They're not talking about waste still. It's incentive. No incentive to go get a job if you get xbox's, 22 inch rims, etc., from your govt. check for doing nothing. It's not exactly fraud, either. There are MANY govt. programs that are rife with disincentives where there should be incentives. For example, I met a woman the other day who is raising kids on her own. She said she could use a little bit of subsidy help to get by, but the government told her she had to quit her job to qualify for welfare. That's not waste. It's governmentasusualstupidityasusual.
So the answer to her is fuck your need for a little bit of subsidy . . . unless you want to eat beans and rice, be subject gov't inspection of your home at anytime, oh and you can't vote. I love the no voting idea. Let's put rich people in poistions of power and not let the less fortunate vote who gets to be in control. Go Money!
The answer to her is to give her the subsidy so maybe she can have some upward mobility. (upward mobility is an economics term if you care to read about it)
The rich people already have all the power. Denying welfare recipients the privilege of voting wouldn't change that.
while the OPs ideas may not be practical to implement, I have to agree with the intent, that is to give peoplea reason to get off what should be temporary aid. and the other thing..ToB, you seem to be less than happy by not allowing those to vote..hmm theother exterme was made blatently available when a standing president took your tax dollars and provuided free cell phones in a move that guaranted him more votes..
I don't even see that as the main intent, as much as to have people live within their means. The writer pointed out what they perceived as a lot of frivolous spending by recipients of government assistance. The three aspects of the treatise were food, shelter, and health care, with the upshot being that if you cannot afford these basic needs, and you need the government to provide one or more for you, you shouldn't be spending your available resources on other things that are higher up on Maslow's pyramid. I don't see that as unreasonable.
strong point the government aid machine has become an industry unto itself, not only do any changes have to make it past those who recieve benifits, but those that provide them as well.. This makes it tough to change anything..hence the reason for generational rcipient lifestyles that raise the ire of the working class.
Nobody likes deadbeats and people who siphon off of other people's hard work, but the proposals outlined in the OP leads to a society I want to no part of (minus the food stamp food restrictions).
I like the option of people on welfare lose their privilege to vote. You must pay taxes in order to vote. I like that! The housing is a bit extreme. I don't see that being as big of an issue as those that procreate to get more money. I think there should be a cap for the amount of "kids" you can receive help from. You can still have more kids, but you must pay for them yourself. I definitely agree on drug testing! The Lone Star cards are fine because there is a paper trail on purchases and such. If there is a big issue, the government can track purchases and identify fraud.
Another option would be to have a minimum wage that can actually support a person or family in today's society while keeping welfare benefits the same. That would make welfare much less enticing.
The issue is one of incentives. I don't think anyone on this board is against the social safety net. However, it should be a hardscrabble lifestyle; it should provide the necessities and nothing more. People should have to work for it, if they're able. It should not just be a check written, but also showing them how to pull themselves out of their condition. If they are illiterate, they should be taught to read. If they don't know how to use a computer, balance a checkbook, nutrition, etc. Teaching people basic life skills is sometimes necessary. What also goes unspoken is that there is an apparatus in government that wants to keep these massive levels of food stamps, welfare, etc. It means continued employment for bureaucrats and a continued power base for Democrats. It's time to have higher expectations for the poor. Our current system is the very definition of "the soft bigotry of low expectations". I believe those on public assistance are capable of so much more. Furthermore, earning something rather than having it given to you makes you appreciate it more, and helps with your self-esteem. It ends up being a positive feedback loop. This prescription is nothing more than tough love. Yeah, it's tough, but it's also love.
did you just say that mags is as fat as the planet pluto, or that he's a dummy like the disney character pluto?
I'm not so sure this is such a good idea, because it reeks of the "land owning white guys" voting rules of the early part of the country. Plus, does that mean someone who is going to college, and not working, shouldn't vote? We've tried the "rich/working only" voting, and thank god we don't do that anymore. Plus, I really doubt many of the people who are on welfare/dirt ass poor, vote anyways. Almost half the country doesn't as a whole. I do too, but I think it's not nearly as big of a problem as straw-men make it out to be.
Shit I didn't think of it that way. You have a damn good point. I don't either, but like certain jobs; you can have random drug testing. I think anyone with a drug addiction problem shouldn't have free government money. Maybe process them like those that are positive for good jobs. First warning, you go through a AAA program and have even more random tests. Second warning, x amounts of months suspension of help; with the option to transfer into a drug treatment program housing.
So Felonies are the same as either not paying taxes (due to not having a job or making enough $)? btw, income tax isn't the only tax people pay the government.
Well the vote thing is a constitutional right (as been pointed out) so taking away someones right to vote is like saying you can't own a gun if you don't work. If a president strategy is to garnish the votes of the less fortunate, i would tell them to check the stats on who actually votes and to change strategy. But yes, if the country gets to such a state where a free cell phone will change the outcome of an election . . . well that country probably needs a Democrat in office. What's the other alternative, revolution?
