All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But as DZ99 said more taxes to enrich the ruling class of the left. The center is not the aisle between Demcorats and Republicans in each of th e two Houses. To find the Center put pin a map of DC in the National Archives Building. Measure to the center of the Congressional Chambers. right between the House of he Senate and the House of The Representatives. That's as close to the real center as these Congrressionals ever get.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But as DZ99 said more taxes to enrich the ruling class of the left. The center is not the aisle between Demcorats and Republicans in each of th e two Houses. To find the Center put pin a map of DC in the National Archives Building. Measure to the center of the Congressional Chambers. right between the House of he Senate and the House of The Representatives. That's as close to the real center as these Congrressionals ever get.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Charity is self policing. IE: the people managing it have a vested interest in getting individuals off it as soon as possible and keeping deadbeats off, because if they do they will be able to help more of the truly needy as their resource is finite.

    Welfare officials on the other hand have a vested interest in growing the program as much as possible as the resource from which they draw is not finite and the more resources the handle...the grater the staffs, salaries and perks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is separate bookkeeping for SS, and it's technically a Ponzi scheme, relying on incoming revenue to cover the outgoing spending. However, thanks to abuse of SSDI (many of the unemployed whose checks have stopped suddenly became "disabled"), even that phony shadow show is collapsing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 8 years, 9 months ago
    I have a "relatively" conservative co-worker. When I suggested that Welfare be scaled back, in order to wean people off of it, he argues for what it will do to "the children". He just refuses to accept that everyone, including "the children" will have to suffer, just a little, in order to fix the problem.

    On the other hand, he is the kind of person who will spend thousands of dollars to save the life of one of his pets. Maybe I'm just a cold-hearted bastard?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 8 years, 9 months ago
    It is all well and good to say that able bodied people, now on welfare, need to get a job and support themselves and their families. What about the able bodied, but stupid, but lazy, but worthless? I am afraid that there are millions of them. What do we do when they riot, form roving gangs and attack people in their homes. I know we all have guns, LOL but that is a lot of blood to clean up. I believe most of welfare is protection money to keep the savages at bay and if we put it on a voluntary basis, many would not contribute. Perhaps we could have "police companies" like fire companies used to be and if you did not display the badge, proving payment, you received no protection. Or we could cut out the middle men, like we do now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is. But once the word voluntary is left behind there isn't so it isn't charity. I suppose even Sally Srothers could still be considered voluntary. My days in the army and it may not be the same it was an out in the open protection racket. Started with one Savings Bond every three months four a year. Gradually other worthy causes were added. From the First Sergeant local church roof to the Fair Share Progarm where the amount you gave was decided for you? Even sign yiou up for payroll deduction.

    The strong arming was what one Sergeant Major explained as stuff rolls down hill. You are at the bottom. If you prefer not to be buried in a bill pile of stuff pony up. That means negarive efficency reports,, No recommendations for promotions, Finding yourself on the duty roster for everything and anything especially on weekends and holidays. In front of the unit were signs on what percent has complied. Not only this stuff but passing Physical Training Tests, weapons qualifications,. you name it. We had people in casts runing six minute miles on their records. Shooting Expert while they were on annual leave, The people up the hill would catch the same stuff if those 100% signs were not out front on time and they were inspected.

    But it was still a Protection Racket under RICO statutes.

    We had our oaths of office but we als had a dark side that started with some General saying..."if we got everyone in the Army to donate one dollar a month." Then appointing a project or officer.

    The Sergeant Major finished his speil with "think of it as purchasing $5.37 worth of non-harrassment or get ready for guard duty. Since you will be the only one on the duty roster you will get the duty every night.." Add in Kitchen Police and stuff like that you'll be busy until aren't a soldier anymore and still be a Private. "

    Translate that program into other fudging on the honor codes you end up with careerists instead of leaders..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 9 months ago
    Welfare is a negative incentive to the recipients, and it is nothing more than stealing from the contributors, forced philanthropy.

    However, if it must exist, recipients should forgo the right to vote in any election following a period they've received welfare.

    Also if it has to exist, I favor a privately managed work program rather than welfare, where group of companies is contracted to employ and train people in some manner not to rather than just hand outs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    and this is exactly why 1) its a one time occurrence 2) its a legitimate hand up, and 3) they have no voting privilege until they leave the welfare roll.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    At one time they kept at lest some in the operating fund. LBJ had all of those types changed and they all fed the General Fund The payouts come out of each years budget. As DB said .. no fund.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that whenever "help" is offered, it makes people less inclined to provide for their own future needs, and means they will want a handout in the future for other things they didnt plan for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    they talked about a trust fund, even calling it that. But, its welfare now. Whatever was "saved" to pay for the benefits has been long wasted secretly on other programs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 8 years, 9 months ago
    Why can't there be charity without theft? A simple philosophical question that is at the root of the explosive growth and power of statism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
    I dont give welfare to anyone, really. Responsible people have seen to it that they have reserves if some disaster happens to them. The ones who seek welfare are the ones who havent planned for the future it seems.

    There is always some work out there. Better to get the proposed welfare recipients that have some skills to go out and look for work somewhere. Free lunches only promote sitting around and not finding work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There never was a trust fund. There is a Supreme Court case on point and the government is very clear in their arguments that Social Security is in no way a real insurance program, it is just a welfare program and the revenues for SS are just really another tax.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 8 years, 9 months ago
    Welfare is the route to slavery, and politicians know it. When I was a young adult, there was no welfare, you worked and made do with what was there., Now, young adults thing all jobs are beneath them, and crooked politicians make sure they can make more sitting on the rears than demeaning themselves to be productive. Welfare weakens whole families by trading sef-sufficieney for welfare slavery.. Soon they don't care, and they decide they "deserve" more, for nothing. It is a vicious trap, not a hand up. John Stuart Mill called such weakening of people through help as immoral.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
    I had to go to an academy in Selma for several weeks when I joined the Department of Corrections in Alabama in 1982.
    It was very much a boot camp lite compared to what I went through at Parris Island.
    I was taught a lot of BS that did not apply to real prison work but that's another story.
    At the end of this training came the final exam. To flunk it meant to get fired. I made a high grade.
    But before we took it, word began to buzz that several blacks were going to flunk it on purpose. That was hard to believe the way we were now all looking so sharp marching about with a banner held before us.
    Turned out to be true. There they were standing in a group of about a dozen blinking back at us before they were told to go pack and skedaddle to apply for their unemployment checks.
    Suppose every class provides room and board to such wait to fail the final exam moochers who are also trained to shoot along with some hand-to-hand combat.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 8 years, 9 months ago
    Enforced welfare kills the human spirit (of both the donor and receiver). It is anti-life. That does not mean people should not help each other, the voluntary basis of which defines the word, community.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago
    Welfare was meant to be on a community basis so that the community could judge who could and who couldn't work. If one needed help for a time, only those that wanted to share their abundance base on that persons worthiness would do so. If they were just lazy or a user...then they were left to be uncomfortable within their poverty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by stargeezer 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not too certain I'd agree with you since the dem controlled congress 40 years ago raided the then solvent "trust fund" to pay for Johnson's "great society". Since then SS has been a black hole and when medicare was added to it, things only got worse.

    As for medicare being something you actually pay for, that's just totally untrue. There's no way the few dollars that we have stolen from our paychecks could EVER pay for our medical insurance as we get older.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tohar1 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have no problem with a "Hand Up" just not a "Hand Out". Those that need help should get help..."Means Testing" in place. No cradle to grave welfare state, and especially no agencies whose sole purpose is to increase the welfare roles.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo