(Allegedly) Written by a 21-year-old female: So, what parts of this do you have issue with, and what do you agree with?
Many of her ideas are unoriginal and she's ignoring the 10 million working poor in this country. Some southern states tried this (eugenics), it wasn't a proud time in our nations history. Drug testing welfare recipients hasn't proven it's value, unless she's arguing we should do it on principle alone. How does she expect to pay for the bureaucracy to organize this? How is it going to be enforced? This unconstitutional and bad idea. If there's a conflict of interest why not ban politicians from voting? or anyone who works for the government? Or has a government contract? I actually agree with this one. It should be more like WIC and restrict what can be purchased with snap cards.
How many viral e-mails were allegedly written by soldiers, criticizing critics of the Iraq war? They turned out to be written by wise guy domestic conservatives.
Have your room inspected, no voting, no choice in food, menial work... if she wants to send poor people to prison so bad why not just make it illegal to be poor?
There's merit to a lot of it, but not necessarily in how to implement it. Does anyone have an issue with those being able to work actually working for a living? Does anyone have an issue with govt. housing being kept in really good shape? The shape it's in now is terrible. You can't take away anyone's right to vote.
Obviously on the extreme side, but the underlying idea sounds good in theory . . . the writers extreme version wouldn't play out well.
the idea of reform for welfare is good (and not original) but this is obviously written by someone who just wanted to spin or further the belief that most of the people on welfare are lazy, drug users and waste money on needless things. Reagan did it with the "welfare queens" code word, and this is no different. It's an extreme version of what should be done, to rile up people to distract us from important things. There is a ton of government waste (see: military), but instead of dealing with actual logical change, we pay attention to easy talking points that actually don't make a dent. The # of people on welfare who actually abuse the system is probably less significant than the amount of air time it gets.
I think Lennay makes some good points here. While I agree with the basic premise of the idea's, some of them are a tad extreme (literally just a tad)
If those ideas were implemented, I think we'd be surprised by how many people quickly found jobs or decided that the social safety net was just too much of a hassle to stay in.
There was no mention of waste. The proposals were severe, but the concepts are to make the programs work better.
Clearly recognizable (and male) writing style identical to the myriad of chain emails I get purporting to be Bill Cosby or some other celebrity. They always fail the Snopes test.
You're overlooking the enormous cost to the taxpayer for the rudimentary skills training and psychological counseling it would take to convert rich people into productive members of society. Cheaper to round them up and house them in FEMA camps.
implying that people are buying xbox's, 22 inch rims and flat screen TV's while on welfare is basically the epitome of waste (or fraud). btw, did anyone else notice the bit about medicaid? Is it even something that is offered to people young enough to have children? Or if it is offered to them, is it offered in high enough #s to warrant that response?
Reading around the internet, it was apparently written by a man named Alfred W. Evans as a letter to the editor of the Waco Tribune. You have to be a subscriber to see the original, though.
