[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

Kinda like how I pay more in taxes as a single person so that those who are married with dependents are allowed to pay less?

I see your point.

Do you? How is it the government's business how much you make or how your family is comprised? I think you are trying to make an obvious comparison that counters my argument. From my viewpoint, your comparison is CONSISTENT with my argument.

As far as misery loves company, you really think being an economic slave to social welfare is LESS miserable? You really think the intellectual damage of having your own government, your fellow people, declare you to be a loser makes up for temporary support?

You really think that the generations of fatherless kids we have created because we made fatherhood optional is compassionate?

Just how damaging IS the notion that able-bodied poor can't help themselves? It's devastating. It's cruel. A much more pragmatic and compassionate message: try harder.

Misery is relative. We've made it worse, in the name of compassion. But then, that compassion was always about expiating our own guilt and NEVER about bringing our fellow citizens along. We haven't brought them along; we've enslaved them TO poverty.

The lowest 20% of wage earners have, on average, one PART-TIME wage earner per household. Do you know the ticket to being in that lowest 20%? Simple. Social welfare. The people that STAY in the lowest 20% only do so because we pay them to. Rising tides raise all boats, except for the ones we shackled down.

~faith,
Timothy.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

"Need is a powerful motivator. Unless you take it away. For the entirety of human history, the need to provide for children has necessitated an entire family structure, bent to the task.

Social welfare, like most gov't programs, is a FAR worse solution than the problem. I'm against it BECAUSE I'm simply more compassionate than that.

If we ended every single Federal program that is means tested, today, this nation and more important, our poor, would be much better off.

~faith,
Timothy.

THANK YOU for articulating my thoughts so well.

The "bad old days" prohibitions about premartial sex and the resulting pregnancies was a reflection of the need for children to have two parents.....and for fathers -to-be to step up to the plate (or be made SERIOUSLY unhappy by the mom-to-be's own Father) should youthful passion reign for a couple.

Please don't send me info on unhappy forced marriages and spouse abuse--which we all agree are horrible potential consequences of the above. Do today's numbers of the above look BETTER???

I firmly believe that most social problems are created when children don't grow up with fathers. In 50 years, I have seen nothing [other than disease (physical and mental)] that can't somehow be traced back to this problem.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

eh, snarky reply. sorry

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Clearly there are some who defraud the system, just as there are many who truly DO need the help to get through some tough times.

What I'm hearing is an attitude that harkens back to grade school--- punishing the entire class because one kid acts up, rather than dealing with the one who breaks the rules. So because there are some receiving public assistance by fraud, that means no one should receive it.

And what was that again about personal responsibility?

There are limits to how long someone can be on assistance. Here, there is a five-year lifetime cap. They will help you up to that point, then you're on your own. I think that is a reasonable compromise; it allows for people to get their lives turned around and get the training/education needed to make a go of it. The days of living your life on welfare are long gone.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

So they should just go out and get a job with adequate pay and bennies.

Why didn't I think of that???

#1--Can we remember how to disagree without being disagreable or disrespectful?

#2--I stand by the observation about fatherless homes. To get a job, you need an education. To get an education, you must stay in school. We are all familiar with the data about single parent homes and educational level achieved. The circle must be stopped. Not everyone will be a nuclear engineer, but we need skilled tradesmen, too.

#3-I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone wants a five year old to starve on the streets--only for him or her to stay in school and not become a parent with no skills and an eighth grade education. Stop the cycle, or our grandchildren will be having this debate in 2058.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Originally Posted by BlueRidgeHomeRN

#1--Can we remember how to disagree without being disagreable or disrespectful?

#2--I stand by the observation about fatherless homes. To get a job, you need an education. To get an education, you must stay in school. We are all familiar with the data about single parent homes and educational level achieved. The circle must be stopped. Not everyone will be a nuclear engineer, but we need skilled tradesmen, too.

#3-I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone wants a five year old to starve on the streets--only for him or her to stay in school and not become a parent with no skills and an eighth grade education. Stop the cycle, or our grandchildren will be having this debate in 2058.

You're right. I edited the post. I do apologize to all.

I think the five-year cap is a great idea. Give them what they need to get their lives in order... daycare assistance, vocational guidance, etc., so that they can get that education and break that cycle. I have no problem paying taxes to support this kind of assistance, because I know that in the end they will be a productive (tax-paying!) citizen. It's win-win for us all.

I read Tim's responses as wanting to do away with taxes altogether ["Get the government out of EVERYTHING", his comments about keeping all of his money] If I'm wrong, I hope he clarifies his position. That is simply fantasy. Forget about 'welfare' or education (the two biggies) for a moment. Unless you're going to live in a hut as a hermit somewhere and are totally self-reliant, you are part of a socialized system whether you like it or not. Fire and police protection, clean water, roads and infrastructure, for example--- all tax supported and they benefit us all as a society.

Just consider for a moment that all taxes were done away with; sure, you'd get to keep that x% of your paycheck... but consider too what would disappear from our lives. Do you really want to live like that?

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

Clearly there are some who defraud the system, just as there are many who truly DO need the help to get through some tough times.

What I'm hearing is an attitude that harkens back to grade school--- punishing the entire class because one kid acts up, rather than dealing with the one who breaks the rules. So because there are some receiving public assistance by fraud, that means no one should receive it.

And what was that again about personal responsibility?

There are limits to how long someone can be on assistance. Here, there is a five-year lifetime cap. They will help you up to that point, then you're on your own. I think that is a reasonable compromise; it allows for people to get their lives turned around and get the training/education needed to make a go of it. The days of living your life on welfare are long gone.

NO.

You are under the impression that I think the whole system should be gutted because some abuse it and you think that wouldn't be fair to those that actually use the system responsibly.

Except. That's not my opinion.

My opinion is that the system itself is the abuser. I wouldn't be OK with the system if we could just weed out the abusers. The whole system is broken and can never be fixed. The gov't simply can't be that broker.

Look. Religion is an important concept. EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN RELIGION, the major subtance of religion is society building. Murder, stealing, etc. - why do we have laws against such things in a secular society? Aren't we introducing religion into gov't when we outlaw murder?

Of course not. But most religions put forth a reliable code of conduct: don't lie, don't steal, don't murder. But also, marriage and two-parent families. These codes exist for a reason, religion aside. Even today, I was reading about studies that say married people are generally happier and live longer.

Why is this?

It's this simple: if you do THESE TWO THINGS, you will not be poor: 1. Work full time. 2. Raise children within a marriage. (Add education and not only will you not be poor; you'll be well off.)

Bingo. That's it. Morality has a purpose! Look back through this thread. EVERY SINGLE story about 'NEEDING' gov't aid involves some breakdown in those two things. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Yes, people cheat, and they are abusive. THAT is why we used to have long courtships; to rule out those that would be those kinds of mates. Not anymore; since there is no penalty for mistakes, mistakes abound! It's cause, and effect.

The problem is that using the gov't to entitle benefits serves to divorce morality and accountability from assistance. You suggest that some people use aid wisely, and some don't. You can't differentiate between the two without introducing a healthy dose of morality into individual situations.

In other words, true charity involves local people not just giving aid, but attaching to that aid the morality of improvement.

The gov't cannot do that with entitlement. Entitlements are not charity. They are no-morality- strings-attached handouts. Without that morality, we have only furthered behaviors that lead to more bad behaviors.

We've added insult to injury.

Ayn Rand said, in Atlas Shrugged, that only those people that didn't need the money should be allowed to inherit money. Why? Because only those that didn't need it would know how to manage it. The same applies here: only those that don't need gov't assistance should ever be allowed to qualify for it. Why?

Because the people that don't know how to manage their own money or affairs aren't fit to handle money that comes from me.

To expect them to manage what you give them is irresponsible. To expect to micro-manage it for them is condescending and evil.

I fully understand what you expect to accomplish with gov't entitlements. It just won't work; it'll never work. It's not that I disagree with your motives; I just disagree with the vastly unworkable framework of gov't for accomplishing those goals.

The free market and a dose of morality are the best tickets out of poverty. The gov't is the antithesis of both.

The result: trillions of dollars later it is no surprise that we are no closer to ending poverty than when we started. And no amount of dollars or programs will EVER make a dent in a problem that cannot be solved by gov't.

The gov't just makes things worse. As it always does. The gov't is nobody's friend. Now, we don't just have poverty; we have the devastation of community that making fatherhood optional has brought to our poor communities.

Killing our communities isn't progress and it isn't compassionate.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

Unless you're going to live in a hut as a hermit somewhere and are totally self-reliant, you are part of a socialized system whether you like it or not. Fire and police protection, clean water, roads and infrastructure, for example--- all tax supported and they benefit us all as a society.

And all done better by private entities.

I only support the Federal gov't providing for only those things listed in their Constitutionally limited enumeration of powers.

Nothing else. They have no Constitutional authority for anything else.

The States are different; they can provide for all the water, fire, and police they or their local representatives choose to provide.

The Federal gov't is limited in its power. That was done on purpose, to prevent most of what you propose.

In point of fact, you would NOT have to be a hermit to live in a society where the gov't leaves you alone. Such a society would be just the opposite; it would be liberating.

You cannot name me a single thing the gov't does that can't be done better by private, profit motivated entities. Mail? Please, FEDEX revolutionized that; not the gov't. Schools? Please, most private schools provide superior education at half the cost of public schools. Roads? Please, toll roads are better maintained and more quickly built.

The military is the only exception of note. And here, this is NOT because the gov't is somehow better at military building; it's because the competition is invariably put together by governments in other nation-states.

Kill the gov't. We'd all be better off. I think our budget for next year should, instead of being 3 trillion dollars, be much less that a trillion. Maybe about 650 million; 450 million for the military and 200 million for EVERYTHING ELSE.

Nothing good would disappear from my life; the freedom to choose free-market supplied options, unhampered by gov't, would explode.

If I were President, this would be my motto: "Veto EVERYTHING."

~faith,
Timothy.

[twotrees2]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Do you? How is it the government's business how much you make or how your family is comprised? I think you are trying to make an obvious comparison that counters my argument. From my viewpoint, your comparison is CONSISTENT with my argument.

As far as misery loves company, you really think being an economic slave to social welfare is LESS miserable? You really think the intellectual damage of having your own government, your fellow people, declare you to be a loser makes up for temporary support?

You really think that the generations of fatherless kids we have created because we made fatherhood optional is compassionate?

Just how damaging IS the notion that able-bodied poor can't help themselves? It's devastating. It's cruel. A much more pragmatic and compassionate message: try harder.

Misery is relative. We've made it worse, in the name of compassion. But then, that compassion was always about expiating our own guilt and NEVER about bringing our fellow citizens along. We haven't brought them along; we've enslaved them TO poverty.

The lowest 20% of wage earners have, on average, one PART-TIME wage earner per household. Do you know the ticket to being in that lowest 20%? Simple. Social welfare. The people that STAY in the lowest 20% only do so because we pay them to. Rising tides raise all boats, except for the ones we shackled down.

~faith,
Timothy.

are there states that still offer monies to people? i mean cash monies not just the fuel assistance which goes to teh suppliers and food stamps that are only usable at groceries - just wondering as i do know we dont in wisconsin anymore.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by twotrees2

are there states that still offer monies to people? i mean cash monies not just the fuel assistance which goes to teh suppliers and food stamps that are only usable at groceries - just wondering as i do know we dont in wisconsin anymore.

I don't know. It doesn't matter. Fuel, food, and housing are fungible commodities; by supplying them, we are replacing monetary obligations so that portion of monthly needs do not consume monetary resources.

The result is the same. The net result is a conservation of money.

There are truly only four basic necessities: food, clothing, shelter, transportation. If you can provide for all four, then you are not poor. If the gov't provides for all or most, then what does it matter if the gov't doesn't provide direct cash subsidy? At that point, any available money, or lack thereof, becomes discretionary.

The gov't is welcome to pay for MY fuel, food, and housing. Of course, I'd rather have the money that it UnConstitutionally absconds from me.

~faith,
Timothy.