Welfare is Evil---and this is no myth

[editor]

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

[editor]

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

[enchilada]

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

[Eulaha L. Long]

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.

[editor]

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

[LENORE]

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

[enchilada]

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

[editor]

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

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

[Eulaha L. Long]

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...

[BAT]

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

[Mark Kisla]

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.

[BAT]

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

[enchilada]

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

[editor]

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

[Mark Kisla]

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.