Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
|
I agree with this young lady 100%
This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future
she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big
government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are
just common sense in her opinion.
This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011
PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash
for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans,
blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want
steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women
Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test
recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use
drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?
You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair.
Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be
inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your
own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week
or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways
of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We
will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo
and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of
the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you
say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider
that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing
absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at
least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system
rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes,
that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will
voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't
welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Well, this oughta' be causin' some apoplectic seizures in the forum.
I agree 100%. It'll never happen...but one can dream.
I was okay with everything up until the no vote. That is pretty much a deal breaker.
If you want to vote, then get a job.
Honestly, this looks like one of those emails that get bounced around. Karl Rove probably actually wrote it, lol.
Yes...because jobs are just floatin around like bubbles waiting for people to catch them.
And, by the way, lots of people receive help from the government - it's not just the welfare class (whom she did a rather great job of caricaturing - all those folks livin in da projects with their plasma TVs, Xbox's, and rims...yeah i'm sure they're a representative group). You want to reform welfare, go ahead. Just make sure you do the same thing to agricultural subsidies, price supports, favoritism in the defense procurement process, the list goes on...
I will have to say I agree with everything, but the No on voting. I think that one goes against what our Constitution and foundings beliefs.
I think her line about "conflict of interest" pretty much goes for every citizen, not just those on welfare. Don't all voters for the most part vote for what they think will benefit themselves personally? I don't get that part.
Felt the same way. Taking away someone's right to vote is just overkill.
I was okay with everything up until the no vote. That is pretty much a deal breaker.
This 21 year old from Texas obviously comes from a privileged background, assuming she even exists. Demonizing the poor when the national unemployment rate is hovering at 9-11% shows that this young woman doesn't have it as bad as she thinks she does.
And in typical conservative fashion, she says nothing about the corporate tycoons and poor fiscal policies that landed so many of the poor in the gutter. Just attack the poor. Yep.
I'm glad this woman isn't in politics. She would be an awful leader.
The difference is they are also contributing to the revenue pool, not just subtracting from it.
7.1 million people live in federal housing. That's about 2.3% of the population. Around 40-50 million recieve some form of food stamps or welfare, state or Fed, counting unemployment. That's about 13-15% of the population.
It appears that those numbers must be totals rather than per-household numbers.
If they all recieved $10,000 each in assistance, every man/woman/child, the total cost would be 500 Billion dollars. Our current Fed budget is well over 3 trillion you know.
In 2010, we spent about 2 Trillion in domestic non-military spending. Bit of a disconnect there isn't there? Where did the other 1.5 TRILLION go?
Well, check out the US budget. A lot of it goes to Social Security and Medicare and other senior programs...,. I don't remember the exact figure but I think it's over 800 billion.
Federal Retirement is another chunk. Pork and waste are a large chunk.
My point is that it isn't just the poor, at least not the crack-ho and welfare-mama poor that this young lady's letter seems to mainly address.
A lot of it is programs for senior citizens. Some involve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and loans for firstime home buyers.
The point I'm making is there's a LOT of cleaning up to do, a lot of corruption and waste to root out, in MANY areas of spending... including military-industrial waste and corruption.
Just forcing austerity on one segment of the "poor" isn't going to magically restore balance to the budget.
It's a difference, but it hardly addresses my point.
Government control over reproduction, mass drug testing and restricted voting rights. Sounds like a Republican wet dream.
It's an attack on the poor to suggest that you should have a better quality of life if you're willing to work for it?
Sure it does. In theory, taxpayers have an incentive not to vote themselves too many benefits, because they realize they will have to pay for those benefits through taxes. Sort of like how a child would go on a shopping spree, but the parents know better and don't allow it to happen, and know where the money comes from.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?