|
: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 03, 2005, 01:48:50 AM Woe to the people who call Good, Evil, and Evil, Good!
In proverbs, we are told that laziness, or a sluggardly character is wrong. Prov 22:13 The slothful [man] saith, [There is] a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets. Prov 26:13 The slothful [man] saith, [There is] a lion in the way; a lion [is] in the streets. Pro 26:14 [As] the door turneth upon his hinges, so [doth] the slothful upon his bed. Pro 26:15 The slothful hideth his hand in [his] bosom; it grieveth him to bring it again to his mouth. Pro 26:16 The sluggard [is] wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. We are also taught that diligence is a good thing. The passages and illustrations regarding these are myriad. In the context of society, diligence and hard work should pay, and a job well done should be rewarded. We are told in James that the hardworking farmer is the first to enjoy his crops. Common sense also bears this out. In the case of the hardworking farmer, he increases his own wealth, and at the same time helps everyone he has contact with. He can purchase machinery and household items with the profit from his crops, which helps those who produce such things. People eat his produce, which keeps them alive and well nourished, and the diligent farmer has something to give to the person in need. Diligence brings about more freedom and the ability to enjoy privileges and blessing that are not available to everyone. This is good and right. The Lazy do nothing. They always have an excuse why they can't work. "There's a lion in the street!" Eventually, they become unable to work, the wall becomes broken down and the garden overgrown with weeds, we are told. Some of these people turn to crime, others become enslaved. This is evil. Laziness is a very negative character trait, according to the bible. What has happened in our modern "christian" culture, is that we ahve adopted the practice of confusing good with evil, and have begun to cannonize this error with evil practices, wrong thinking and evil laws. We could talk about many different facets of evil, but I limit myself only to the evil of laziness. Our wrong headed, confusing views on this have led to the following idea being "good" in society. Need=Virtue The more needy and pathetic a person is, the greater virtue they have. Here's how this wrong idea is practically applied in our sick, twisted world: A lazy person habitually makes bad choices and never learns the character or skills needed to perform useful work. Once this pattern is established, they have every excuse not to work, and aren't any good for work, and become pathetically needy. This is depressing, to say the least. Along come 'Christian" do-gooders, who have learned to call Good, Evil and Evil, Good. They decide that needy people are virtuous and as such deserve extra rights and power over others...as long as the needy remain the pawns of the do-gooders. The do-gooder gives the needy power over the diligent, and rights to a portion of the produce of the righteous, by virtue of being lazy and needy. This is rewarding evil, and punishing good. It's backwards and sick, and it's exactly what several on this board believe. Shame on you. In our modern world, a needy welfare type, who because of simple slothfulness has habitually CHOSEN not to work aquires all the follwing as a reward for their laziness: Housing Clothing Medical Care Education Social Diversion, (subsidized bowling, yoga, etc.) Food Money. They get all this, not by earning it, but by "virtue" of being lazy. Need=virtue in an evil culture. Where does the reward for the needy come from? How do they aquire their means? It is taken from the diligent by force. That is evil. That's right, the needy have been given the right to take what is not theirs. The diligent, on the other hand, have lost the right to keep what rightfully belongs to them, the product of their diligence. Confused Christians make it even worse. They validate and re-inforce this lazy, slothful attitude by playing at "compassion," and "support," for the lazy. In doing so, not only do they promote evil in Christ's Name, but they also open the door for more oppression and infringement on the rights of the diligent. Need is rewarded and praised, while diligence is punished. The needy become enslaved by their constant need and slothfulness and the diligent are enslaved by force and seizure of their property by the do-gooders. This is wrong, and it is fundamentally evil. Yet, it seems to be the norm today. So many foolish believers go down to feed the lazy in order to feel like they did something nice for God. They never stop to think about what they are doing, and how this actually makes slothfulness an ever growing cancer on society, which oppresses the diligent even more. How should it be? The lazy should be referred to as such and should learn in the school of hunger. The diligent should be ready and willing to do good and share with those that truly need it. By not gleaning the fields, food was available for someone willing to do the work to pick it. When was the last time you saw a welfare bum picking food in a field? We will always the needy, and the greedy. Much could be said about the evil of greed...but that's another topic. However, teaching that Evil is Good, and that Good is Evil in Christ's name only compounds the problem. Any time you encourage evil character in a person, you do not show them compassion, but actually curse them. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 03, 2005, 07:52:25 AM I'm sure it will come up sooner or later, so let me just state the obvious:
When the bible talks about a lazy, or sluggardly person, it refers to a person who is able to work but chooses not to for foolish, selfish, or shortisighted reasons, the love of temporary pleasure and the dislike of physical exertion being good examples. A person who is unable to work is a different matter entirely, and never have I advocated anything other than compassiona and help for such. Having said that, I know people with Down's syndrome who work, there is a blind person on this BB who works, and numerous people with mental illnesses work. There are some who can't, but the overwhelming majority of those on welfare are simply lazy. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 06, 2005, 11:15:12 AM Woe to the people who call Good, Evil, and Evil, Good! In proverbs, we are told that laziness, or a sluggardly character is wrong. Prov 22:13 The slothful [man] saith, [There is] a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets. Prov 26:13 The slothful [man] saith, [There is] a lion in the way; a lion [is] in the streets. Pro 26:14 [As] the door turneth upon his hinges, so [doth] the slothful upon his bed. Pro 26:15 The slothful hideth his hand in [his] bosom; it grieveth him to bring it again to his mouth. Pro 26:16 The sluggard [is] wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. We are also taught that diligence is a good thing. The passages and illustrations regarding these are myriad. In the context of society, diligence and hard work should pay, and a job well done should be rewarded. We are told in James that the hardworking farmer is the first to enjoy his crops. Common sense also bears this out. In the case of the hardworking farmer, he increases his own wealth, and at the same time helps everyone he has contact with. He can purchase machinery and household items with the profit from his crops, which helps those who produce such things. People eat his produce, which keeps them alive and well nourished, and the diligent farmer has something to give to the person in need. Diligence brings about more freedom and the ability to enjoy privileges and blessing that are not available to everyone. This is good and right. The Lazy do nothing. They always have an excuse why they can't work. "There's a lion in the street!" Eventually, they become unable to work, the wall becomes broken down and the garden overgrown with weeds, we are told. Some of these people turn to crime, others become enslaved. This is evil. Laziness is a very negative character trait, according to the bible. What has happened in our modern "christian" culture, is that we ahve adopted the practice of confusing good with evil, and have begun to cannonize this error with evil practices, wrong thinking and evil laws. We could talk about many different facets of evil, but I limit myself only to the evil of laziness. Our wrong headed, confusing views on this have led to the following idea being "good" in society. Need=Virtue The more needy and pathetic a person is, the greater virtue they have. Here's how this wrong idea is practically applied in our sick, twisted world: A lazy person habitually makes bad choices and never learns the character or skills needed to perform useful work. Once this pattern is established, they have every excuse not to work, and aren't any good for work, and become pathetically needy. This is depressing, to say the least. Along come 'Christian" do-gooders, who have learned to call Good, Evil and Evil, Good. They decide that needy people are virtuous and as such deserve extra rights and power over others...as long as the needy remain the pawns of the do-gooders. The do-gooder gives the needy power over the diligent, and rights to a portion of the produce of the righteous, by virtue of being lazy and needy. This is rewarding evil, and punishing good. It's backwards and sick, and it's exactly what several on this board believe. Shame on you. In our modern world, a needy welfare type, who because of simple slothfulness has habitually CHOSEN not to work aquires all the follwing as a reward for their laziness: Housing Clothing Medical Care Education Social Diversion, (subsidized bowling, yoga, etc.) Food Money. They get all this, not by earning it, but by "virtue" of being lazy. Need=virtue in an evil culture. Where does the reward for the needy come from? How do they aquire their means? It is taken from the diligent by force. That is evil. That's right, the needy have been given the right to take what is not theirs. The diligent, on the other hand, have lost the right to keep what rightfully belongs to them, the product of their diligence. Confused Christians make it even worse. They validate and re-inforce this lazy, slothful attitude by playing at "compassion," and "support," for the lazy. In doing so, not only do they promote evil in Christ's Name, but they also open the door for more oppression and infringement on the rights of the diligent. Need is rewarded and praised, while diligence is punished. The needy become enslaved by their constant need and slothfulness and the diligent are enslaved by force and seizure of their property by the do-gooders. This is wrong, and it is fundamentally evil. Yet, it seems to be the norm today. So many foolish believers go down to feed the lazy in order to feel like they did something nice for God. They never stop to think about what they are doing, and how this actually makes slothfulness an ever growing cancer on society, which oppresses the diligent even more. How should it be? The lazy should be referred to as such and should learn in the school of hunger. The diligent should be ready and willing to do good and share with those that truly need it. By not gleaning the fields, food was available for someone willing to do the work to pick it. When was the last time you saw a welfare bum picking food in a field? We will always the needy, and the greedy. Much could be said about the evil of greed...but that's another topic. However, teaching that Evil is Good, and that Good is Evil in Christ's name only compounds the problem. Any time you encourage evil character in a person, you do not show them compassion, but actually curse them. Brent Brent, In considering the choice between keeping or eliminating Welfare, it seems that the consequence of eliminating Welfare might be worse. The poverty level would increase, and so would the riots and other resulting negative effects, even perhaps attempts at revolution. As the opium of the less advantaged of society, Welfare keeps the potential troublemakers in their slumber. Massive laziness is an element of society that will always exist. In this free society, just as there is a need for a defense budget to finance the development of nuclear weapons and a huge army to keep the outside enemies from causing trouble, so does the need exist for a welfare budget to keep the potential trouble on the inside from exploding into something worse. As an example, what would a lazy, uneducated person from an impoverished broken fatherless family in the ghetto, easily prone to violence, alchoholic, crack addicted, hates people that live well, ...all the sudden lost his/her welfare check that financed the drugs and food? I feel certain that the individual would walk to a wealthy or middleclass neighborhood to obtain money in a less peaceful way than cashing the Welfare check. So given the choice between: (a) pay more in taxes for welfare, or (b) watch poverty stricken people destroy all the cities in response to the elimination of welfare, I think I would choose (a). Dan : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : Eulaha L. Long May 06, 2005, 01:07:14 PM I honestly don't know where you all get the idea that people on welfare are lving the good life. I'm sorry, but there isn't enough money to do so!
Take it from some one who used to be on welfare. My welfare benefit was $95 every two weeks. You do the math. Utilities, personal items, bus passes, rent..there was NO money for anything else! The only way someone would be using their check to buy drugs is if there were scoring some pretty darn cheap ones...lol I'm not sure about California's standards, but here in New York, one has to be incapacitated in order to receive benefits. One can not just walk into Social Services and say, "I want welfare", and be handed a check! There is a mandatory 45-day wait, the 45 days beginning AFTER your initial interview with your worker, and that interview takes about a month to be scheduled. At your interview, you must provide medical documentation from a trained professional, backing up your claims that you can not work. If you have been laid off from your job, you must first attempt to collect unemployment from your previous employer before welfare will even LOOK at your case. All of this takes MONTHS! The average Welfare benefit for a family of four is $495! Can anyone really tell me that these people are lazy and LOVE living off of barely anything? There is NO money for drugs, movies, cable, new clothing, new toys. If the rent is $395, then there is only about $100 left to work with for the rest of the month! True-food stamps help out some ($235 for a family of four). The funniest thing I have ever heard was when someone said that young girls have lots of babies so they can get more Welfare benefits! Give me a break! No one is "making a living" off of Welfare. It's not possible. : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 06, 2005, 06:56:59 PM I honestly don't know where you all get the idea that people on welfare are lving the good life. I'm sorry, but there isn't enough money to do so! Take it from some one who used to be on welfare. My welfare benefit was $95 every two weeks. You do the math. Utilities, personal items, bus passes, rent..there was NO money for anything else! The only way someone would be using their check to buy drugs is if there were scoring some pretty darn cheap ones...lol I'm not sure about California's standards, but here in New York, one has to be incapacitated in order to receive benefits. One can not just walk into Social Services and say, "I want welfare", and be handed a check! There is a mandatory 45-day wait, the 45 days beginning AFTER your initial interview with your worker, and that interview takes about a month to be scheduled. At your interview, you must provide medical documentation from a trained professional, backing up your claims that you can not work. If you have been laid off from your job, you must first attempt to collect unemployment from your previous employer before welfare will even LOOK at your case. All of this takes MONTHS! The average Welfare benefit for a family of four is $495! Can anyone really tell me that these people are lazy and LOVE living off of barely anything? There is NO money for drugs, movies, cable, new clothing, new toys. If the rent is $395, then there is only about $100 left to work with for the rest of the month! True-food stamps help out some ($235 for a family of four). The funniest thing I have ever heard was when someone said that young girls have lots of babies so they can get more Welfare benefits! Give me a break! No one is "making a living" off of Welfare. It's not possible. Hi Eulaha, It sounds like NY is different than CA. Here are some simple facts about where I live: (This applies to people who are ABLE to work) A small apartment goes for around 1000.00 per month. Welfare people get 'em free. Youth football goes for 150.00. Any kid who's eligible for school lunch gets footbal/soccer/baseball/basketballs for free. Having a child costs about 3000 in cash, provided there are no complications. Welfare gets 'em free. I don't know what an abortion costs....yep, they get 'em free. School tuition.....gratis The list goes on. Now, in no way do I think that these people are living high on the hog. Quite the opposite, the "honest" welfare recipients are trapped in poverty, and get a basic subsistence from welfare, with no sign of escape. The others...a significant percentage around here, turn to crime to supplement their income. Selling drugs, working when they shouldn't, shacking up and getting double the benefit, or cheating the system...it's all crime. Is it nice? Lord no! It's horrible, and I don't wish it on anyone. However, in the final analysis, it boils down to choices. The lazy have entrapped themselves in an evil system, one that rewards evil and punishes good. Dan makes a valid point below, one which is shared by many: It's better to tax and keep the low-lifes sedated than to see an uprising of angry poor people who will personally steal what was stolen via a third person before. This is the pragmatic approach, and is certainly more in line with what we are doing today. I don't agree with it on principle, and on it's track record, but it is another side to the story. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : LENORE May 06, 2005, 10:26:38 PM I honestly don't know where you all get the idea that people on welfare are lving the good life. I'm sorry, but there isn't enough money to do so! Take it from some one who used to be on welfare. My welfare benefit was $95 every two weeks. You do the math. Utilities, personal items, bus passes, rent..there was NO money for anything else! The only way someone would be using their check to buy drugs is if there were scoring some pretty darn cheap ones...lol I'm not sure about California's standards, but here in New York, one has to be incapacitated in order to receive benefits. One can not just walk into Social Services and say, "I want welfare", and be handed a check! There is a mandatory 45-day wait, the 45 days beginning AFTER your initial interview with your worker, and that interview takes about a month to be scheduled. At your interview, you must provide medical documentation from a trained professional, backing up your claims that you can not work. If you have been laid off from your job, you must first attempt to collect unemployment from your previous employer before welfare will even LOOK at your case. All of this takes MONTHS! The average Welfare benefit for a family of four is $495! Can anyone really tell me that these people are lazy and LOVE living off of barely anything? There is NO money for drugs, movies, cable, new clothing, new toys. If the rent is $395, then there is only about $100 left to work with for the rest of the month! True-food stamps help out some ($235 for a family of four). The funniest thing I have ever heard was when someone said that young girls have lots of babies so they can get more Welfare benefits! Give me a break! No one is "making a living" off of Welfare. It's not possible. I hoping I am not starting something again. Welfare here in Renfrew County. We do not get food stamps. We do not get our school sports paid for..although because our educations system in Ontario is struggling. We do have Health Care... We do not have dental coverage...I have not had my teeth checked for 17 years now. I have a tooth rottening in my head...who know the mercury of the filling that is exposed is probably getting into my blood system: Stephen you are the expert here about chemical poison in diets...Could you verify this maybe. I can get only get my eyes examine every two years, which will be covered by OHIP I must pay for the glasses. I can get my ears examined by OHIP But I have to pay for the hearing aid, which I will eventually need. At a cost of almost $1000. If I have to go to Ottawa to the city for medical appointment. What ever the cost of that transportation. The Grey Hound Bus is $50 dollars . I will get $14.00 I have a couple of people who work in the city and then travel the local city buses around the city. and then spend time with my oldest daughter and my grandchildren. The cost of the local buses is out of my own pocket. The expenses are upfront first, and then you must submit the receipts , then you may or may not get reimbursed. So planning these medical appointment trips must be always just shortly after the first of the month, so you can forego a grocery trip to spend on the travel cost to the city. In Renfrew County you receive no furniture, no stove or fridge , but you need them. You rely on the furniture exchange program at a local church. Or you pay for them. I agree you get a winter clothing allowance for your children . Not for you. But where can you get boots and coats, mitts , hats. for $125 per child.Unless it is at the local charity shop, like the Opportuntity Shop or the Salvation Army Store. there is a a back to school allowance for your child. $100 per child. depending on the age of the child. That is to cover all school supplies. In Ontario parents are to buy there own supplies. And titution. Ontario High Schools have student fees that must be paid up front, before your child is able to attend the school in the fall. fee that every child wants to be like other children...like school pictures,,,hot dogs days...book fairs...CHILDREN WANTS TO BE LIKE THE OTHERS....SO THEY ARE NOT STIGMATIZED.Which frequently they are and bullied because of it... At least in Arnprior. There are no breakfast , lunches, programs...all though for real hardship cases, you can get a muffin and a milk...or in high school..a lunch vouch once a month.Because of the abuses that people do like satisfying their own addictions, what ever it is...before making sure their children are feed. Yet these children will frequently go to school hungry. If my kids went to school hungry... it was because they didnt want or refused to eat.. ALthough there is a waiting period it is shorter than NY. There is an interview...paperwork..enough paper work to deplete a forest... There is a information session with other who are applying to tell you the compliance rules, what are the clients rights and responsibilities, and resources.. There is also a work participation agreement...for able body people ..that they must be actively 40 hours per work looking for work..taking a job find 3 week course, particpating in Ontrack..which is another agency..UI to help you get work...and you must also do volunteer work including in that 40 hours per week...to earn you support. For those people who are on medical leave at this time...whether it is a temporary medical leave..or waiting to get on disability...there is a process to get on that too... It is only when doctor's have done a thorough examination, including blood work, xrays, etc. That doctor's must sign that .... Because THIS IS MY OWN STORY..Because I suffer two emotional breakdown..leading up to losing my job and becoming an empty nester due to BULLDOZE TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REALLY KNOCK ME DOWN.. My own social assistance worker...seen me through this process not just once but three times in since 2002, where I tried to survive with out social assistance while only recieving income from a part time job consisting of only 20 hours per week. Taking as must over time I can get. Three times I have had to go through the process of applying to social assistance... Now I am on medical reasons for being on social assistance. I want to go back to Arnprior, Renfrew County and Ontario way of welfare. Yes if a person is looking of work, and needs a appropriate outfit to go for an interview. Social Assistance will help that person receive the necessary first impressions to acheive that purpose. It is maybe just a Giant Tiger Special. The client must go to different store, and come back with prices for maybe a shirt and tie..if it is an office interview..or a pair of safety boots for a construction job..or just a pair of a decent pair of jeans for a labour job. They will even pay part of the cost for a hair cut to go on this interview. SOcial assistance will help the client to get the job.... Because that is one of the hurdles of the trap being on social assistance...Because you are too busy trying to put food on the table, clothing on the back, providing some sort of 'NORMAL' for the children. That you neglect your own requirements to look for work. Then you have nothing. Here in Arnpior, social housing is usually mixed in with the private home owners. So appearance must be maintain... You are responsible for maintaining... which includes buying lawnmowers, shovels, and you are responsible for your own small maintainence and repairs. These are not provided or any financial support for them either. There is only so much dollars to juggle..Juggling quite often makes you go into debt,.. or the debt has occurred because your were able to meet prior to having to be forced to go on social assistance..and you no longer can meet that financial obilgation. Also for every person who lives on social assistance...there is a high percentage of children involved too....who are equally trying to struggle...with basic foods, maybe no fresh fruits or veggies, because that is too high, and doesnt keep for a month. Maybe a treat at the first of the month. Then out comes the high carb pastas. and rice. School lunches because peanut butter is not allow anymore due to allergies.. Can be ..you try to do the math..for a month to feed you child healthy lunches...for school...can be quite challenging to provide for it. If you even worked and must pay a sitter... you may be lucky to get subsidize day care..but frequently you are just paying a babysitter..and most of you salary, if it is only minimum wage and part time..goes to pay the sitter. There is no head way. At least your trying..but no increase in life style financially. If you go back to school . There is no free ride either. It is OSAP, which is a loan...then you are off of social assistance, because you get that loan, then that loan must pay for your education, transportation, every day living expenses, possibility child care, school expenses etc.etc. etc. THERE IS NO FREE RIDE..except for the people who are abusing it some where..who is receiving it under different names... since the tightening up on welfare fraud in the last decade..there major fraud that has occurred is with rich people here in Canada who has cheated and received billions of dollars to line their own pocket , by false ly filling out paper work, for non existent jobs. and keeping the money...DONT GET ME STARTED ON THIS. Just for sharing some information Lenore : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 07, 2005, 10:39:27 AM Hi Eulaha, It sounds like NY is different than CA. Here are some simple facts about where I live: (This applies to people who are ABLE to work) A small apartment goes for around 1000.00 per month. Welfare people get 'em free. Youth football goes for 150.00. Any kid who's eligible for school lunch gets footbal/soccer/baseball/basketballs for free. Having a child costs about 3000 in cash, provided there are no complications. Welfare gets 'em free. I don't know what an abortion costs....yep, they get 'em free. School tuition.....gratis The list goes on. Brent Hello Brent, With problems in society that yield the average welfare recipient, which government cannot possibly control, there's really no alternative but to provide a minimal subsidy to keep them alive so that hopefully they can somehow get their act together someday. It seems that eliminating the checks would cost more in the long run with the increase in homelessness, starvation, etc. There needs to be an overhaul, but not an elimination of Welfare. I think that the government should farm out the work of screening those who really need the checks from those who really don't to private companies. For example, Caltrans farms out most of the engineering design work for their bridges to private engineering companies because they are more qualified and much more efficient than Caltrans engineers. The same can also apply to many other tasks of other agencies. What suggestions do you have to resolve the welfare problem? If you posted any, I probably missed them. Dan : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 07, 2005, 09:44:25 PM Hello Brent, Hi Dan,With problems in society that yield the average welfare recipient, which government cannot possibly control, there's really no alternative but to provide a minimal subsidy to keep them alive so that hopefully they can somehow get their act together someday. It seems that eliminating the checks would cost more in the long run with the increase in homelessness, starvation, etc. There needs to be an overhaul, but not an elimination of Welfare. I think that the government should farm out the work of screening those who really need the checks from those who really don't to private companies. For example, Caltrans farms out most of the engineering design work for their bridges to private engineering companies because they are more qualified and much more efficient than Caltrans engineers. The same can also apply to many other tasks of other agencies. What suggestions do you have to resolve the welfare problem? If you posted any, I probably missed them. Dan I totally agree with your idea of "farming out," the management of welfare as a first step. This has been done already with prisons...which helps. Nevertheless, incarceration is a growth industry, and is still controlled by every whim of the legislature....but I digress, the topic is welfare. The goal is to eliminate it entirely. My last patient yesterday is a manager at social services here in SLO county. Due to the recent discussions, I took the opportunity to ask her about some of these things, to make sure my facts were straight. Welfare in general, is a conglomeration of Federal, State and local programs. The money that flows into these programs first must flow at least once through the state and/or federal coffers. What this means is that every program, at every level, is ultimately controlled by the feds, and may or may not be funded by the feds. Less than .20 cents of every dollar allocated gets into the hands of a welfare recipient. The first step, then, is to make all programs funded at a local level. Cut the feds out of it, and take those dollars and keep them local. Then, local doctors/workers could make decisions and possiblly use discretion in determining who can qualify, and would save a ton of money. The second step would be to put a strict time limit on collecting benefits. There is actually NO LIMIT on benefits at the present time. We have all been told, by politicians, that there is, but I was assured yesterday that there are a myriad of loopholes and ways around each and every limitation. People know how to work the system in amazing ways. With a true time limit, a person who is really in a difficult situation can take a breather, find work and get back on their feet. Keep the time limit, but have a hard and fast date for a total phase-out of the program. There must be resolve, just like we had resolve for the Iraq elections. Have a date, and stick to it. At that point, able bodied people will have to work. That's all there is to it. Yes, we will find people on the streets, begging and committing crimes. But this is already taking place, and is getting worse, in spite of the number of people receiving benefits. The whole concept of welfare is wrong. There are plenty of countries who don't have it, and they have people on the streets, begging. We do too. There was a time when there was no welfare in this country, and a time when it was unheard of to even think about a federal "Robin Hood" program. It's time to return to that. If a man will not work, neither shall he eat. I made up this phrase. I am the first to say it. It's my idea. Because I invented this idea, I declare that this is good, moral advice, and is not cruel, or unrealistic. (Think about this, what point am I trying to make by saying it's MY idea? Could I be trying to get someone to say, "No it's NOT! You lie! IT COMES FROM THE BIBLE!"?) If it does come from the Bible, how come we all ignore it? I believe in compassion, but it's not compassionate for me to take money from you and give it to someone else. It is compassionate to give MY OWN money, of my own free will, to someone in need, and that is what we should be doing. (Not just money, I'm speaking of a principle.) When people see true compassion, and not government re-distribution of wealth, they see a testimony of God's goodness. It becomes faith in action. Currently, the system breeds contempt, resentment and a guilt driven entitlement. None of these things are healthy and are merely leading to a bitter showdown and economic collapse. So, the solution to the problem is to recognize that a few things are enevitable, and no government will elimiate them: The poor will always be with us It is evil to reward laziness by stealing from the diligent there will always be those who would practice a twisted compassion with someone elses money. These types are part of the problem, and must be stopped. Certainly we shouldn't vote for a person who wants to take money from a productive citizen in order to give it to a lazy deadbeat. There is a legitimate function of government, and a legitimate reason to levy taxes, but forced compassion is certainly no legitimate reason. Unjust taxes were evil when Solomon levied them, and they are evil now. It is wrong, period. Remember, nothing is stopping the privately funded homeless shelters, and free-food programs from happening. People would still be free to give to whomever they wished. The difference would be that the lazy would no longer be entitled to anything, and would instead have to be grateful and appreciative. In the event they pulled on of their usual, "Where my check you @#$#$% Bi#@#!" they might find they are not welcome. Presently, verbal abuse of the case workers is rewarded with a free "anger-management" class, along with medication....and whatever benefits they can qualify for. Woe to the people who call Good, Evil and Evil, Good. That's what we are doing now, and it creates problems. Cancel welfare for the lazy. Practice Christian compassion, even as we are commanded to by Jesus Himself. Stop stealing, start giving. Stop coddling, start teaching responsibility. Stop rewarding evil and punishing good, and start punishing evil and rewarding good. I can go into more detail if you wish, but I am just now getting into the welfare thing. I have been thinking about healthcare for much longer. What I find is that freedom is the engine, and morality is the brakes and steering wheel for national prosperity. When you limit freedom, you break the engine, when you limit morality, you get a highspeed crash. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : Eulaha L. Long May 08, 2005, 08:28:06 AM Hi Dan, I totally agree with your idea of "farming out," the management of welfare as a first step. This has been done already with prisons...which helps. Nevertheless, incarceration is a growth industry, and is still controlled by every whim of the legislature....but I digress, the topic is welfare. The goal is to eliminate it entirely. My last patient yesterday is a manager at social services here in SLO county. Due to the recent discussions, I took the opportunity to ask her about some of these things, to make sure my facts were straight. Welfare in general, is a conglomeration of Federal, State and local programs. The money that flows into these programs first must flow at least once through the state and/or federal coffers. What this means is that every program, at every level, is ultimately controlled by the feds, and may or may not be funded by the feds. Less than .20 cents of every dollar allocated gets into the hands of a welfare recipient. The first step, then, is to make all programs funded at a local level. Cut the feds out of it, and take those dollars and keep them local. Then, local doctors/workers could make decisions and possiblly use discretion in determining who can qualify, and would save a ton of money. The second step would be to put a strict time limit on collecting benefits. There is actually NO LIMIT on benefits at the present time. We have all been told, by politicians, that there is, but I was assured yesterday that there are a myriad of loopholes and ways around each and every limitation. People know how to work the system in amazing ways. With a true time limit, a person who is really in a difficult situation can take a breather, find work and get back on their feet. Keep the time limit, but have a hard and fast date for a total phase-out of the program. There must be resolve, just like we had resolve for the Iraq elections. Have a date, and stick to it. At that point, able bodied people will have to work. That's all there is to it. Yes, we will find people on the streets, begging and committing crimes. But this is already taking place, and is getting worse, in spite of the number of people receiving benefits. The whole concept of welfare is wrong. There are plenty of countries who don't have it, and they have people on the streets, begging. We do too. There was a time when there was no welfare in this country, and a time when it was unheard of to even think about a federal "Robin Hood" program. It's time to return to that. If a man will not work, neither shall he eat. I made up this phrase. I am the first to say it. It's my idea. Because I invented this idea, I declare that this is good, moral advice, and is not cruel, or unrealistic. (Think about this, what point am I trying to make by saying it's MY idea? Could I be trying to get someone to say, "No it's NOT! You lie! IT COMES FROM THE BIBLE!"?) If it does come from the Bible, how come we all ignore it? I believe in compassion, but it's not compassionate for me to take money from you and give it to someone else. It is compassionate to give MY OWN money, of my own free will, to someone in need, and that is what we should be doing. (Not just money, I'm speaking of a principle.) When people see true compassion, and not government re-distribution of wealth, they see a testimony of God's goodness. It becomes faith in action. Currently, the system breeds contempt, resentment and a guilt driven entitlement. None of these things are healthy and are merely leading to a bitter showdown and economic collapse. So, the solution to the problem is to recognize that a few things are enevitable, and no government will elimiate them: The poor will always be with us It is evil to reward laziness by stealing from the diligent there will always be those who would practice a twisted compassion with someone elses money. These types are part of the problem, and must be stopped. Certainly we shouldn't vote for a person who wants to take money from a productive citizen in order to give it to a lazy deadbeat. There is a legitimate function of government, and a legitimate reason to levy taxes, but forced compassion is certainly no legitimate reason. Unjust taxes were evil when Solomon levied them, and they are evil now. It is wrong, period. Remember, nothing is stopping the privately funded homeless shelters, and free-food programs from happening. People would still be free to give to whomever they wished. The difference would be that the lazy would no longer be entitled to anything, and would instead have to be grateful and appreciative. In the event they pulled on of their usual, "Where my check you @#$#$% Bi#@#!" they might find they are not welcome. Presently, verbal abuse of the case workers is rewarded with a free "anger-management" class, along with medication....and whatever benefits they can qualify for. Woe to the people who call Good, Evil and Evil, Good. That's what we are doing now, and it creates problems. Cancel welfare for the lazy. Practice Christian compassion, even as we are commanded to by Jesus Himself. Stop stealing, start giving. Stop coddling, start teaching responsibility. Stop rewarding evil and punishing good, and start punishing evil and rewarding good. I can go into more detail if you wish, but I am just now getting into the welfare thing. I have been thinking about healthcare for much longer. What I find is that freedom is the engine, and morality is the brakes and steering wheel for national prosperity. When you limit freedom, you break the engine, when you limit morality, you get a highspeed crash. Brent I would have a problem with the thought that denying benefits and allowing people to go out in the streets is the way to get rid of those "lazy welfare people". Some of those people- 25% - are CHILDREN. Some of those people- a lot, but I don't have a percentage- are schizophrenics. And, there are a lot of shell-shocked Vietnam vets, battered women who have left their abusive husbands with only the clothes on their backs.... There is no way I would deny these people 20 cents out of every dollar I earn! I sincerely believe that we as a nation have a responsibility to take care of our own. We pay athletes and actors ridiculous amounts of money, but we can't give 20 cents out of each earned dollar to help prevent poverty?? What WOULD happen in we got rid of Medicare/Medicaid? A lot fo people would be showing up in the emergency rooms for things like yeast infections and smashed fingers. The ER CAN NOT deny services. It would cost our nation even more to provide medical coverage. If it is the tax payer who pays for medicaid/medicare, who do you think is going to cover all of those "non-emergency" ER visits?? What about Food Stamps? I could NEVER deny a person-especially a child-food. No matter how much they don't work. Would Jesus really deny a person food? I mean, REALLY? Just my thoughts on the matter... : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : BAT May 08, 2005, 11:30:06 AM I would have a problem with the thought that denying benefits and allowing people to go out in the streets is the way to get rid of those "lazy welfare people". Some of those people- 25% - are CHILDREN. Some of those people- a lot, but I don't have a percentage- are schizophrenics. And, there are a lot of shell-shocked Vietnam vets, battered women who have left their abusive husbands with only the clothes on their backs.... There is no way I would deny these people 20 cents out of every dollar I earn! I sincerely believe that we as a nation have a responsibility to take care of our own. We pay athletes and actors ridiculous amounts of money, but we can't give 20 cents out of each earned dollar to help prevent poverty?? What WOULD happen in we got rid of Medicare/Medicaid? A lot fo people would be showing up in the emergency rooms for things like yeast infections and smashed fingers. The ER CAN NOT deny services. It would cost our nation even more to provide medical coverage. If it is the tax payer who pays for medicaid/medicare, who do you think is going to cover all of those "non-emergency" ER visits?? What about Food Stamps? I could NEVER deny a person-especially a child-food. No matter how much they don't work. Would Jesus really deny a person food? I mean, REALLY? Just my thoughts on the matter... Feeding hungry children is a wonderful thing to do, as is feeding hungry adults. Have you ever heard of World Vision, of Samaritan's Purse? I think the latter is a wonderful organization, and we give Christmas baskets and other things every year to Samaritan's purse. Please understand, again, I repeat, I am referring to people who are able bodied. Would Jesus deny them food? Absolutely! He would totally let them go hungry. That's why it says, "If a man won't work, neither shall he eat." This verse teaches that if an able bodied person won't work, like he's lazy, he shouldn't eat. That means no food until he does some sort of work in order to provide for himself. It also says that a man who doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel. This means that fathers should work in order to provide for their families. It seems that if a man doesn't do that, it is a bad thing. Am I going to let kids starve? Of course not. I'd be happy to help them. But I'm not going to help a lazy bum. How could I? Also, people are free to practice compassion, even as they do now, whether the government does it or not. Lack of Governemt welfare doesn't limit private charity, in fact it increases it. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : Mark Kisla May 08, 2005, 05:39:53 PM I heard a statement on talk radio that if the U.S. paid off its deficit, the savings from interest payments would be able to fund every government program that ever existed and there would be a surplus of money left over. Also this deficit could be paid off somewhat painlessly over 4 years if every american (middleclass, rich & poor) paid the same flat tax in direct perportion to their income. First I wonder if this will mathmatically work and secondly would the American people (poor, rich and middleclass) be willing to do this.
If accurate, fair accountability could be implimented to our elected officials and all recipients of tax money things would be incredible. The American culture has historically been a charitable one..... I think people with a genuine need are being dragged down by those who feel they are entitled to receive something for nothing. : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : BAT May 08, 2005, 08:13:43 PM I heard a statement on talk radio that if the U.S. paid off its deficit, the savings from interest payments would be able to fund every government program that ever existed and there would be a surplus of money left over. Also this deficit could be paid off somewhat painlessly over 4 years if every american (middleclass, rich & poor) paid the same flat tax in direct perportion to their income. First I wonder if this will mathmatically work and secondly would the American people (poor, rich and middleclass) be willing to do this. If accurate, fair accountability could be implimented to our elected officials and all recipients of tax money things would be incredible. The American culture has historically been a charitable one..... I think people with a genuine need are being dragged down by those who feel they are entitled to receive something for nothing. I've not heard this flat tax example before. Personally, I'd jump at the chance to pay 30% of my income....and no more. However, there is a huge group of people who pay no income tax, or almost no tax, and they would see a flat tax as a huge, confiscatory intrusion upon their lives. It would be received as an attack on the poor and a gift to the rich. That's because currently, the tax system is an attack on the rich and a gift to the poor. The thinking from the left is that a flat tax would hurt the poor more than the rich, because it takes bigger chunk of useable income, in proportion. I don't buy this idea at all. A flat tax would be fair, but fairness isn't what we're about anymore. I'm surprised there isn't a two-tiered price structure for consumer items. It's not fair that the poor have to pay as much for cigarettes as the rich. The tax on cigarettes hurts the poor more, because it's a larger percentage of their income. Same with gasoline. The rich should pay more for their gasoline. In fact, the rich should subsidize the poor so that both have equal access to "services," and "community resources." That's all the current tax system is. The more you produce or prosper, the more the government loots and mooches. Produce nothing? Get a bunch of stuff for free. It's an unjust scale, and as I recall, God hates an unjust scale. Oh well. It's compassionate to take from the rich and give to the poor. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 09, 2005, 01:58:57 AM That's all the current tax system is. The more you produce or prosper, the more the government loots and mooches. Produce nothing? Get a bunch of stuff for free. It's an unjust scale, and as I recall, God hates an unjust scale. Oh well. It's compassionate to take from the rich and give to the poor. Brent The taxes people pay are inversely proportional, not to their inclome, but to the amount paid to the accountant and attorneys for establishing tax shelters. For example, a land developer pays very little tax, even theough he/she may produce a huge income per year. With an LLC properly established for each project (thanks to the attorney's work), and all the tax write offs that are carefully utilized (per the accountant's recommendations), there is no reason why such a person should have to legally pay significant taxes under current tax law. In this situation, the tax revenue is generated through the payrolls from the subcobntractors, suppliers, design consultants, and of course from the sale of the developed properties. The same rusle apply to most businesses. Farmers and commercial fishermen have the best tax right offs at their disposal. I should have been a farmer: grow some plants and harvest them during the summer and fall, then go on vacation for 4 months in the tax deductible RV. Dan : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 09, 2005, 02:07:32 AM The taxes people pay are inversely proportional, not to their inclome, but to the amount paid to the accountant and attorneys for establishing tax shelters. For example, a land developer pays very little tax, even theough he/she may produce a huge income per year. With an LLC properly established for each project (thanks to the attorney's work), and all the tax write offs that are carefully utilized (per the accountant's recommendations), there is no reason why such a person should have to legally pay significant taxes under current tax law. In this situation, the tax revenue is generated through the payrolls from the subcobntractors, suppliers, design consultants, and of course from the sale of the developed properties. The same rusle apply to most businesses. Farmers and commercial fishermen have the best tax right offs at their disposal. I should have been a farmer: grow some plants and harvest them during the summer and fall, then go on vacation for 4 months in the tax deductible RV. Dan You're correct. fisherman can make some serious bucks. I am not incorporated. I looked into it, but the cost of maintaining the corporation and filing its tax return outweighed the tax benefits. On your personal income, you pay taxes, right? There is no argument over who pays taxes. The "rich" pay them, no question about it. Do you think that you should pay property tax, and get taxed on improvements? Do you think that if you make a wise investment, the government should get rewarded as well? Sorry about all the questions. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : Mark Kisla May 09, 2005, 03:29:08 AM The taxes people pay are inversely proportional, not to their inclome, but to the amount paid to the accountant and attorneys for establishing tax shelters. For example, a land developer pays very little tax, even theough he/she may produce a huge income per year. With an LLC properly established for each project (thanks to the attorney's work), and all the tax write offs that are carefully utilized (per the accountant's recommendations), there is no reason why such a person should have to legally pay significant taxes under current tax law. In this situation, the tax revenue is generated through the payrolls from the subcobntractors, suppliers, design consultants, and of course from the sale of the developed properties. The same rusle apply to most businesses. Farmers and commercial fishermen have the best tax right offs at their disposal. I should have been a farmer: grow some plants and harvest them during the summer and fall, then go on vacation for 4 months in the tax deductible RV. Dan There 2 kinds of people; those who want to manipulate and beat the system for financial gain and those who want to work and prosper within the intent of the system. It would be great if the honest person prospers and the abuser is punished. : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : Mark Kisla May 09, 2005, 03:32:35 AM You know if you work hard and are smart with how you spend your money, you can have a pretty nice life.
: Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 09, 2005, 03:38:28 AM There 2 kinds of people; those who want to manipulate and beat the system for financial gain and those who want to work and prosper within the intent of the system. It would be great if the honest person prospers and the abuser is punished. An honest person tries to stay out of the system as much as possible. That's why I don't play the insurance game. Honesty doesn't pay in that game. If you want to get paid you must stretch, ignore and/or fabricate data. I couldn't do that. When the wicked rule, the righteous hide themselves. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : Mark Kisla May 09, 2005, 03:56:25 AM An honest person tries to stay out of the system as much as possible. That's why I don't play the insurance game. Honesty doesn't pay in that game. If you want to get paid you must stretch, ignore and/or fabricate data. I couldn't do that. My Dad was an honest man and his example has been a source of strength when I thought of feeling sorry for myself.When the wicked rule, the righteous hide themselves. Brent I think you being honest and not playing the insurance game is a good example to your kids. Every business venture that Walt Disneys dad went into failed, but the guy just would get up and go at it again. It does not surprise me that Walt Disney was a success despite the setbacks he encountered. He learned to be tenacious. : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 09, 2005, 04:00:33 AM My Dad was an honest man and his example has been a source of strength when I thought of feeling sorry for myself. I think you being honest and not playing the insurance game is a good example to your kids. Every business venture that Walt Disneys dad went into failed, but the guy just would get up and go at it again. It does not surprise me that Walt Disney was a success despite the setbacks he encountered. He learned to be tenacious. In one sense, Walt's dad was successful in the most important business. He raised a successful son. (Walt's not my hero, at all, but he is an interesting character.) Success can't always be measured in money, but failure is always a guarantee when someone won't try. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : Mark Kisla May 09, 2005, 04:11:14 AM Someone once said, "People say, lifes dealt me a lucky hand, I tell them, the harder I work the luckier I get."
: Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 09, 2005, 04:22:11 AM Someone once said, "People say, lifes dealt me a lucky hand, I tell them, the harder I work the luckier I get." There's wisdom in that. Poker has some great lessons for the larger game of life. Anyone can get a lucky hand, and prosper for an hour, a day, even a year. But if they rely on luck, and don't work hard at their game, it is a certainty that they'll go broke soon enough. On the other hand, the players that know the game, seem to get lucky, because they know how to exploit weakness in others, and apply the pressure at the right time. You can't do that without serious study and hard work, but anyone can get lucky. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 09, 2005, 06:27:44 AM You're correct. fisherman can make some serious bucks. I am not incorporated. I looked into it, but the cost of maintaining the corporation and filing its tax return outweighed the tax benefits. On your personal income, you pay taxes, right? There is no argument over who pays taxes. The "rich" pay them, no question about it. Do you think that you should pay property tax, and get taxed on improvements? Do you think that if you make a wise investment, the government should get rewarded as well? Sorry about all the questions. Brent I pay a lot of taxes, a little more than my fair share, around 33%. It's an inconvenience but I have no qualms about the tax code. Without a respected accountant's advise, I'd be paying more, but that's due to the complexity of the keeping track of everything and knowing what to deduct and what not do. I use an LLC for each construction project, because I'd be exposing myself to unnecessary risk otherwise. I just factor the cost of it all into the sale price of the product and move on the next. Philosophically, taxes are an investment. The returns of: good highway systems, a stong military and nuclear weapons to protect us from the soviets, etc., are excellent. For a person who works hard, smart, and with integrity in developing something nice that others want, there is no problem with making a good living, despite taxes. The stability that this country offers makes paying taxes more than worth the effort. My grandfather lost 5 lumber mills to the Soviets in northern Finland after WWII, and decided to move his family to the US soon after to start over, because he could start over and not have to worry about those types of losses again. He went on to build a whole bunch of houses and motels and live a comfortable life--always building something and keeping the cash flow positive and active rather than cashing out and getting taxed for it. Overall the tax code rewards those who keep active and punishes those who relax and cash out and relax in their perishable imported car from germany. Technically, I'm rich, but I drive a pickup truck that has 237000 miles and keep a small bank account. As a result, my taxes are minimal. No braggiing here, the truck gets a lot of laughs. Home improvements should be taxable because they increase the home's value, thereby the income. If a person's property taxes are too high for him, then there is always the option of selling his house and move someplace where they are less. That's what I did, and reduced them by 75%. As far as taxation on returns from investments, I agree that we should be taxed on them if we cash out and relax. However, if the profit is rolled into another investment, then the taxes are, as they should be, deferred. Overall, taxes are not a big deal if it is understood what the government wants: action. It is best for everybody if investing is going on and people are working as a result, as opposed to cashing out and buying a bunch of perishable luxury items. Dan : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 09, 2005, 06:34:48 AM I pay a lot of taxes, a little more than my fair share, around 33%. It's an inconvenience but I have no qualms about the tax code. Without a respected accountant's advise, I'd be paying more, but that's due to the complexity of the keeping track of everything and knowing what to deduct and what not do. I use an LLC for each construction project, because I'd be exposing myself to unnecessary risk otherwise. I just factor the cost of it all into the sale price of the product and move on the next. Philosophically, taxes are an investment. The returns of: good highway systems, a stong military and nuclear weapons to protect us from the soviets, etc., are excellent. For a person who works hard, smart, and with integrity in developing something nice that others want, there is no problem with making a good living, despite taxes. The stability that this country offers makes paying taxes more than worth the effort. My grandfather lost 5 lumber mills to the Soviets in northern Finland after WWII, and decided to move his family to the US soon after to start over, because he could start over and not have to worry about those types of losses again. He went on to build a whole bunch of houses and motels and live a comfortable life--always building something and keeping the cash flow positive and active rather than cashing out and getting taxed for it. Overall the tax code rewards those who keep active and punishes those who relax and cash out and relax in their perishable imported car from germany. Technically, I'm rich, but I drive a pickup truck that has 237000 miles and keep a small bank account. As a result, my taxes are minimal. No braggiing here, the truck gets a lot of laughs. Home improvements should be taxable because they increase the home's value, thereby the income. If a person's property taxes are too high for him, then there is always the option of selling his house and move someplace where they are less. That's what I did, and reduced them by 75%. As far as taxation on returns from investments, I agree that we should be taxed on them if we cash out and relax. However, if the profit is rolled into another investment, then the taxes are, as they should be, deferred. Overall, taxes are not a big deal if it is understood what the government wants: action. It is best for everybody if investing is going on and people are working as a result, as opposed to cashing out and buying a bunch of perishable luxury items. Dan Sounds like things are going well for you Dan. I glad to hear it. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 09, 2005, 07:19:07 AM Sounds like things are going well for you Dan. I glad to hear it. Brent Thanks, just keeping busy to help pay for the welfare checks. I'm glad you are making a good living, Uncle Sam needs your dollars to help finance welfare. Overall Welfare is necessary, but needs to cut costs somehow. I think the evil is in the gross inefficiency, such as the 20 cents per dollar you mentioned. I have to disagree with your point of eliminating it, because you never know what could happen to someone who at one point in their life he/she is doing okay, and then for whatever reason, they can't work for a while. People that move into this country could also use a helping hand after they get off the boat. Welfare for new immigrants seems like a good way to go while they learn to speak Engish and get a job. I figure that if they have the courage to move over here, then they probably have the ability to become good citizens. There's plenty of room here for them. However, if they act lazy and mooch, then back to Elbonia they go. : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : M2 May 09, 2005, 10:00:56 AM Thanks, just keeping busy to help pay for the welfare checks. I'm glad you are making a good living, Uncle Sam needs your dollars to help finance welfare. Overall Welfare is necessary, but needs to cut costs somehow. I think the evil is in the gross inefficiency, such as the 20 cents per dollar you mentioned. I have to disagree with your point of eliminating it, because you never know what could happen to someone who at one point in their life he/she is doing okay, and then for whatever reason, they can't work for a while. People that move into this country could also use a helping hand after they get off the boat. Welfare for new immigrants seems like a good way to go while they learn to speak Engish and get a job. I figure that if they have the courage to move over here, then they probably have the ability to become good citizens. There's plenty of room here for them. However, if they act lazy and mooch, then back to Elbonia they go. Are new immigrants getting welfare to establish themselves?? It seems like those who know about the system use it. New immigrants may not be in this category. New immigrants are required to have a sponsor or enough money to support themselves when they enter the country. They very rarely are a drain on the welfare system. There are other problems but I do not think that that is one of them. Refugees may be a different matter. A hypothetical question, that requires a lot of imagination :): You said, "I have to disagree with your point of eliminating it, because you never know what could happen to someone who at one point in their life he/she is doing okay, and then for whatever reason, they can't work for a while." If there was no welfare, what would/could happen to this person who suddenly became unemployed and could not find work for a while? Marcia : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 10, 2005, 07:48:39 AM Are new immigrants getting welfare to establish themselves?? It seems like those who know about the system use it. New immigrants may not be in this category. New immigrants are required to have a sponsor or enough money to support themselves when they enter the country. They very rarely are a drain on the welfare system. There are other problems but I do not think that that is one of them. Refugees may be a different matter. A hypothetical question, that requires a lot of imagination :): You said, "I have to disagree with your point of eliminating it, because you never know what could happen to someone who at one point in their life he/she is doing okay, and then for whatever reason, they can't work for a while." If there was no welfare, what would/could happen to this person who suddenly became unemployed and could not find work for a while? Marcia I read somewhere that new immigrants are qualified to collect welfare benefits, and if they have children born in this country, then they become qualified for additional money. But I think it's fine for them to collect because it will supplement the income they receive while working at Taco Bell until they find a higher paying job somewhere else, say at a Jiffy Lube changing oil, then enroll in a JC to quickly learn how to work with engines and get a job as a mechanic at Mr Goodwrench. There is a good career path for everybody and welfare is a good place to start, or hot rock bottom if something bad happens. Which leads me to your question: If there was no welfare, what would/could happen to this person who suddenly became unemployed and could not find work for a while? Answer: without a minimally soft cushion like welfare to land on to pay for food, cheap rent, and so forth, there would probably be a lot more prostitutes out there for the uneducated wife who was dumped by her husband and left with the children to support without a job. There's other examples, but I don't feel comfortable elaborating. Overall, Welfare is the product of a civilized society. The third world countries with the starving people we see on tv do not have welfare, and if they did, there wouldn't be nearly as much starving people. So, I have a question: what's more important: lower taxes or fatherless children with food to eat? Dan : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : M2 May 10, 2005, 09:04:35 AM I read somewhere that new immigrants are qualified to collect welfare benefits, and if they have children born in this country, then they become qualified for additional money. But I think it's fine for them to collect because it will supplement the income they receive while working at Taco Bell until they find a higher paying job somewhere else, say at a Jiffy Lube changing oil, then enroll in a JC to quickly learn how to work with engines and get a job as a mechanic at Mr Goodwrench. There is a good career path for everybody and welfare is a good place to start, or hot rock bottom if something bad happens. Which leads me to your question: If there was no welfare, what would/could happen to this person who suddenly became unemployed and could not find work for a while? Answer: without a minimally soft cushion like welfare to land on to pay for food, cheap rent, and so forth, there would probably be a lot more prostitutes out there for the uneducated wife who was dumped by her husband and left with the children to support without a job. There's other examples, but I don't feel comfortable elaborating. Overall, Welfare is the product of a civilized society. The third world countries with the starving people we see on tv do not have welfare, and if they did, there wouldn't be nearly as much starving people. So, I have a question: what's more important: lower taxes or fatherless children with food to eat? Dan Hi Dan, In Canada, and probably in the US, almost no one needs to be on welfare. It is not the welfare system that has made life better for North Americans such that it attracts immigration to the degree that it does. Also, though immigrants may be eligible for welfare they may not be aware that they are eligible. It is the long term residents, and possibly the newer ones who had someone tell them, who take advantage of the system. Welfare recipients get welfare if they apply for it and meet the requirements. In Canada, we have employment insurance (EI) which is used for those that become unemployed. They receive a percentage of what they made up to a maximum and for a certain number of weeks/months. There are some who work for six months and then collect EI for six. Some people feel they have a right to it since they paid in to it. You said, "Overall, Welfare is the product of a civilized society. The third world countries with the starving people we see on tv do not have welfare, and if they did, there wouldn't be nearly as much starving people. So, I have a question: what's more important: lower taxes or fatherless children with food to eat?" Are you saying that without welfare that the N.American poor in society could degrade to that of third world countries?? IMO it is not so much the lower taxes as what it does for the people on welfare, if they were not on welfare. Marcia : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 10, 2005, 10:24:21 AM Hi Dan, In Canada, and probably in the US, almost no one needs to be on welfare. It is not the welfare system that has made life better for North Americans such that it attracts immigration to the degree that it does. Also, though immigrants may be eligible for welfare they may not be aware that they are eligible. It is the long term residents, and possibly the newer ones who had someone tell them, who take advantage of the system. Welfare recipients get welfare if they apply for it and meet the requirements. In Canada, we have employment insurance (EI) which is used for those that become unemployed. They receive a percentage of what they made up to a maximum and for a certain number of weeks/months. There are some who work for six months and then collect EI for six. Some people feel they have a right to it since they paid in to it. You said, "Overall, Welfare is the product of a civilized society. The third world countries with the starving people we see on tv do not have welfare, and if they did, there wouldn't be nearly as much starving people. So, I have a question: what's more important: lower taxes or fatherless children with food to eat?" Are you saying that without welfare that the N.American poor in society could degrade to that of third world countries?? IMO it is not so much the lower taxes as what it does for the people on welfare, if they were not on welfare. Marcia There are so many jobs in this country that aren't filled....so many that employers WANT illegal immigration in order to procure labor. If I landed hard, and had no options, I would go pick fruit, with my wife and kids....like the Mexicans do. They eat, and they work, and I admire them. Welfare is NOT the product of a civilized society. It is the product of a rich, liberal society. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 11, 2005, 06:50:46 AM There are so many jobs in this country that aren't filled....so many that employers WANT illegal immigration in order to procure labor. If I landed hard, and had no options, I would go pick fruit, with my wife and kids....like the Mexicans do. They eat, and they work, and I admire them. Welfare is NOT the product of a civilized society. It is the product of a rich, liberal society. Brent Brent, I'm glad you got a good work ethic. That's commendable, and we would not need welfare if everybody was productive and healthy like you are. One of my coworkers, who has 30-35% lung capacity, is on a motorized wheelchair with O2 tanks due to a horrible case of arthritis, has perhaps the strongest will to work among anybody I know--even though he's very wealthy and doesn't need to work. That's great. But what about the people that hit hard and are unable to pick fruit because they are too messed up to do anything? Should they curl up and die or get a welfare check? I recommend the latter, and that's why I'm not opposed to welfare and find those that are against it to be among those I disagree with. I just want to see welfare, and most other government agencies become more efficient. Yeah, welfare is a product of FDR. It was going to happen as a result of Hoover's disgraceful performance in letting the economy go to waste without doing anything to counter the slide. Perhaps welfare is no longer needed because of the abundance of jobs, but there are a lot of people who are unable to work who would probably be dead without welfare. And the Bible says that if you don't work, you don't eat. Well, it takes work to eat. It requires effort (work) to lift food into the mouth, chew it and digest it. It also requires work to go to the post office, endorse the check, and deposit it into the ATM machine. Dan : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : BAT May 11, 2005, 07:21:41 AM Brent, I'm glad you got a good work ethic. That's commendable, and we would not need welfare if everybody was productive and healthy like you are. One of my coworkers, who has 30-35% lung capacity, is on a motorized wheelchair with O2 tanks due to a horrible case of arthritis, has perhaps the strongest will to work among anybody I know--even though he's very wealthy and doesn't need to work. That's great. But what about the people that hit hard and are unable to pick fruit because they are too messed up to do anything? Should they curl up and die or get a welfare check? I recommend the latter, and that's why I'm not opposed to welfare and find those that are against it to be among those I disagree with. I just want to see welfare, and most other government agencies become more efficient. Yeah, welfare is a product of FDR. It was going to happen as a result of Hoover's disgraceful performance in letting the economy go to waste without doing anything to counter the slide. Perhaps welfare is no longer needed because of the abundance of jobs, but there are a lot of people who are unable to work who would probably be dead without welfare. And the Bible says that if you don't work, you don't eat. Well, it takes work to eat. It requires effort (work) to lift food into the mouth, chew it and digest it. It also requires work to go to the post office, endorse the check, and deposit it into the ATM machine. Dan I'm sure you read the several times where I clearly stated that I was speaking specifically about people who are ABLE to work, but choose to be lazy? In like manner, I also made careful mention of the fact that there are people who are UNABLE to work, who should be helped. I see them as different. If you think government's job is to guarantee a livelihood to citizens, then we do disagree. That's OK. There are other schools of opinion on government than mine. I don't really think that you believe it's work to cash a check you didn't earn at the bank, do you? OK, so how do you propose to make welfare more efficient? To digress, I think socialism sounds awesome....on paper. In practice, it will never do anything other than make a lame, unhappy country. Capitalism, on paper, sounds like survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog, anarchy, where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. However, in practice it works better than socialism. Here's an interesting essay. Please read it, you may find it instructive. It's a true classic http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : Eulaha L. Long May 11, 2005, 08:08:01 AM Brent, I'm glad you got a good work ethic. That's commendable, and we would not need welfare if everybody was productive and healthy like you are. One of my coworkers, who has 30-35% lung capacity, is on a motorized wheelchair with O2 tanks due to a horrible case of arthritis, has perhaps the strongest will to work among anybody I know--even though he's very wealthy and doesn't need to work. That's great. But what about the people that hit hard and are unable to pick fruit because they are too messed up to do anything? Should they curl up and die or get a welfare check? I recommend the latter, and that's why I'm not opposed to welfare and find those that are against it to be among those I disagree with. I just want to see welfare, and most other government agencies become more efficient. Yeah, welfare is a product of FDR. It was going to happen as a result of Hoover's disgraceful performance in letting the economy go to waste without doing anything to counter the slide. Perhaps welfare is no longer needed because of the abundance of jobs, but there are a lot of people who are unable to work who would probably be dead without welfare. And the Bible says that if you don't work, you don't eat. Well, it takes work to eat. It requires effort (work) to lift food into the mouth, chew it and digest it. It also requires work to go to the post office, endorse the check, and deposit it into the ATM machine. Dan There will ALWAYS be a need for welfare. I hate to burst your bubble. We all need help sometimes. Maybe it doesn't manifest itself in a monetary form, but please don't tell me that you've NEVER needed help! I hope that you never, ever become disabled and unable to make a liveable wage. Then you'd be one of those "lazy welfare bums". Then you'd be one of those "bums" who do nothing but wait for a check. That's all welfare people do, you know! They have no desire to work, they love living below the poverty time. It's so much fun! Fun fun fun! Other countries have NO PROBLEM supporting its citizens, especially the ones in dire need. The U.S.? Questionable. We'd rather pay athletes and actors millions of dollars than help out a "lazy welfare bum". Sick! Sometimes I really hate this country. : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : BAT May 11, 2005, 08:13:04 AM There will ALWAYS be a need for welfare. I hate to burst your bubble. We all need help sometimes. Maybe it doesn't manifest itself in a monetary form, but please don't tell me that you've NEVER needed help! I hope that you never, ever become disabled and unable to make a liveable wage. Then you'd be one of those "lazy welfare bums". Then you'd be one of those "bums" who do nothing but wait for a check. That's all welfare people do, you know! They have no desire to work, they love living below the poverty time. It's so much fun! Fun fun fun! Other countries have NO PROBLEM supporting its citizens, especially the ones in dire need. The U.S.? Questionable. We'd rather pay athletes and actors millions of dollars than help out a "lazy welfare bum". Sick! Sometimes I really hate this country. first of all, if I was disabled I wouldn't be a bum, would I? Obviously, you refuse to pay any attention to what I write, because you feel guilty about YOUR situation. If someone CANT work, they are not lazy. If you hate this country, go to another one. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : M2 May 11, 2005, 09:26:41 AM There will ALWAYS be a need for welfare. I hate to burst your bubble. We all need help sometimes. Maybe it doesn't manifest itself in a monetary form, but please don't tell me that you've NEVER needed help! I hope that you never, ever become disabled and unable to make a liveable wage. Then you'd be one of those "lazy welfare bums". Then you'd be one of those "bums" who do nothing but wait for a check. That's all welfare people do, you know! They have no desire to work, they love living below the poverty time. It's so much fun! Fun fun fun! Other countries have NO PROBLEM supporting its citizens, especially the ones in dire need. The U.S.? Questionable. We'd rather pay athletes and actors millions of dollars than help out a "lazy welfare bum". Sick! Sometimes I really hate this country. The welfare system designed to help those in real need, actually hurts those who take advantage of it when they ought to be looking to other means for supporting themselves. The support of athletes is another topic. I assume actors make their own money. Marcia : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 12, 2005, 11:22:43 AM Here's an interesting essay. Please read it, you may find it instructive. It's a true classic http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html Thanks. Looks like a good essay, something to read critically, which I'll do and comment asap. : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : M2 May 12, 2005, 08:53:22 PM Quote from Beth Moore:
A rebellious child of God ... 1. doesn't act like a child of God (Is 30:9). 2. isn't willing to listen to God's instruction (Is 30:9). 3. prefers pleasant illusions over truth (Is 30:10-11). 4. relies on oppression. (Is 30:12). 5. depends on deceit (Is 30:12). 6. runs from the real answers (Is 30:15-17). Isaiah 30:9-17 (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society 9 These are rebellious people, deceitful children, children unwilling to listen to the LORD's instruction. 10 They say to the seers, "See no more visions!" and to the prophets, "Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. 11 Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!" 12 Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says: "Because you have rejected this message, relied on oppression and depended on deceit, 13 this sin will become for you like a high wall, cracked and bulging, that collapses suddenly, in an instant. 14 It will break in pieces like pottery, shattered so mercilessly that among its pieces not a fragment will be found for taking coals from a hearth or scooping water out of a cistern." 15 This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it. 16 You said, 'No, we will flee on horses.' Therefore you will flee! You said, 'We will ride off on swift horses.' Therefore your pursuers will be swift! 17 A thousand will flee at the threat of one; at the threat of five you will all flee away, till you are left like a flagstaff on a mountaintop, like a banner on a hill." : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : BAT May 12, 2005, 08:56:07 PM Marcia,
How do you see this quote's application to the welfare thread? Also, did you read the article i listed below? It's really good. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : M2 May 12, 2005, 09:40:24 PM Marcia, How do you see this quote's application to the welfare thread? Also, did you read the article i listed below? It's really good. Brent In the Breaking Free studies by Beth Moore, she mentions looking into past history to identify areas where the "who we are" are actually areas of bondage from which Christ wants to set us free. Then upon recognizing those areas, God has to work. The rebellious child chooses avenues of escape because the work is painful. I posted this here because of the discussion re. support groups etc related to this topic. I especially thought points 3 & 6 were relevant and the related verses in Isaiah 30. 3. prefers pleasant illusions over truth (Is 30:10-11). Is 30:10 They say to the seers, "See no more visions!" and to the prophets, "Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. 11 Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!" 6. runs from the real answers (Is 30:15-17). Is 30: 15 This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it. 16 You said, 'No, we will flee on horses.' Therefore you will flee! You said, 'We will ride off on swift horses.' Therefore your pursuers will be swift! 17 A thousand will flee at the threat of one; at the threat of five you will all flee away, till you are left like a flagstaff on a mountaintop, like a banner on a hill." No I had not read the essay, but I just did. '...The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth." Leonard E. Read (1898-1983) '... it takes the knowledge of countless people to produce a single pencil. No newcomer to economics who reads "I, Pencil" can fail to have a simplistic belief in the superiority of central planning or regulation deeply shaken. ...' —DONALD J. BOUDREAUX : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : BAT May 12, 2005, 11:25:11 PM In the Breaking Free studies by Beth Moore, she mentions looking into past history to identify areas where the "who we are" are actually areas of bondage from which Christ wants to set us free. Then upon recognizing those areas, God has to work. The rebellious child chooses avenues of escape because the work is painful. I posted this here because of the discussion re. support groups etc related to this topic. I especially thought points 3 & 6 were relevant and the related verses in Isaiah 30. 3. prefers pleasant illusions over truth (Is 30:10-11). Is 30:10 They say to the seers, "See no more visions!" and to the prophets, "Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. 11 Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!" 6. runs from the real answers (Is 30:15-17). Is 30: 15 This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it. 16 You said, 'No, we will flee on horses.' Therefore you will flee! You said, 'We will ride off on swift horses.' Therefore your pursuers will be swift! 17 A thousand will flee at the threat of one; at the threat of five you will all flee away, till you are left like a flagstaff on a mountaintop, like a banner on a hill." No I had not read the essay, but I just did. '...The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth." Leonard E. Read (1898-1983) '... it takes the knowledge of countless people to produce a single pencil. No newcomer to economics who reads "I, Pencil" can fail to have a simplistic belief in the superiority of central planning or regulation deeply shaken. ...' —DONALD J. BOUDREAUX With regard to Beth Moore.....Amen. I agree. With regard to I, Pencil, I hope no one mistakes the Invisilble Hand, with George's Giant Hand. The Invisible Hand is an economic concept, NOT a metaphysical reference! The idea of the invisible hand in economics is that free people, in a free market band together in unimaginable ways to produce goods and services, which are driven by the quest for mutual benefit. You want an warm house, and I sell heaters. Someone else makes the heater, using raw materials made by others, mined by others, shipped by others, etc. This occurs most effectively when there is no central planning or regulation. A great modern day example of this would be the Internet. Contrary to what Al Gore said, no one person invented the web. It sprang up as a result of the unhindered, unregulated creativity of many thousands of people. It is absolutely amazing. Contrast this unregulated, unplanned miracle with the highly regulated, highly planned institution of Medicare, or ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITY. While the Internet gets faster, better and more efficient every day, the government gets slower, with increasingly worse service and more waste....every day. I hope more people read the article, and search around and read some other great minds, like Von Mises. Here's where I'm going with all of this: the problem we have with poverty is like any other economic problem in that it is in EVERYONE'S best interest to reduce the number of people who live in poverty. Do we allow free, inregulated people to work on this issue with the same efficiency used to produce pencils and the Internet, or do we give the task to a corrupt, bloated, woefully inefficient federal government? I guess it depends on what our motivation is, and the results we hope to see. If we are motivated to solving the problem, no sane person can argue that free people and free markets will do less to eliminate poverty than centralized government. However, people who want to get their hands on other people's money, and make their living by "doing good," with what other people produced....these people will try to get as much government involvement as they can. The next step is to get as many poor people as possible, in order to grow the new industry. More people can be employed in the "Robin Hood," do-good war on poverty, and more poor people keeps feeding the fire. Anyone can see that sooner or later this whole notion will result in collapse. The lazy people who choose not to work are part of the problem. However, the bigger part of the problem are those who encourage this type of behavior. In doing so, they appeal to the baser human nature and will reap a bitter harvest. Dan mentioned that he doesn't mind paying taxes in order to see welfare keep these people afloat. I say that he would still be able to give as much as he wanted to, to any poor person he chose, without the tax. Government in it's simplest form, is inefficient when it comes to wealth re-redistribution, because it is a middle man. It is more efficient for me to give a person 100 dollars than for me to mail the money to the East Coast, and have them mail it back to the West Coast. In order to do that it costs .76 in stamps, and perhaps .04 in envelopes. It might also take another 2.00 in labor. Just by getting the government invovled my 100 dollar donation is reduced to 97.20. Of course, in reality it is actually reduced to less than 20.00. That is amazingly , shockingly, spectacularly inefficient! It's criminal to support this, IMO. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : M2 May 13, 2005, 08:52:57 AM Brent,
It is outrageous that only 20% of welfare money makes it to the recipient. Your arguments are logical, but idealistic because I dot see the government giving up the welfare system. However, with the disbanding of welfare, giving not knowing what the other hand is doing might actually become a common practice, and those who can work might actually work to support themselves. Marcia : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : editor May 13, 2005, 09:08:12 AM Brent, It is outrageous that only 20% of welfare money makes it to the recipient. Your arguments are logical, but idealistic because I dot see the government giving up the welfare system. However, with the disbanding of welfare, giving not knowing what the other hand is doing might actually become a common practice, and those who can work might actually work to support themselves. Marcia Yes, it's idealistic. I am aware of that, for sure. I guess I would just say a couple things: it's gonna crash anyways, so we will end up taking responsiblity one way or the other The ideas that led to the American Revolution were idealistic, as is the constitution. Are my thoughts in that league? No, not even close. However, if we always sacrifice principles for expediency, we will end up with a huge mess. That's what we are heading towards now. Brent : Re: Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth : enchilada May 16, 2005, 12:50:29 AM I don't really think that you believe it's work to cash a check you didn't earn at the bank, do you? A friend of mine made a lot of money in six months by buying and selling a single piece of small property. His effort was equivalent to applying for welfare, going through the lines, etc., and waiting for the check. By comparing, it appears that it's work to cash a check you didn't earn at the bank. OK, so how do you propose to make welfare more efficient? Downsize half the employees, rented space, parking garages, etc. in the welfare departments, and farm the work out to private companies. That should increase the efficiency from 20% to 60%. To digress, I think socialism sounds awesome....on paper. In practice, it will never do anything other than make a lame, unhappy country. Capitalism, on paper, sounds like survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog, anarchy, where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. However, in practice it works better than socialism. Socialism is unapplicaple. The events of the past century are the proof. Pure capitalism, on the other hand, due to inherent greed, is also not good. The necessity of the emergence of the unions was the proof of that. There needs to be a balance, and that is to permit people to start and grow a business, but to have some uncomplicated government regulations to prevent the business from causing trouble. Overall, welfare is a necessity because it keeps more people off the streets. It has it's problems but, overall, it's good for society. If people are against welfare because they believe that it robs them of their money through extra taxes, then I sympathize with them and recommend that they go out and make more money to make of for the discrepancy. One way is to work on weekends. If you work 7 days instead of 5, that's a 40% increase in salary--more than enough to makeup for the taxes caused by welfare. Dan : A Welfare Irony... : al Hartman July 22, 2005, 03:34:06 PM The other evening, I caught a broadcast tape of the Kennedy Center presentation of the Mark Twain Award to Bob Newhart. In his brief acceptance comments, Newhart said someting that seems worth posting here: A former accountant, Newhart said that one of his early jobs, in the 1950s, was working full-time in a welfeare office for $60 a week. The recipients he served got $55 a week and they, he pointed out, only had to come in one day a week. al : Re: A Welfare Irony... : outdeep July 22, 2005, 05:56:36 PM The other evening, I caught a broadcast tape of the Kennedy Center presentation of the Mark Twain Award to Bob Newhart. In his brief acceptance comments, Newhart said someting that seems worth posting here: A former accountant, Newhart said that one of his early jobs, in the 1950s, was working full-time in a welfeare office for $60 a week. The recipients he served got $55 a week and they, he pointed out, only had to come in one day a week. al Think of it as making $1.25 per day for the remaining four days. ::) |