both terms, to promote and provide are to be found in our supreme law of the land should there be Any need to quibble.

And both terms should be applied within the parameters of what 'general welfare' meant to the Founders who included it. Even a cursory examination of the documents they left behind makes it clear that they viewed the 'general welfare' as that which applied to all without prejudice or malice, and certainly was not intended to benefit only the individual or group or demographic or special interest at the expense of everybody else.

The Founders, particularly Madison, understood that the general welfare clause could be abused. In Federalist Paper 83, Madison wrote:


If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

Thomas Jefferson called the phrase “a mere ‘grammatical quibble’ that has countenanced the general government in a claim of universal power”. He mistakenly believed that the Founder’s had clarified their intentions and meaning, and debate over the meaning of the phrase would cease.

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders.

Those who sought to expand government’s powers chose to ignore the explanations offered by the Founders. Corrupted by bad philosophy, they rejected the principles of the Founders and of the Constitution.
The Founders and the General Welfare - Capitalism Magazine​

Further research into the Founding documents will show that the Founders strongly opposed any concept of a welfare state at the federal level.
.

I agree that we abolish any infidel-ism, protestant-ism and especially, renegade-ism to Faith in the execution of our Commerce Clause, implied or explicit.

 

[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

No, of course not. If you attended college on a subsidized student loan, ship your degree back, now.

I attended graduate school using Government backed school loans. I paid back every penny with interest. Is that what you're referring too?

 

[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

No, of course not. If you attended college on a subsidized student loan, ship your degree back, now.

Next, they'll want to do away with the GI Bill.

Ad hominem and fallacious. No one can argue that GI's have not earned benefits through their work and service.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Charity is not charity when it is forced.
Forced charity breeds bad feelings.
Toss in third party mis-management {government} and you are just looking for a fight.

Nothing about "EARNED" benefits is "charity".

In answer to the OP, of course the able-bodied can ans should be able to EARN benefits.

Its bizarre that anyone would think otherwise and smacks of the same discrimination that some want when they say only those who own property or are employed should be able to vote.

You seem to support work for benefits. You said "able-bodied can and should be able to EARN benefits."

As you know, able-bodied adults are not required to work or earn existing Government benefits currently.

How would you propose they do this?

 

[warf]

Helping low income people stay alive or feeding hungry children with tax payers' assistance doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is our tax code that coddles certain rich people with lower taxes on stock speculators, high paid executives and heirs who have money dropped on them that they did nothing to earn.

I also don't like paying the same social security payroll tax as the Koch brothers.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Helping low income people stay alive or feeding hungry children with tax payers' assistance doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is our tax code that coddles certain rich people with lower taxes on stock speculators, high paid executives and heirs who have money dropped on them that they did nothing to earn.

I also don't like paying the same social security payroll tax as the Koch brothers.

Assisting folks isn't really the question here. The question is should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

1. Newt Gingrich's discussion about welfare reform: Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan. The proposal goes like this:

Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m. According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190). Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.


a. Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich s To Save America 7 Welfare Reform Health Care James Ramblings

1. 1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

I like this. It seems very fair, and helps for in need and allows them to be productive.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Helping low income people stay alive or feeding hungry children with tax payers' assistance doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is our tax code that coddles certain rich people with lower taxes on stock speculators, high paid executives and heirs who have money dropped on them that they did nothing to earn.

I also don't like paying the same social security payroll tax as the Koch brothers.

Assisting folks isn't really the question here. The question is should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Now you have added yet another question: "...should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service? "

I suspect this is what you meant to ask all along but there some variables that should be considered. I'm out of time now but will look at this later or tomorrow.

 

[WelfareQueen]

You're welcome back any time. I guess we're left with your statement where you said "able-bodied can and should be able to EARN benefits."

I agree. I think the benefits received would be much more meaningful and valuable if folks received those benefits in exchange for work.

Thanks for your input.

 

[guno]

Most benefits go to the seniors children and the disabled if you know people who are getting it illegally you should report them