# What to do about welfare?



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

I think I can guess what most folks here will say, but I could be wrong.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

I think the way to handle welfare is to force the government employees that dole out the money to earn their jobs. Here is how it works:

The government employees who dole out the money would have to get people off welfare. That would mean over-seeing them and forcing them to get an education, training, a job... whatever they need to become self sufficient.

If a person is on welfare more than twelve months, both the welfare recipient AND their case worker would have to be looked at closely.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

I don't see how the government can force anybody to get training, and education, or an actual job if they don't have the drive to work to get an education, training, or a actually show up every day to work on a job. Everybody has access to an education at least through high school. A very high percentage of those on welfare drop out. If you have a high school diploma they can join the military and get the G.I. Bill for college or vocational training. BUT they have to get a honorable discharge. Getting off of welfare is the responsibility of the recipient. They have to accept responsibility for their lives. Give them a time limit then kick them off.


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

Sure would add a bunch of government jobs and probably a very high turnover.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

For too damn many people, welfare is their career. There are just too many benefits to those on benefits. And agree there is way too much freud. Start sending some to jail for freud might slow it down.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Get rid of it immediately. Treat anybody that has ever accepted it by the same standards we treat ex-convicts.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I voted to phase it out rather than an abrupt halt. And there will still be those that really need assistance, but we can cut out the slackers.
Certain things can be put in place immediately that will help. 
Such as (but not limited to) a means test to establish funding. Figure net worth including car, household furnishings (computer, TV, etc), the more you have the less you get. I can't afford cable TV, why should I pay for theirs?
No more making babies to increase your check. After two children, monthly benefit gets no larger. Make the father's of these bastard children pay support, or cut THEIR welfare benefit.
Able bodied but not working? Earn your check by doing documented community service.
Any welfare recipient seen in the grocery store buying food with SNAP, and beer with cash, gets their food stamp allowance cut. Obviously they need to prioritize. Put in a reward system/tip line for tax payers to turn them in.

Notice - every thing I proposed would not hurt the truly needy in any way. Just the generational welfare lifestyle.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Inor said:


> Get rid of it immediately. Treat anybody that has ever accepted it by the same standards we treat ex-convicts.


Inor, I agree the system is terribly abused. But there are those who truly need help because they can not help themselves.
One example - a co worker has a sister who in in her late 50's but has the mental ability of a 5 year old. She used to live with, and be cared for by her mother. Now mom is in a nursing home. The daughter now lives in a group home with other disabled people where she can have as "normal" a lifestyle as possible. The expenses are paid for by the state of Florida, and she gets a very small stipend from Social Security for personal items.
I have absolutely no problem paying taxes to help such people, and I'd bet you don't either.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2014)

Make welfare only for those who have a part time job, drug free. Many people use the system. There could be exceptions who legitimately cannot find a job which you can easily monitor. Have a program where you have to apply to at least 5 places a day and give proof you have done so every day. In my opinion if you want welfare you must earn it. Those that do not wish to work and demand money/ support can be simply ignored. The big problem is a society that is worried about what is politically correct yet lacks any backbone or brains to tell the criminals and freeloaders to f themselves. 

I know it is messed up to say but sometimes I think a massive change in voting controls need to be set up....like if you can't speak f'ing English you cannot vote...I also think that the president should not be a paid position during their term, rather we could set it up like a peoples contract. Take another vote at the end of their term if they fulfilled what their promised and did a good job then they get taken care of for life...not in excess but ensure they are reasonably comfortable.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Inor, I agree the system is terribly abused. But there are those who truly need help because they can not help themselves.
> One example - a co worker has a sister who in in her late 50's but has the mental ability of a 5 year old. She used to live with, and be cared for by her mother. Now mom is in a nursing home. The daughter now lives in a group home with other disabled people where she can have as "normal" a lifestyle as possible. The expenses are paid for by the state of Florida, and she gets a very small stipend from Social Security for personal items.
> I have absolutely no problem paying taxes to help such people, and I'd bet you don't either.


You are absolutely correct. My frustration is coming out because of the large numbers that are just looters.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Take EBT
Take Unemployment Insurance
Take Housing Subsidies
Take the other 99 (I heard there were 102) safety nets 

Add them all up. Cut figure in half, reduce taxes that sum, and take the other half and divide it up among those 
ready to work for a living. 

Pay them $16.25 an hour (I pulled that out of my a$$) plus taxes, an IRA contribution for 12 months of service
and the tin version of obamasfailedcare. Once in this quagmire of federal employment they can:

1) Build the wall between the US and Mexico with solar panels on the southern side - that'll take 20 years 
I'm sure and when done they can start replacing the panels where they started. 

2) Police a city block. One person - one block - screw it up lose your 16.25 an hour and perks.
Oh and there's no safety net.

3) Be a hospital aid. One per room or one per two rooms. As part of this you'll get 8 hrs
a week in medical training so after a year you can be a nurse or something.


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

When I first met my wife she was on welfare, had just put her then husband in prison for spousel battery. She had 2 kids with no way to take care of them so the DA office had her sign up. I came a long and could watch the kids during the day asi worked nights so she asked for job training and they were happy to help.. 6 months later she dropped them and had a hard time doing it. They wanted to keep her on it, probably so they could get a biigger budget but she told them thanks for the help but she doesn't need it anymore. 
She actually paid them back the money for the 8 months she was on it. It should only be for temporary help for someone with a kid who just needs help getting back on their feet and they should have to pay back what they got.

Doc


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

A modern version of Swift's "A Modest Proposal" perhaps?


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Welfare was designed to be temporary assistance, not a career opportunity.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

Going out on a limb here, I'm going to say keep it, because I do think that we have a responsibility to help our own when things go horribly wrong through no fault of the person needing it at the time. 

What we need to change is the management of the program in general. Get the politicians out of it, because they look at it as a voting machine, and it doesn't matter which side of the fence they claim to be on. Privatize the system, make ironclad profit incentives for the administration of the system, and require that the acceptance of benefits requires that they will contribute back to the public that is paying for it.

We have to take care of our fellow Americans, but only to a certain degree. Not willing to work? We're not willing to pay. 

We will have to provide child care for children of those on welfare, but hey, there's one more job opportunity.

If we're not willing to look after those that fall on hard times, what does that say about us in general? I will agree with anyone that argues that there are people gaming the system today. But done right, that can stop. If we can get the politicians out of the equation, there's a chance. If not, scuttle the damn thing, we'll figure it out on our own.

Just Sayin'


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

I for one hate the term welfare. Mostly because of the negative connotations that come with it. I prefer charity. For those of us who, for lack of a better term, are religious, or at least practice a lifestyle that is based around the concepts or guiding principles of religion, or just have a knack for doing the right thing, the reason for someone needing charity is of no importance or significance in determining whether they will receive that charity. The need itself is what we are to focus on. 

With that said, the current system is most certainly abused at its best. And I have no solution to fix the problem. It's above my pay grade.

But I like to think that many of us here, are charitable in nature. If nothing else, we TRY to do what we can, when we can. We as human beings, I believe, are charitable by nature. Our society ostracize's those who lack compassion for others. When it comes to social issues such as food, water, shelter, you will see me swing unrepentant to the left.

I for one, cannot ignore another human being who is hungry and unable, for whatever reason, to feed themselves. I cannot ignore another human being who is hungry, even if they have caused their own inability to feed themselves. Even if it means a little less for me, unless I literally have nothing to give. 

I will not allow a child to go hungry or suffer the lack of shelter, if I can at all help it, because it is not their fault. I do not care what the parent has done. The child should not have to suffer for it. It does nothing more than create bitter, angry adults. I believe the saying goes that "It is easier to say a kind word to a child, than it is to fix a broken adult."

Charity is what separates us from those who "abuse" the system. Their time for penance will come for what they have done. To refuse a charitable act is worse than someone who is in fact capable of providing for themselves, but does not. I choose to provide that charity if I can, because it makes me a better person, and absolves me of having to question the reason behind the need. 

Because I do not care WHY they need it. I only care that the need exists.

And I can walk away knowing that I have done the right thing and shown them an act of compassion.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Reduce it by $10 a month every month, eventually it will start to hurt with no increase for inflation and a steady decline.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Can it be more of a private matter. I want to say privatise it. Like churches and other companies. I think a church or other private people will be more likely to not let someone live off of it if they don't need it. Maybe give some kind of tax credit to s company that donates. The company gets a break and a good name. And people get what they need.


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

Families, neighbors and churches used to be the primary source of welfare aid. Government stepped in because with everything else they have taken over, they can do a better job. Just look at the public schools that now endorse the me generation and the you owe me mentality.

Government has screwed up so much already, I don't know if we could go back to "private" charity.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

I know there are a lot of good ideas on the table, but the problem is highly complex.

You have people out there who genuinely need assistance: people with emotional problems, substance abuse problems, broken homes, etc. You also have a lot of career welfare professionals. They get the most bang for their buck.

Look, all you do is show up at the welfare office or something like DFACS. You give them this crap story about being depressed, ready to kill yourself, broke, etc. The government will then give you SSRIs and your children will be diagnosed with ADD / ADHD and given Ritalin or some other drug. You get your EBT card, maybe government housing and whatever freebies Uncle Scam can throw your way. That becomes your new lifestyle.

Yeah, the majority of the freeloaders are there because it's easier NOT to work than it is to get a job of some kind. This much I can tell you from experience: When ANYBODY finds a lifestyle a bit harsh and they see a better way out, they generally take the path of least resistance. Handing people welfare and expecting them to pull themselves up by the boot-straps on their own is not realistic. Additionally, we need to realize that prescribing drugs to every person that has some family problem *IS* the problem. Prescription drugs should be the last alternative, not the norm.

It would be easier to evaluate welfare on a case by case basis and get people out of the system for good. If they can work and refuse, but find some bureaucrat calling them at 5:30 and telling them that it's time to get up and the welfare recipient had to actually DO something each day to get themselves to a better place, they might find it easier to just get a job. I know, it sounds like workfare which gets the liberals panties in a twist, but you have to start somewhere.

Probably the best thing we could do is to end welfare and let churches and non-profits take it over. But, we don't have the votes. I still say that by placing the burden on the government's back, they will suddenly come up with all kinds of novel ways to get people motivated. It won't create any more red tape. You know, if I were a politician, I'd offer legislation with strong tax incentives for employers to hire those welfare recipients and give them a chance.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Resister you and I don't agree on a lot, but I for one think that you've hit on this spot on. Back some time ago I - and I think I posted it somewhere but can't remember - just what a family of four could be eligible for if they applied for and received about all they could. It included housing vouchers, food stamps - EBT, Medicaid, SSI and Unemployment if I remember correctly (oh I also added in the benefit of the school lunch (course I guess it's breakfast and dinner now) for their kids. It came out to a whopping $30K per year. 

Is it any wonder why folks refuse to get off the system. And remember we're on about the third generation and it is definitely ingrained in them. To change it drastically would be the equivalent of the 1928 stock market crash and the following depression all over again. If not a violent civil uprising.

I agree we don't have the votes for a major reversion like what ought to happen. But perhaps we have enough to a few changes each year til fifty years from now it will be back to where it should be.

Of Course getting rid or a number of other Johnson era programs would do wonders for growing American jobs and reduce the luster of welfare


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I voted for a gradual phase out to allow time for job training and acclamation to a world of being self sufficient. That doesn't happen overnight. We created this monster of entitlement, people will have to be weened off of this addiction.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Yes, there are people who need welfare and I don't have a problem with them, for a relatively short time, a few years at most. IMO though, a very larger percentage if not a huge majority of people on welfare are there not from a lack of opportunity but a lack initiative and a lack of personal responsibility. Anybody remember that mother of a buttload of kids screaming that someone needed to take responsibility for HER children, and she didn't mean herself? 

You can't make people get an education, training, or get a job where they are expected to show up daily, on time, and actually work once they are there.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Here is a video you should watch. It shows the mentality of the ones that use it as their only source of income. This bitch has 15 kids and thinks we should pay for it. Personally, I would like to see the stupid **** shot and killed! Popping out babies every 9 months to make more money. Her man is in jail now, go figure! Check out this video and when you get to the 2;20 mark or so you should be good and pissed by what she says. She just sits there and waits for people to give stuff to her. She would NEVER even think about going out and working.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

I would tackle the problem one step at a time.
1) Identify whose getting the money. This can be as simple as having people pick up their checks in person. They did this in Cook County when I was a boy they found that all the pimps and hookers were on the dole. Corrupt politicians put an end to that idea (identifying not ending payments) Every now and then we still get stories of drug rings made up of illegal aliens who are all receiving welfare. Getting the illegals off the rolls and out of the country is a good start, we can build on these beginnings.


----------



## nephilim (Jan 20, 2014)

I am of the opinion as follows.

Mandatory drugs and alcohol tests before welfare/benefit is paid.

No more than 6 months of welfare or benefits to be paid without serious disablement or commitment into an institution like a home or mental hospital at which point it is paid for by the state.

No welfare paid for children after a second one has been born to EITHER parent. 

No welfare paid for anyone who is actively sabotaging their job search by turning down roles offered or being unwilling to travel more than 90 minutes by public transport.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

While it may be unlawful the government could force people on welfare to work in some fashion and get some kind of training but (BIG BUT) nobody can instill a work ethic in a taker. Even with a good education and the best jobs in the world available to them without a work ethic they will never keep a job. 

In today's USA there is nothing wrong with taking welfare. It used to have a huge stigma attached to the box of groceries you were given. Rice, pasta, cheese, powdered milk, and some canned vegetables and fruit. There was enough food to survive in that box but everyone knew that is was government supplied food and people worked hard to get out of that situation. You didn't get money that you could use for "discretionary" spending you got the basics of life. You lived in the "projects" and everyone knew it. You didn't get money for cigarettes and booze and any drugs you got were from a government doctor. 

You got clothing that was donated buy the local church or community organization - there were no designer clothes or shoes to be had. If you wanted more you had to work to get it. You were given a couple of years to get back on your feet again and then you could buy what you wanted.

There was a solid reason to get away from that lifestyle and it made people want to work to get ahead. Today you get a credit card that is good at many kiosks for everything from cash to lap dances. We need to get the government back to using food from the over-abundant stocks of food to replace the stamps and cards that they have used in the past. If someone needs a place to live put them in the "projects" so the world can see that they need to get back on the right track. We need the government out of it entirely even though there is no way to force people to work we can allow them to suffer the humiliation that might make them want to get out of the program. Leave it to the churches and non-profit organizations to support those who need it and allow us to give in a manner that is truly charity and not forced redistribution of our taxes.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

There will always be a percentage of society than can not keep up with the rest. Many reason for that most of them are not to blame.
The poor will always be with us. We have a duty to care for them. No human should have to beg for the basic needs of life and a True God fearing man would see to it they receive even more.
The problem comes form one party in particular using welfare and or Government checks AKA other peoples money to buy votes and power.
The liberals/socialist over the last 60 years have been doing just that. We have in the last 6 years put up to 47% of our society on other people money. Able body have been convinced they must have a government check and entitlement to live . Cases of 3 generation never having a job are now common.
The sad part of all of this is those in true need. The sick the handicapped ect are the ones that lose out.
I know of people in wheel chairs that go to work everyday that fight to get by while many able body people sit on their ass and collect free phones ,internet cable Tv and a check. That is the problem not those in true need.
Fire a democrat run a socialist out of town turn this a round.
Pick the right targets when expressing anger over welfare or what ever they rename it.
There for the Grace of God go I.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MrsInor said:


> Sure would add a bunch of government jobs and probably a very high turnover.


It might get a high turnover rate, but it would not add more jobs to the cause. Right now, at least in this state, "_welfare_" can encompass food stamps, DFACS intervention, etc., etc. I know somebody right now that wants to get on welfare just to get a leg up for a while and go to school. The guy has a learning disorder.

The government wants to put this guy on anti - anxiety drugs of which he doesn't need. He refuses to take them. It took a case-worker and a lawyer to evaluate his application, a psychologist to interview him and a psychiatrist to mandate drugs as a prerequisite to getting any kind of welfare. The fact is, here, you have to take medications in order to get welfare. I'd bet dollars against doughnuts that is true in over 85 percent of the cases.

I know another guy (on a personal level) where DFACS is mandating that both he and his wife take Lexapro AND their child take Ritalin for ADD. This guy and his wife need a swift kick to the ass and made to get real jobs. Nothing wrong with their son that stability, a good diet, exercise and sleep wouldn't cure.

If you eliminated the mandatory drugs, you could double the number of caseworkers and still save money. Here's why:

The average caseworker is working their way through college or graduate school. The psychologists and psychiatrists work for themselves. It's a big difference in pay there.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I have a slightly different take on the problem. First of all I think it goes all the way back to LBJ's The Great Society which was part of Kennedy's stalled New Frontiers. His ambitious social reforms were supposed to end poverty and racial injustice. Unfortunately those who are willing to take anything that is free did just that. The Welfare rolls steadily increased and increased because the poor found that it was profitable and "fun" to raise children. The more children the bigger the hand out. Over the 40+ years the people on Welfare have been raised in this culture and it is the only way known to them. It is what they have learned and they have learned it well. I know that not all the people on Welfare are not lazy. And they would work if they "could". But they are not stupid either. If the government is going to give them more money (benefits) than they can earn working at a job, they are more than willing to sit back, collect free money and apparently pop out more children to increase the size of the monthly checks. Somehow there is an impression that welfare benefits are quite low, providing a bare, subsistence-level income. In reality, the federal government funds 126 separate programs for low-income people, 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals.
So my question is who's stupid and WHO'S STUPID.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

nephilim said:


> I am of the opinion as follows.
> 
> Mandatory drugs and alcohol tests before welfare/benefit is paid.
> 
> ...


Mandatory drug tests are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Each case is different. You cannot put a time limit on the welfare. Some people need a kick in the ass and put to work while some may need to be trained, retrained or even educated before being introduced to the work force.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> Yes, there are people who need welfare and I don't have a problem with them, for a relatively short time, a few years at most. IMO though, a very larger percentage if not a huge majority of people on welfare are there not from a lack of opportunity but a lack initiative and a lack of personal responsibility. Anybody remember that mother of a buttload of kids screaming that someone needed to take responsibility for HER children, and she didn't mean herself?
> 
> You can't make people get an education, training, or get a job where they are expected to show up daily, on time, and actually work once they are there.


I would disagree: tell able bodied welfare recipients, he who doesn't work doesn't eat. The liberals might wage warfare against workfare, but I have a family member that has been told if they don't get a job, they will not get their son back. I say, let's jack it up a notch. Tell that worthless POS, if you don't get a job within a given time frame, we will cut you off. Welfare ought to be a hand up,* not* a hand-out.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

And BACON!!


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

There is no one fits all solution but the general idea is a well knowing government that can take people and turn them into self supportive individuals. IMO the first point is a employment program for people willing to work, much like the poor houses or work farms. If you want supports you have the right to work.

People unwilling to exercise their right to work should have land available to make their own wellbeing provided.

There then of course are the people who will choose to be beggars. Two things can be done for this allowing optional tax for people who want to be taxed for beggars, and then all beggars get an equal cut of that optional tax if they register as beggars. The beggars can be encouraged into one of the other programs by guiding them into employment that matches their beneficial interests.

The final solution is providing places with shelter - i.e. shelters who need them, with food donations able to be provided to the shelters, they could be called domestic refugee sites.

It is really sad, especially in a heavily advanced fascist-corporatist industrialist world where totalitarian is ever more entrenched in the legal system.

IMO though a well managed social system would drastically reduce prison and crime issues, which force the government to make large amounts of spending that could go on more productive social programming.



The right to work is crucial in society.

This doesn't really matter though.

IMO wealth distribution is a major reason for poverty. If you look at the median income there is no reason for people to be living under the poverty line in nations that the per capita income is well over the poverty line. But the economic system based on currencies is part of that. It is a social failure but it is part of the system. People who are in charge want some people to be failures because they aren't perfect baked cookies. They are willing to give those people less to have more. That is what it boils down to. Either you are a have a maybe or a have not.

Many people who are in poverty could be provided the right to work. That employment could be built into a self supporting system. If systems exist that give 2% gains, then systems can be put in place to give 2% gains.


People have no excuse to be unemployed if they have the right to work. Its about peoples self worth, is the work worth their time?
The government should lift people from poverty not maintain them in it.

Part of the problem is an intentionally broken social system - they need to just make death mandatory for serious crimes and make labour camps and restitution orders for not really serious crimes.

But no I'm not a revolutionary I expect no changes.
I just have a vision of the world that is dark, evil, corrupt, and imposing.

It would be well within the means of government to just cut everyone a check that raises them above the povety line end all social programming by the government and reform the penal system so that it makes money and that money is given back to people to make a life.

Drug laws that regulate the trade would facilitate to reduce illegal drug dealings and allow better programming for health issues and reduce social harm from drug abuse.

None the less there are all types of people on welfare but the bottom line is the right to work in gainful employment and freedom land is key to removing much of the harms. Cutting everyone a check placing them above the poverty line provided they exercise their right to work would likely eliminate well over half of welfare cases.

Put them into gainful work or set them free. There should be no inbetween.

We should realize though that there is only about a decade until social security is due to start failing.
We have already seen debt ceiling crisis in the US place strain on things.

Some states have issues with tax levels and funding basic service etc...

None the less things will keep rolling and slowly tightening up. The cut of 50,000+ military personnel and other potential run downs of federal employees will just create more stress on the private sector. The economy could go anyway but there is no new deal in store.

People will be forced to struggle to make a stronger America.

It really doesn't matter much but the right to work is key as soon as people loose the ability to work they are forced to crime (because everything is owned and thus someone elses property) or begging.

You need to sell people on autarky and a means to achieve that. There is just so much systemological interdependence in society and such that people are expendible without proactive measures the crack will expand.

Envisioning everything as a slow kill concentration camp for the unwanted is rather grim but its how it is as resources are consumed. Still lots of resources but take a look at supply and how things are to progress. Things will get more and more mechanical.

People on welfare have brains as powerful as some super computers. Gainful employment that meets their interests that is what to do with welfare. 

But don't expect it.

Its about efficiency of maintaining the lifestyle of those in control not eradicating poverty.

The technology already exists to transfer and implant thoughts.. people can now be made robots if necessary.
That is what the law is there fore right, or is the right to break the law crucial in a free society?

What will the law be in great scarcity, thing WWII rationing etc..


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

Old SF Guy - I started this thread precisely to get it off the other thread which was deteriorating into name calling and "you said - I said".
If, IF this thread starts to deteriorate like the other I will just add another person or two to my ignore list.
From what I have read so far - a lot of good ideas and thoughts are being aired.

That said - 

TURTLE. Hee-hee-hee.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Cut off the gravy train. The average welfare recipient gets over $60,000 per year in benefits. The leeches have sucked trillions of dollars from the rest of us and instead of thanking us, they demand more!


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Old SF Guy said:


> Amen to that but its seems everyone is on a one track mind....."Now that we are speaking of oil...that damn General motors and the bail out....." Lord God almighty, one week of the damn 4th amendment and I'm ready to search every damn member for an ulterior motive before posting....warrantless and without due process. Or just stop reading...You tried but my god people are persistent. I say we just post Bacon turtle recipes as a retort to every damn post even mentioning the 4th amendment...which says We have an unalienable right to Turtle and bacon products!!!!


Ditto that. I have not even read most of my own wife's thread. Piss on it. It is not worth it. Let's talk about guns, or sausage recipes, or what a bunch of retards Muslims are... ANYTHING BUT THIS!!!!!!


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

I could use some turtle recipes.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

I love bacon, bacon, bacon......


----------



## Casie (Feb 26, 2014)

Here's the underlying problem. It's all become to damn easy.

It's just too damn easy for government to siphon money out of our payroll checks. They bleed us from a thousand small cuts.

It's too easy to magically credit those SNAP cards with a monthly payment. There are no lines in front of a soup kitchen serving up a hearty meal. There are no food pantries providing nutritional canned goods to a mom with hungry kids. There is no way to keep a SNAP card from being traded for drugs, or used to buy a case of cheese whiz from a gas station, in order to vandalize a car.

It's too easy to send out welfare checks in the mail. No one even notices that 45 checks all go to the same address. No one looks the recipient in the eye when they hand over the cash. There is zero accountability. There are zero acts of humanity.

People seeking welfare should be treated with dignity and respect. But this high tech, cold, impersonal, soul-less, modern day, mandatory charity is EVIL. It is bad for the recipients. It is bad for the payers. It is bad for the country. It is bad for society.

A return to small local charity organizations, staffed by former welfare recipients and volunteers, would be the most uplifting, effective way to really help people in need. 

But then our current welfare system isn't really about helping people, is it.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Good luck with that concept. Not saying I don't agree, I do, but to do it Like R said before takes votes and our current elected officials use Welfare in all it's forms as a way to buy votes to keep themselves in office until they are senile.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

To me the biggest problem by far with welfare/food stamps is that it takes away people's independence. They are no longer responsible for their themselves, they rely on the government to support them. Unfortunately there are people who are more the willing to let other people take care of them. I think one of the things that should be done is to change the name of the program to something like "taxpayer charity". I could care less if it hurts people's "self esteem". 

I remember seeing a video on the news of some welfare lady who had never held a job in her life and who had a butt load of kids screaming that someone had to be responsible for HER kids. It wasn't HER responsibility, it was the responsibility of someone else. This attitude equates to their attitude that it is not charity, it is their right, and this transfers from not just the government, but to anyone else who has more money then them. If you have more then them then you must have either inherited it, been super lucky, gotten it as a result of racism, cheating, criminal activity, are heartless or greedy, anything but because they work harder or don't do stupid things that screw up their lives. 

You are not doing these people favors by keeping them on welfare for years, decades, or their whole lives. You are in fact enslaving them. For an adult to be totally dependent on someone else or on government is repugnant.


----------



## Casie (Feb 26, 2014)

Of course it will *never* happen Sarge. Not because it's not possible, but because our current welfare system isn't really about helping people, at all. Like you said, it's a very profitable political machine.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Old SF Guy said:


> My absolute next move is just to ignore everyone who post more than 3 retorts to any issue...if you cant make your case in 3 posts I'm done with you...Freaking Turtles and their snapping ass ways!!!!


You have one inherent problem if you hadn't already noticed: you've made more than three posts to state your case. You'd have to ignore yourself. It don't work.

Every poster here did not read that long, never-ending piece we're trying to conclude, so sometimes you have to cover the ground again. Just saying.

Again, good ideas floating around. Unfortunately due to the way the government operates, some cannot get implemented.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Resister your may only be partially right. Some of the good ideas won't get implemented in our lifetime. Doesn't mean we shouldn't start the process of making sure those changes are in place for our grandchildren.

Don't know about the dates for each of your states, but a lot have primary's coming up in the not too distant future. The place to start the change for the 535 wise men (or fools depending on your mind set) is at the ballot box. Vote. Even if there's only one candidate. If you like him vote for him, If you don't write in who you think would be better. One of his staff will eventually look at the write ins especially if thares a lot and maybe change his mind on a thing or two


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

I keep remembering the old "bread and circuses" adage. We now have an ever growing dependent class that is either unwilling or unable to support themselves, most of whom wouldn't have a clue about how to survive if the checks ever stopped coming in except to take what they want/need from others. 

If the SHTF these people will be one of the largest threat groups to us. Not the only one, but a major one.


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

Ok, I havent read through other threads to know what people are talking about so I apologize if I am opening a can-o-worms here... But, how the hell would mandatory drug testing violate someones 4th amendment? Welfare is a volunteer sign up program and can make what ever rules they want... If someone doesnt want to be drug tested then they have the right not to sign up for it.

Please let me know if I shouldnt bring this up.... Im not around much but I do like to come by and read (and sometimes post) 

Doc


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Doc Holliday said:


> Ok, I havent read through other threads to know what people are talking about so I apologize if I am opening a can-o-worms here... But, how the hell would mandatory drug testing violate someones 4th amendment? Welfare is a volunteer sign up program and can make what ever rules they want... If someone doesnt want to be drug tested then they have the right not to sign up for it.
> 
> Please let me know if I shouldnt bring this up.... Im not around much but I do like to come by and read (and sometimes post)
> 
> Doc


Most here agree with you. There are a few that believe otherwise.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Doc Holliday said:


> Ok, I havent read through other threads to know what people are talking about so I apologize if I am opening a can-o-worms here... But, how the hell would mandatory drug testing violate someones 4th amendment? Welfare is a volunteer sign up program and can make what ever rules they want... If someone doesnt want to be drug tested then they have the right not to sign up for it.
> 
> Please let me know if I shouldnt bring this up.... Im not around much but I do like to come by and read (and sometimes post)
> 
> Doc


Oh Poooo here we go again


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

quoted wrong poster


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Doc Holliday said:


> Ok, I havent read through other threads to know what people are talking about so I apologize if I am opening a can-o-worms here... But, how the hell would mandatory drug testing violate someones 4th amendment? Welfare is a volunteer sign up program and can make what ever rules they want... If someone doesnt want to be drug tested then they have the right not to sign up for it.
> 
> Please let me know if I shouldnt bring this up.... Im not around much but I do like to come by and read (and sometimes post)
> 
> Doc


It has been asked and the author of this thread doesn't want this to be a referendum on the Fourth Amendment, but the current fact is, an injunction was ordered by a federal judge who agreed that requiring people to undergo a drug test before getting welfare is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which provides:

"_The right of the people to be secure in their *persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_."

Since the Fourth Amendment is the codification of an *unalienable Right*, found in the Declaration of Independence, government is powerless in a de jure (lawful) government to take it from you. I know your questions, but if you're serious, why not start a thread about the Fourth Amendment and I will give you all the information you need to make an intelligent decision.


----------



## jc74 (May 9, 2014)

Welfare needs to be completely overhauled just like our tax code.

The welfare career folks ruin it for the children, truly disabled and disabled vets. If they can find a way to remove the "welfare gamers", i think the country would be alot better off.

i facepalm everyday when i drive by the gov housing on my way to work and see 10-15 able bodied adult "men" sitting in front of the gov housing doing nothing at all.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

must be wrong time of the month. Usually in the projects in Richmond if you see them they have a can or bottle in a brown paper bag.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

How is it constitutional to take from one citizen to give to another citizen? There would be no discussion of 4th amendment implications were we not first discussing a program that is not only a violation of everyone else's rights to be secure in their persons and possessions (including their _money_!) but also a method of control.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> How is it constitutional to take from one citizen to give to another citizen? There would be no discussion of 4th amendment implications were we not first discussing a program that is not only a violation of everyone else's rights to be secure in their persons and possessions (including their _money_!) but also a method of control.


This quickly becomes a apples to oranges comparison. IF you want a Fourth Amendment discussion, feel free to start one. I will join in and explain. In the meantime, the OP has spoken. Any way we can accommodate her and do a thread on this separate issue?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Old SF Guy said:


> LOL I would reply to you about what I said, but I have now ignored myself and can no longer see what I said....so anyways...Welfare should be converted to handing out Bacon Turtles....especially to the Muslim welfare recipients.


Yeah, free ham sandwiches, bacon and sausage would eliminate the Muslims on welfare or convert them.


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

The Resister said:


> This quickly becomes a apples to oranges comparison. IF you want a Fourth Amendment discussion, feel free to start one. I will join in and explain. In the meantime, the OP has spoken. Any way we can accommodate her and do a thread on this separate issue?


Where did I ever say this was a thread devoted ONLY to welfare. The reason I started this was to get some conversation going on welfare WITHOUT name calling and he-said-she-said type of stuff. As I have posted elsewhere, threads evolve much like conversations do among a group of people. They may even talk turtles or bacon.

My suggestion is for you to START a thread on the fourth amendment and not wait for someone else to rise to your bait.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

This past week some one initiated a full court press (media) on the " need " for road improvements in America. Even FOXy was on board. I get who was behind this....construction companies and the unions that supply them heavily inflated labor. "we're going to run out of money " they proclaimed. The fact is they are running out because in a market where $50 an hour should be plenty they are paying $275 an hour! 

My suggestion on ending welfare was to give people a job at $16.25 an hour, 30 hours a week, health in and retirement. That would cost less than $40k a year. A million people would cost $40 billion a year. We spend 10x that on our safety met and 3x that on roads. It's time for a WORK program out of this budget to save us billions and put people to work.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> This quickly becomes a apples to oranges comparison. IF you want a Fourth Amendment discussion, feel free to start one. I will join in and explain. In the meantime, the OP has spoken. Any way we can accommodate her and do a thread on this separate issue?


Nope, don't want to start a new thread on the 4th amendment as I do not want to discuss it in such a broad manner.

As far as I am concerned, the welfare recipient stepped off free and sovereign jurisdiction and squarely onto that which restricts one's rights. As long as the individual is not acting as a free man, certain restrictions should apply.

The situation would be different if the individual were being forced into the program, but since there is relief (get a job), I have no problem with it.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> Nope, don't want to start a new thread on the 4th amendment as I do not want to discuss it in such a broad manner.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, the welfare recipient stepped off free and sovereign jurisdiction and squarely onto that which restricts one's rights. As long as the individual is not acting as a free man, certain restrictions should apply.
> 
> The situation would be different if the individual were being forced into the program, but since there is relief (get a job), I have no problem with it.


You have a Right to be disrespectful of the OPs request. I don't address the issue in a broad manner. Yo would have a point about sovereign jurisdiction, but no man loses his *unalienable Rights* when he asks for something back that he did not willingly give the government. If the government takes the money forcibly (which they do) under the pretext of providing for us when we need the money, then we should not lose our *unalienable Rights* when we apply for it back. A thread addressing this in detail would be much more suited than trying to make this a 300 post thread on a referendum that the OP don't want here.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MrsInor said:


> Where did I ever say this was a thread devoted ONLY to welfare. The reason I started this was to get some conversation going on welfare WITHOUT name calling and he-said-she-said type of stuff. As I have posted elsewhere, threads evolve much like conversations do among a group of people. They may even talk turtles or bacon.
> 
> My suggestion is for you to START a thread on the fourth amendment and not wait for someone else to rise to your bait.


I don't want to bait people any more than you do.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> You have a Right to be disrespectful of the OPs request. I don't address the issue in a broad manner. Yo would have a point about sovereign jurisdiction, but no man loses his *unalienable Rights* when he asks for something back that he did not willingly give the government. If the government takes the money forcibly (which they do) under the pretext of providing for us when we need the money, then we should not lose our *unalienable Rights* when we apply for it back. A thread addressing this in detail would be much more suited than trying to make this a 300 post thread on a referendum that the OP don't want here.


I have the right to do as the OP suggested.

You have the right to do as she suggested to you - start that thread you so keenly wish others to start.

How many people on welfare do you think are simply getting their tax dollars back? Seriously, that is waaay out there. It also changes nothing. That we are taxed as we are is something we now take for granted. On the other hand, falling into a trap that is baited with those dollars is something that is unnecessary.

When illegals are willing to come here, pile into houses, take low paying under the table jobs and still send money back home, I find it difficult to have pity on the deadbeat who is unwilling to go to the next city or state for a job, but would rather sit in government housing, eating taxpayer bought food and smoking crack while raising the next generation of deadbeat people.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> I don't want to bait people any more than you do.


No, but that is what you were doing. Her rules, her thread. On the other hand, you had no problem telling me what to do. I don't think I am the one who is being disrespectful, to be quite honest.


----------



## nephilim (Jan 20, 2014)

The Resister said:


> Mandatory drug tests are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> Each case is different. You cannot put a time limit on the welfare. Some people need a kick in the ass and put to work while some may need to be trained, retrained or even educated before being introduced to the work force.


Nope, they are not an unreasonable search. They are a means of protection against the government providing people means to buy drugs. If the person in question is on drugs, then no money. Nothing unreasonable about it. If I am subject to random drugs tests at work and I have to earn my money, I don't see why people who get given money shouldn't be subject to the same treatment.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Drug testing welfare recipients reminds me of the random home searches at the Cabrini Green Apartments in Chicago. Because one accepts welfare, one does not waive their constitutional rights nor are they automatically forfeit. I think the answer is amending the requirements. We can "Promote the general welfare" and also make it less of a lifestyle and more of a leg up. If you are convicted of a drug related offense or you test positive for drugs when the Department of Human Services requires the test or your Probation Officer tests you you are out. Felony conviction, out. Any of the above should equal a lifetime disqualification. This also reminds me of the "voluntary" chemical castrations and "voluntary" Norcon implants. When you give conditional consent, it is patently invalid and presumed under duress.

This is one of the conundrums of living in a young, Representative Republic. We, the People have to sift through the wheat and the chaff until we find an equitable and constitutional solution.


----------



## Silverback (Jan 20, 2014)

August of Last year I was given the opportunity to become permanently disabled. I was asked that several times which on disability. My choice was to live with no job, off the hard work of you people but have a pretty small spending allowance for the rest of my life. I will say, the free time I had when I had to be on it was AMAZING. The Stress level was NOTHING. The personal fulfillment was ZERO. 

While it was tempting, some people are just not made for it. Some people are. Sadly the fat, lazy entitled type seem to grasp at it as quickly as they can. Then they breed to get more credits, which creates more problems in schooling, bullying, underfed, under clothed, improper parenting... and it becomes a selective breeding pool with these inherited issues that outpaces the growth of more hardworking, educated, provider class breeding pools. 

In short, this problem is not going away as long as we create more social benefits to those that do not deserve them. No one should get a free ride without contributing. No one.


----------

