- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
"It's not enough, to simply dispense charity to the poor," Mr. Palos said. "They must be taught skills, so that they can acquire jobs and help themselves."
Lady Barrows said, "If you give a man a fish, you must give him another on the morrow, but teach him to fish, and he'll feed himself for his lifetime."
Eleanor approached the group and placed her hand on her daughter's arm. "Excuse me for interrupting, dear, but I was wondering if I could impose upon you to play the piano."
"I'd love to hear you play!" Palos said with too much enthusiasm.
Laura smiled shyly. "Yes, I'll play, Mother." Palos in tow, she went to the grand piano in a corner of the drawing room. Palos sat in the closest chair. Mrs. Durand shepherded the knots of people, and Lady Barrows was again alone with Will.
She smiled. "I didn't have an opportunity to finish that old fish adage."
"What's that?"
"Once you've taught that man to fish, he might be better at it than you and drive you out of business. Therefore, it's better to give him his fish a day until his initiative and industry are destroyed and he's dependent upon you. Then you've eliminated the threat."
Will smiled. They understood each other.
"Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish... and he'll steal your markets."
I should be all pissy about this, I guess.
Edit: I'm joking about the attorney & being pissy, of course.
He maketh me to lie down and watch Oprah:
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my bling:
He leadeth me in the paths of idleness for Barrack's name sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the sharing of the wealth,
I will fear no workfare: For thou art funding me;
Thy ghat and thy blade, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of people who actually produce;
Thou annointest my teeth with gold;
My pipe runneth over.
Surely rebates and Earned Income Credits shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the House of the Obama forever.
It's all a toe in the water. And no one makes any waves about it...(the only ripple has been from the threats of moochers...i-fuckin-ronic ain't it?)
can taste it. The p...k of all p...ks....And doesn't
he always get his way??? Have always felt
this p...k is unstoppable. GOD help America!
I.E. A welfare recipient would have a net -$15,000 contribution, and not be eligible to vote. I.E. A Government employee may pay $5,000 in taxes, but since their government salary is $50,000, they have a net -$45,000 contribution, and would be ineligible to vote.
That sounds good until you have the homeowner who works for the government and produces, not slacks. And of course there's the other side of the coin - are you willing to work in a sewer treatment plant? On a highway as a target, er, worker? Part of why there is a civil service is because there are jobs that are so dangerous or disgusting, or that must be kept out of the influence of private interest, that no one would do them, yet are necessary for a society to function. We could go back to the 19th century when Fire Departments were provided by Insurance companies, and if you weren't one of their insured... well, hope you brought marshmallows home. Want a cop? Hope you paid your police and security "insurance subscription" to the right company. And that the scofflaw that just held you up doesn't have a better plan and pay a higher premium than you.
Civil servants are a cheap and easy butt of scorn and jokes by people who wouldn't do their jobs, because contrary to the popular fable, most of them actually *do* work... for less compensation than their private industry counterparts.
And all of Civil Servants earn MORE than their private business counterparts. When you count benefits, on average, Government Employees earn 50% more than the rest of us. They deserve to be the butt of jokes, and anyone who makes a "living" off the government shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I have yet to see a fire department refuse to fight a fire because "fees weren't paid". Except the few instances of "privatized" departments. And they got their butts sued off.
And a government that exists to provide Police is, indeed, a scary prospect, an experiment I believe they tried in Eastern Europe and are still trying thanks to our ubiquitous Department of Homeland Security... I'm not sure that is very successful toward the prospect of freedom.
Benefits? From Texas to California to New York, Civil Servants are being required to pay for their benefits, not unlike their cohorts in private industry. Oh yeah, lets not forget EVERYONE pays under Obamascare.
On top of that - a WELL RUN business can offer Profit Sharing, stock options, or bonuses to their employees, which is not available to the Civil Servant. And when an employee rocks, they can get a bonus. Or an immediate raise. Or an immediate promotion based on merit. Gub'mint employees - no way.
And to say that no one who is a Civil Servant does anything like real work is like saying brown haired people are shifty, lazy, and criminals. Not only non-objectivist, but pretty darned ignorant.
So go tell a cop that since you pay his salary, quit writing that ticket and go back to eating your donut. Or telling that fireman who's saving your kid from your burning home that he and the guys putting the fire out are just worthless civil servants. Or laughing at the memorial service for a killed highway worker because, well hell, he was just out there fixing roads so you can get to where you need to and got ran over by a drunk. Too bad the county paramedic who went out there to try to save his life got killed, too, but hey... they weren't *real* people anyway. They were just Civil Servants. Sponges on society. Yeppers.
So... tell me a fact-based non-BS rumor inspired butt joke about civil servants. Here's one - Why did the toll taker risk her butt and step into live traffic to give CPR to the stranger having a heart attack? Another? You heard the one about the Port Authority Employee whose job hit bottom on 9-11? Ha ha ha... that's a riot! Why did the sewer plant maintenance guy go day in and day out to a literally s#!tty job? Then there's the one about the teacher in Columbine, got his butt shot off... naw, that's a dead issue, never mind.
Good jokes, huh? Too bad they're not too funny - then again, real life rarely is, for those who face reality on reality's terms.
Post a real reply on topic, and you'll get one back.
Most "services" provided by government do not require a government, not even police or courts. I don't think we're ready for private courts, so I'm willing to make that compromise.
The only truly necessary requirement is to provide for the common protection with a military. Relying on a total militia force wouldn't work in our time, and I don't think I would want to have a privately controlled force of sufficient power.
And no, we don't need a gov't to manage IP protection, that can be handled by the private court system.
We certainly don't need a gov't mismanaged postal system anymore. No, there's not much that a gov't does that cannot be done better and more efficiently by a private provider.
I'd say: Anyone on welfare or foodstamps is ineligible to vote.
You can have subscription defense, and corporations can pay for their own mercenaries. See HowTheNeoConsStoleFreedom.com
This is the end-of-the-road for this country.
50 years of generational dendency coupled with a disconnect between ownership and achievement...(as if what I own fell like manna from heaven and I was just "lucky" enough to be there when it fell .......).
My husband says that when they seize our property it will take 5 years or less before it looks like Starnesville.
Only in the states that they voted...thanks to the Electoral College.
Such a vote in California was a wasted trip to the voting booth...since California should be the first state on election night to be declared as a Democrat win.
The modern-day EBT program is not what it was. Originally, only America-made products were eligible, providing an indirect subsidy to American agriculture and food-related industries. That is no longer true--indeed, I'm not sure if it would work, since store shelves are packed with foreign-made products. Mind, staples, meat, dairy, produce (at least some of it), etc. would all be eligible. Isn't that the basis of a healthy diet?
Food stamps could not originally be used to purchase "junk food" and soda. This could be re-implemented by making taxable items ineligible. Would you believe you can buy bottled water with an EBT card? And I don't think anyone "needs" diet soda.
I am not an advocate for government subsidies of any sort. But since we have one that is already in existence, why not begin by modifying the program so it is used to maximum benefit (nutrition) and so that the money spent goes, as much as may be possible, to American producers? Surely the net cost would go down, a benefit to every taxpayer.
I was on food stamps at one time, back in the day when they were "food stamps" and came in little booklets. I was seriously ill and unable to work, but I do remember how much pride evaporated each time I pulled out those little books of coupons. As soon as I was able I was back on my financial feet again.
EBT cards look pretty much like credit cards and it's not that obvious when someone is using one. I see no reason to overtly shame people who genuinely need a "hand up". But I do wonder how many receiving EBT/SNAP benefits regard them as an entitlement and, as the article cited here describes, an essential part of life. A man is quoted in the article as being angry because he was planning a picnic and wanted to buy hamburger and go-withs. How much does a few pounds of hamburger, buns, and some condiments cost? Evidently he had a way to get to the picnic and a way to cook hamburgers. Did he truly have no money to buy them?
I now give informal workshops (and often work one to one with people), open to anyone, on how to get the most bang for your grocery buck, how to take advantage of bargains you probably never imagined existed....in short, how to live on less than a shoestring if need be. They are free of charge. I do not regard it as a sacrifice of my skills. There was a time when the community bought me food. I believe I have a debt to repay, and I am paying it.
I had no idea that SNAP and similar programs were being actively promoted. That simply should not be. They should be a last resort (as they were for me), not an "alternative".
Second Harvest, to my understanding, is a private, non-profit organization. They should not receive government grants. Locally, I know they provide food to the inpatient units and CD treatment facility run by the area "community mental health service" (I could write a book on that one, but I won't trouble you). Employees of the various facilities claim that the buy the food at a reduced price, but no one who does any of the buying will speak with me and no one will provide any details.
A local halfway house for recovering alcoholics/addicts is independently run and is also a non-profit organization. Their groceries come from the grocery store. Why aren't they qualified for the same services as the larger (and growing) organization? There was another halfway house in town--the "community mental health center" bought it, put extra locks on the doors, and turned it into a "residential treatment center" (they've been kicked out of at least two hospitals).
Will add that they may be non-profit but the higher-ups certainly aren't starving. Nor are they providing quality services (they put quotas on their doctors and counselors and take other steps to help keep the supply of repeat customers high). But when you have some of the most prominent people in the area, including a judge, on your board of directors, no one asks questions (employees who do are fired). There's also a lot of power involved when you can literally yank people off the streets and lock them up for "treatment" with the resulting bills usually being footed by the taxpayers. Of course, if you make enough noise about it, you never know.....you just might find yourself in court trying to defend yourself against an accusation that you are insane. Yes, it's happened.
I digress, of course. However, the place I mention is in many respects the result of social programs. Government insurance, tax breaks and grants, and apparently, subsidized food. All given to a corrupt organization which has little purpose for existing, in 20 years of observation, other than to keep beds full and the government dollars rolling in.
Also don't think that those organizations aren't receiving gov't funding - whether at the local level all the way to the national (and international) level, they most probably are.
There's a lot of government subsidy involved in the mental health/CD treatment racket. The majority of the average treatment center's clients are court-ordered or receiving public funding. Locally, that's around $15,000 per person for 28 days. Multiple that by two dozen people, in a facility which, other than eight hours a day, has two staff members on duty, and you've got the makings of a growth industry (they keep buying new buildings to turn into halfway houses, assisted living, and treatment facilities).
In Minnesota, Medical Assistance/Medicaid pays for ten days of psychiatric hospitalization. So, there are an amazing number of "short term" psychiatric facilities and an equally amazing number of patients magically get better in ten days.
I can think of several warmer places that would suit me just fine but for the moment....this is cheaper, which suits my current purposes.
Here's a couple of sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatth...
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/01/obamas-...
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/nat...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/eco...
Am I saying Bush didn't do it too? Nope. I give no quarter to him either. But as Forbes notes, it was the Democrats who passed the bills to expand the program in the first place...
The hard fact of life is that life is hard. We all die. We all encounter hardships. You can't do everything. Are these situations sad? Sure. But it is an act of pure hubris first to assume that every single sad act can be avoided and another to assume that government has the right and obligation to do something about it.
Advertising is for what purpose? To encourage consumption. Why would you encourage the consumption of welfare services using MORE taxpayer money you've taken from the producers? You are encouraging the growth of a socially destructive mindset that living off others is okay - and even sanctioned. That type of mentality is so morally defunct not even Christians like myself support such.
I'm not an Objectivist 100%, so I'll just say this: there is an avenue for people to assist others in need, but the government is the absolute WORST method by which to do anything. And I mean that from both a means and end perspective.
Are there people who need help? Assuredly. But let's first examine WHY they need the help in the first place. That's easy: high taxes and crushing regulations BY THE GOVERNMENT have reduced the abilities of entrepreneurs to open and run small businesses - the core of the economy. You want to help people, get the government off their backs and let them help themselves. Don't make them MORE dependent on government!
And BTW - I was just in Wal-Mart the other day watching the person in front of me buying stuff with food stamps. If that was an example of a typical food stamp recipient, then the perception is entirely justified.
And as for your SSI remark "but we paid into it"... no, we have been stolen from by thieves. We have not sanctioned the theft, so if and when we get a chance to recoop some of OUR earned money we will do so. You're lack of understanding of objectivism is screamingly obvious.
"Government payment"... the government doesn't MAKE any money, it only STEALS money from the earners to redistribute to others who haven't earned it. At the moment this is still a free country (well, sorta) so if you want to help the 'less fortunate' you can still choose to do so of your own volition, but forcing others to 'help' is stealing via force. I'm surprised someone who thinks they're so rational would be in favor of either one of those methods: stealing, or force, yet YOU are sanctioning both with what you're saying. So YOU'RE the one who needs to be stopped. You're a minion to the thugs and they're ALREADY 'out of control'.
And being logical is not "pathetic", but denying logic sure is.
Regarding your rant about Medicare et al, answer me this: Am I the steward of the Government's money, or are they a steward of MY money?
The argument has nothing to do with judging. The facts are that people AREN'T the same - either in talents, circumstances, physical appearance, abilities, or anything really. The attempt to force equality is spawned by someone who rejects the primacy of the individual. Can people of their own free will and choice do things to help their fellow man? Absolutely. But government coercion is not an acceptable principle to anyone who values the individual.
Want an example? Try Communist China. In their revolution, they quelled dissent by slaughtering more than 20 million people. Now they merely repress a billion. Countless millions have been terrorized by the State - forced abortions, political prisoners, no freedom of thought, etc. You want that - you are free to move to China.
Don't like China, you can try other oppressive regimes such as Cambodia, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or anywhere in the Middle East. You truly have no idea how good you have it here in the United States.
Do you have a website so that we can take advantage of your grocery bang-for-buck expertise?
Jan
A somewhat surprising source of information: people who live in low-rent housing. In my area, that means a lot of young couple "starting out", students, and disabled people (definitely not "the projects" though there are similarities at times). These folks learn by doing--often because they don't have enough money to do anything differently. I've also gotten a lot of material from "old timers" and from growing up in a farming area (and doing a certain amount of farm work). The whole thing will be written from the point of view of those who, when faced with a problem, solved or repaired it. Cell phones are wonderful things and yes, they can be a money-saving tool. But they are no replacement for the human mind.
I have thought of organizing a Facebook group for people to exchange ideas. For the moment, I am concerned about what that might do to copyright status of my material. Then again, facts cannot be copyrighted. There will, however, be a lengthy chapter on attitude and general approaches which will be necessary to get the most out of the "helpful hints".