New spin on the welfare debate.

[copperhead-1911]

Worked out good for the Germans back in the 40s.
As much dislike as I feel for the abuse of these programs there must be a better way to wean the pups off the teat. Them teeth are getting pretty sharp.

Always someone brings up the Nazis/ That was forced. This thesis is not about force it is about agreeing to guidelines to get government money people are not entitled to anyway. If you drive a car you agree to have a license or you are guilty of a crime. There is no right to drive a car. You drive you follow the rules. Same can be done with Obama bucks.

You see how the teeth are still biting they are not going to just release. They need "incentive" to release. Part of the problem is we have made it so comfortable to be a loser in this country.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Well, when you put one of those into someone against her will, you've committed assault. It would be unethical for any medical professional to place the implant. When, as a result of the medication, she gets a blood clot in her leg and that clot breaks off and goes to her lungs, causing her death, you've committed a homicide.

The solution to a stupid government program isn't a stupider government program.

When you take public money ( welfare, wic, food stamps) and have kids that you know you cant afford you have committed fraud.

 

[poptab]

There is so much economic ignorance in this thread it's no wonder we are 17 trillion in debt.

Read some books people or at least watch some videos

http://m.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty?desktop_uri=/user/LearnLiberty

 

[StuBob]

When you take public money ( welfare, wic, food stamps) and have kids that you know you cant afford you have committed fraud.

How is that fraud?

 

[sun]

Both Martin Luther King and Richard Nixon described some of the reasons why welfare payments to the poor are necessary and why people need to be able to find jobs that paying a living wage. In the end, it's all about the stability of capitalism since if there's too much poverty, poor people can always vote to restrict capitalism in exchange for more communism and/or socialism.

Civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., explaining the cause of the 1965 riots in the Watts section of Los Angeles, also focused on the poor in a land of plenty.

I believe what happened in Los Angeles was of grave national
significance. What we witnessed in the Watts area was the
beginning of a stirring of a deprived people in a society who
had been by-passed by the progress of the previous decade. I
would minimize the racial significance and point to the fact
that these were the rumblings of discontent from the “have-nots”
within the midst of an affluent society.8

In the early 1960s, poverty for a family of four was officially defined as living on an income of less than $3,000. Populations at high risk of poverty in the 60s included rural Americans, minorities, low-paid workers, and female-headed families. (The poverty status of older Americans improved considerably during the 60s thanks to increases in Social Security benefits.) To illustrate, in 1966, the percentage of rural Americans in poverty was 19 percent, compared to 14 percent for urban Americans. In that same year, the percent of nonwhite Americans in poverty was 41 percent, in contrast to 12 percent of white Americans. Furthermore, 32 percent of poor families in 1967 contained a head of the household that worked full-time, and another 25 percent of poor “breadwinners” worked part-time. What is more, many poor female heads of households, because of child-rearing duties and lack of child care, could not work outside the home, leaving 11 million of the poor in 1963 in these families.


American Social Policy in the 60's and 70's - Social Welfare History Project

Regarding the dollar amounts of welfare benefits as being a disincentive for people not wanting to work,
versus increasing wages to provide poor, dependent people with a reason to work to become independent,
Richard Nixon had this to say:

Welfare too high is dependency trap; too low is hardship

Capitalism's dilemma is the tension between economic security and liberty. Some believe the goal of government should be to provide total economic security for everyone. The critical question is how much security government should guarantee. Socialist countries promise total security and thereby undermine incentives for production. Instead of creating equality of wealth, socialist governments create equality in poverty. In the West, the non-socialist welfare state is committed to the proposition that the poor or unemployed will not become destitute. The difficulty comes in setting the level of support to the less fortunate. If set too low, it causes unnecessary hardship. If set too high, it creates disincentives to achieving self-sufficiency and fosters dependency. Our objective should therefore be a welfare system structured not to trap the poor in dependency but to enable them to escape poverty.

Source: In The Arena, by Richard Nixon, p.354 , Apr 1, 1991


Richard Nixon on Welfare & Poverty

 

[copperhead-1911]

There is so much economic ignorance in this thread it's no wonder we are 17 trillion in debt.

Read some books people or at least watch some videos

http://m.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty?desktop_uri=/user/LearnLiberty

amen

 

[copperhead-1911]

How is that fraud?

Same as taking something that does not belong to you in a store without paying. Fraud might not be the best word, Theft could be better.

If someone knows they cant afford kids, keeps having them while on the public dole I fail to see how its not fraud.

I guess its not fraud because the left needs voters.

 

[sun]

Alms or Almsgiving is a virtuous act based on pity and mercy that goes back to ancient times.
Welfare is like giving charity to the poor and is not anything like theft at all.
Blame the politicians for not collecting enough taxes, but don't blame the poor people who are the victims of poverty for receiving the charity.

alms - definition of alms by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Alms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Any idea how many corporations are sheltering the profits of their overseas subsidiaries offshore so that the U.S. Government can't collect taxes on it and how much it amounts to in lost revenue?
Read about it and look at all of the American companies that are sheltering their overseas profits.
That's right, the numbers represent BILLION$ of Dollars in profits that each are sheltering while the U.S. Government is drowning in debt.
These are among the richest American corporations that we fight wars for and dole out foreign aid in order to protect their foreign interests. Meanwhile folks are blaming the poor victims of poverty as being thieves. It's a shame that everyone in the U.S. must make up for the lost revenue of these most profitable U.S. corporations that do business overseas. And this is just the tip of the iceberg since these aren't even the top 100 corporations.

From the article:

Fortune 50 Stashing $800 Billion in Offshore Profits

More:

Big U.S. Companies Park $1.2 Trillion in Profits Offshore, Study Finds - WSJ.com

Apple, Google Among Top U.S. Companies Parking Cash Offshore To Reduce Taxes, Study Says - Forbes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...rofit-to-avoid-taxes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why is every one always bringing up in these threads that one does not have a right to drive a car? When did out right to drive a car start to be infringed?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Alms or Almsgiving is a virtuous act based on pity and mercy that goes back to ancient times.
Welfare is like giving charity to the poor and is not anything like theft at all.
Blame the politicians for not collecting enough taxes, but don't blame the poor people who are the victims of poverty for receiving the charity.

alms - definition of alms by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Alms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Any idea how many corporations are sheltering the profits of their overseas subsidiaries offshore so that the U.S. Government can't collect taxes on it and how much it amounts to in lost revenue?
Read about it and look at all of the American companies that are sheltering their overseas profits.
That's right, the numbers represent BILLION$ of Dollars in profits that each are sheltering while the U.S. Government is drowning in debt.
These are among the richest American corporations that we fight wars for and dole out foreign aid in order to protect their foreign interests. Meanwhile folks are blaming the poor victims of poverty as being thieves. It's a shame that everyone in the U.S. must make up for the lost revenue of these most profitable U.S. corporations that do business overseas. And this is just the tip of the iceberg since these aren't even the top 100 corporations.

From the article:

Fortune 50 Stashing $800 Billion in Offshore Profits

More:

Big U.S. Companies Park $1.2 Trillion in Profits Offshore, Study Finds - WSJ.com

Apple, Google Among Top U.S. Companies Parking Cash Offshore To Reduce Taxes, Study Says - Forbes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...rofit-to-avoid-taxes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If I could figure out a way to park my income off shore and prevent the government from getting it's grubby hands on my money, I'd do it too.

 

[CZB1962]

Why is every one always bringing up in these threads that one does not have a right to drive a car? When did out right to drive a car start to be infringed?

I am not sure if you are serious or not but you don't now, nor did you ever have the "right" to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege granted to you by the state in the form of issuing a driver license and that privilege can be revoked at any time by the state if you break the rules.

 

[copperhead-1911]

I am not sure if you are serious or not but you don't now, nor did you ever have the "right" to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege granted to you by the state in the form of issuing a driver license and that privilege can be revoked at any time by the state if you break the rules.

Great answer

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why is every one always bringing up in these threads that one does not have a right to drive a car? When did out right to drive a car start to be infringed?

Looks like it was about the time there were enough cars on the road to run into each other.

As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[5] On August 1, 1910, North America's first licensing law for motor vehicles went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs.[6] In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.[7]

Note, this was the same year the 16th and 17th amendments were ratified, if that tells you anything.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I am not sure if you are serious or not but you don't now, nor did you ever have the "right" to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege granted to you by the state in the form of issuing a driver license and that privilege can be revoked at any time by the state if you break the rules.

So now the right to travel is not so much a right then.

I guess carrying a handgun in Indiana is not a right either then is it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So now the right to travel is not so much a right then.

Neither is owning property as the state, county, and .gov can come and take your land if they believe that would be a good place for a road.

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

If the government makes money off OUR RIGHTS! They are no longer OUR RIGHTS!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If the government makes money off OUR RIGHTS! They are no longer OUR RIGHTS!

It's those guys that think their right to travel around, all uninfringed and all, that supersedes meye property rights with their roads, that **** me off.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If the government makes money off OUR RIGHTS! They are no longer OUR RIGHTS!

Still your right, just like you still have a right to bear arms, it is just being infringed.

It's those guys that think their right to travel around, all uninfringed and all, that supersedes meye property rights with their roads, that **** me off.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Stolen from Steve_131 "Publicly funded roads have eliminated any possibility of Practical alternative transportation systems. The government has a monopoly on travel. The threat of Losing this ability to travel is duress. "

How can one travel from city to city or state to state without using these roads. I cannot take my horse or my bicycle on hwys and interstates and I do not think the people would like galloping my horse across their private property.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Stolen from Steve_131 "Publicly funded roads have eliminated any possibility of Practical alternative transportation systems. The government has a monopoly on travel. The threat of Losing this ability to travel is duress. "

How can one travel from city to city or state to state without using these roads. I cannot take my horse or my bicycle on hwys and interstates and I do not think the people would like galloping my horse across their private property.

Your desire to travel should not trump my peaceful enjoyment of meye property.