Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Syrenn notes that the federal government is following the California model and both have us headed straight for the bankruptcy cliff.
So that alone should provide impetus to come up with a whole new way of thinking about government.
Loose Cannon complains of a too intrusive, too over reaching controlling government. But wouldn't elected leaders that could no longer buy votes but would rather be dependent on doing a good job and a positive legacy to make it all worthwhile be more responsive to what the people felt? A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Flopper looks at the same litany of campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, and revisions to the Constitution. But I think these are the OLD way of thinking about government. As are AquaAthena's accurate but predictable views about entitlements.
But what if the federal government was prohibited from dispensing any charity or favors from the public treasury. What if there was nothing they could gain other than contempt if they overspent the budget? What if the law required the federal government to slowly and incrementally begin reversing the entitlements just as they have accrued, and transfer them to the state governments where they have belonged all the time? What if we just focused on original intent of the Founders re the Constitution and our leaders pledged to be faithful to that?
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
The whole new way of thinking should flat be that the government is not our mommy and daddy. They are not the teet to suck off of your entire life. At some point everyone must leave the nest and rely on yourself.
So would the age of five be appropriate to your thinking? 18 seems way to late. But if we start at five we wouldn't have to pay for public education or baby sitters.
Syrenn notes that the federal government is following the California model and both have us headed straight for the bankruptcy cliff.
So that alone should provide impetus to come up with a whole new way of thinking about government.
Loose Cannon complains of a too intrusive, too over reaching controlling government. But wouldn't elected leaders that could no longer buy votes but would rather be dependent on doing a good job and a positive legacy to make it all worthwhile be more responsive to what the people felt? A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Flopper looks at the same litany of campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, and revisions to the Constitution. But I think these are the OLD way of thinking about government. As are AquaAthena's accurate but predictable views about entitlements.
But what if the federal government was prohibited from dispensing any charity or favors from the public treasury. What if there was nothing they could gain other than contempt if they overspent the budget? What if the law required the federal government to slowly and incrementally begin reversing the entitlements just as they have accrued, and transfer them to the state governments where they have belonged all the time? What if we just focused on original intent of the Founders re the Constitution and our leaders pledged to be faithful to that?
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
The whole new way of thinking should flat be that the government is not our mommy and daddy. They are not the teet to suck off of your entire life. At some point everyone must leave the nest and rely on yourself.
That's an excellent start. . .BUT. . .a whole new way of thinking about government has to factor in human nature. There are people who are not natural self starters. Teachers know them in the classroom; supervisors know them in the workplace, volunteer organizations know them even among volunteers. They get it done but not without a boot in the butt every now and then for inspiration. They are tickled to death when they are relieved of a responsibiity.
The temptation to exploit those people who would be more than happy for somebody to do their responsibilities for them is too much for elected leaders who could benefit from that. That's why I think government charity is so often corrupting for both government and the recipients of the charity.
So I think the core concept has to be laws that make it impossible for the federal government to exploit and make dependents of the citizens. I might possibly be willing to relent to allow a basic safety net that provides the barest of necessities of life. Go back to that list in Texas. People can live on rice and beans. If they want steak, get a job, etc. . . .
But make it illegal for any government official to tell anybody, vote for me and I'll see to it that we provide you with money, food, shelter, clothing, healthcare etc.
The first class passenger deck chairs have been rearranged.
Some first class voyagers will give up their slightly better seats and others of the same class will find equally comfortable, but slightly less
public seats.
The folks in steerage will get less gruel for supper than they've grown accustomed to. Have no fear they're locked in steerage by locks so cleverly designed that few of them even understand they're there.
The folks in first class will continue to enjoy the banquet's compliments of the Captain and his crew.
The ship of state will keep sinking even as the Captain and his crew explain to us how our exceptionalism makes the ship unsinkable.
The problem is where do you establish the safety net that you refer to.
Over 20,000 single parents who can't work because they can't afford child care
A million illiterate adults who can't quality for a job that pays enough to support themselves or their family
150,000 servilely retarded who will never be able to earn a living
Tens of thousands of kids of an alcoholically and drug addict parents who can't or choose not to work
100,00 kids living in foster care
Then there are 53 million on Medicaid about 1/3 children.
The vast majority of these people will not find jobs if they loose government assistance because those jobs do not exist even for the qualified which these people are not.
Syrenn notes that the federal government is following the California model and both have us headed straight for the bankruptcy cliff.
So that alone should provide impetus to come up with a whole new way of thinking about government.
Loose Cannon complains of a too intrusive, too over reaching controlling government. But wouldn't elected leaders that could no longer buy votes but would rather be dependent on doing a good job and a positive legacy to make it all worthwhile be more responsive to what the people felt? A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Flopper looks at the same litany of campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, and revisions to the Constitution. But I think these are the OLD way of thinking about government. As are AquaAthena's accurate but predictable views about entitlements.
But what if the federal government was prohibited from dispensing any charity or favors from the public treasury. What if there was nothing they could gain other than contempt if they overspent the budget? What if the law required the federal government to slowly and incrementally begin reversing the entitlements just as they have accrued, and transfer them to the state governments where they have belonged all the time? What if we just focused on original intent of the Founders re the Constitution and our leaders pledged to be faithful to that?
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
The whole new way of thinking should flat be that the government is not our mommy and daddy. They are not the teet to suck off of your entire life. At some point everyone must leave the nest and rely on yourself.
Building on that list posted yesterday--the one about what we should be able to expect from those who are being supported by the people's treasury? . . . .
What if we returned to a system in which parents were expected to house, feed, clothe, vaccinate, and educate their children? The state took the children from those unable or unwilling to do that until the parents were willing and/or able to take over that responsibility themselves. There could be a safety net for families in temporary distress through no fault of their own, but even that could translate to the government offering temporary public service jobs until the breadwinner could get back on his/her feet.
That would be a whole new way of looking at government.
True. If people were more responsible we would have a lot less social problems. But until we discover how to make that happen we have to deal with the problems. Unfortunately ignoring the problems do not make them go away.The problem is where do you establish the safety net that you refer to.
Over 20,000 single parents who can't work because they can't afford child care
A million illiterate adults who can't quality for a job that pays enough to support themselves or their family
150,000 servilely retarded who will never be able to earn a living
Tens of thousands of kids of an alcoholically and drug addict parents who can't or choose not to work
100,00 kids living in foster care
Then there are 53 million on Medicaid about 1/3 children.
The vast majority of these people will not find jobs if they loose government assistance because those jobs do not exist even for the qualified which these people are not.
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider your child before you bring them into the world without you having a job or stable marriage. Maybe you should have learned to read when it was offered to you free of charge. Maybe, if their were more consequences for these things, people would be more motivated to make sure they were employed and contributing to society.
True. If people were more responsible we would have a lot less social problems. But until we discover how to make that happen we have to deal with the problems. Unfortunately ignoring the problems do not make them go away.Maybe, just maybe, you should consider your child before you bring them into the world without you having a job or stable marriage. Maybe you should have learned to read when it was offered to you free of charge. Maybe, if their were more consequences for these things, people would be more motivated to make sure they were employed and contributing to society.
Taking the checks away would make the problem of personal responsibility go away. So long as parents know up front that they can apply for government assistance to pay for their babies , they will continue to have babies that they cannot afford.
I also feel that once you apply for assistance the number of children at the time is all you will EVER be paid for. So if you have more children over and above the ones you cannot afford at the moment, tough. Make what you are getting for the ones you have go farther to support any more you have.
Reading message boards and blogs, I have come to the conclusion that what most people believe about government assistance programs is mostly wrong.
Regardless of facts to the contrary, many believe in the myth of welfare dependency. For the most part, welfare is a transient program. Recipients don't remain on the program forever. Fewer than 20 percent of all people on welfare remain on the program for more than seven months. Another 20 percent are on welfare for one to two years. Still, 27 percent remain on welfare for two to five years. Of all welfare recipients, 20 percent remain on welfare more than five years. The most of those on welfare for more than two years are unemployable due to mental or physical disabilities.
Those on welfare are lazy and won't work. This is another misconception. A large percent of those on welfare have jobs but they do not provide enough money to live on. 50% of those on welfare are unemployable due age, physical, or mental disabilities.
1 in 7 Americans use food stamps. Most families that use food stamps have at least one working member of the household. Military families are a big user of food stamps. 31 million dollars in food stamps are used in military commissaries nationwide each year.
To significantly reduce the cost of government social assistance programs we must increase the number jobs available to low skilled workers. Cutting back on the assistance programs does not increase employment.
About Welfare Statistics | eHow.com
Disability, Welfare Reform, and Supplemental Security Income
Statistics show 1 in 7 Americans using food stamps
No we need to go back to the old way of thinking about government.
We need to see government as George Washington did.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
Government is an odious entity, one that should be seen as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the greater good of protecting individual freedom.
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
No we need to go back to the old way of thinking about government.
We need to see government as George Washington did.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
Government is an odious entity, one that should be seen as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the greater good of protecting individual freedom.
I wonder if John Adams thinks that is possible.
John Adams Quotes
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
Here's the problem folks. As much as some likes to think that government MUST provide for the 'needy', entitlement programs simply cannot be sustained. Every single one that has ever been started is starved for funds, is adding to the deficit, is growing the debt, and we simply cannot continue down that road and believe that the USA will remain a great, powerful, affluent nation.
And, in my opinion, it all could have been avoided by letting the private sector work it out. The private sector has never yet failed to provide a product that people could afford when there has been a need.
We need a whole new way of looking at that and a solution to fix it that begins very soon.
Here's the problem folks. As much as some likes to think that government MUST provide for the 'needy', entitlement programs simply cannot be sustained. Every single one that has ever been started is starved for funds, is adding to the deficit, is growing the debt, and we simply cannot continue down that road and believe that the USA will remain a great, powerful, affluent nation.
And, in my opinion, it all could have been avoided by letting the private sector work it out. The private sector has never yet failed to provide a product that people could afford when there has been a need.
We need a whole new way of looking at that and a solution to fix it that begins very soon.
I have to correct you, its not opinion but fact, fix that and your a 99% correct.
We also do not need a new way to fix the problem, the old way is best, let people who want to live in the USA work towards paying off the failed actions of politicians. Notice there is no R or D in politicians, politicians are human thus we suffer the failings of human nature, human nature crosses party lines.
Our problem is that the politicians have stagnated every aspect of our lives, more government solutions means more of the same, the only solution is to take away all the power and allow the economy to grow by leaps and bounds.
Putting aside the multiple interpretations of the constitution...
Are we better off having the government support us or us support the government?
I believe the latter of the two.
We ought to consider what is the end of government before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man....All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Here's the problem folks. As much as some likes to think that government MUST provide for the 'needy', entitlement programs simply cannot be sustained. Every single one that has ever been started is starved for funds, is adding to the deficit, is growing the debt, and we simply cannot continue down that road and believe that the USA will remain a great, powerful, affluent nation.
And, in my opinion, it all could have been avoided by letting the private sector work it out. The private sector has never yet failed to provide a product that people could afford when there has been a need.
We need a whole new way of looking at that and a solution to fix it that begins very soon.
I have to correct you, its not opinion but fact, fix that and your a 99% correct.
We also do not need a new way to fix the problem, the old way is best, let people who want to live in the USA work towards paying off the failed actions of politicians. Notice there is no R or D in politicians, politicians are human thus we suffer the failings of human nature, human nature crosses party lines.
Our problem is that the politicians have stagnated every aspect of our lives, more government solutions means more of the same, the only solution is to take away all the power and allow the economy to grow by leaps and bounds.
Thats the irony of the question of what I think Goivernment should do to stimulate the economy.
My answer is absolutely nothing.
I truly believe that is not only the answer...but the way it is supposed to be.
I believe..
Our government was not designed to support the people. It was designed AS A support for the people.
The people are to support the government....not the other way around.
