Trouble in the nanny state

[dynogator]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

If this is a big part of the problem what is/are the solution(s)?

No welfare for anyone who can't produce a marriage license, obviously. (I wonder if divorcees would be eligible, at least they gave it a shot.)

I don't think people who start the discussion with "welfare broodmares," is really interested in a meaningful discussion about the consequences of single parenthood. I don't even know if single parents are the biggest welfare demographic--I suspect there's many married couples and single people who depend on welfare to get by. Of course, "married couple on welfare due to catastrophic illness," isn't as catchy as "broodmares."

[gatordowneast]

T3 gave the best explanation of the problem and solutions. Of course the libbies may not realize he is doing it "tongue and cheek" which is why the problem perpetuates itself. They probably think what he jokes about is right on other than the tax rate of 39% is too low!

[dynogator]

Originally Posted by mocgator

We can start by not having government subsidize the bad behavior and choices.

You only single out one "bad behavior." What about divorce? Did you know that the single biggest demographic on welfare is white women with one or two children? They can't all be "broodmares." My guess is that a lot of them were happily married at some point, so evidently a wedding ring isn't a fail-safe inoculation against poverty.

[chemgator]

Teacher:

What do you want to be when you grow up?

6-Year-Old:

I can't wait until I'm old enough to start having babies and get my government checks.

Yes, it's that bad. My wife actually had that conversation with one of her school kids.


A big part of the problem is the system that democrats set up that punishes marriage and punishes people who try to improve themselves. If you have two adults making $15k per year each, and they are unmarried, they are eligible for all kinds of gov't benefits. If they get married, they are a couple making $30k a year, and most of the benefits disappear.

Also, if they have a chance to get a better job and improve their pay, there is little or no incentive for them to do so, as they will lose benefits at a rate almost equal to their salary increase. They call it the "incremental tax rate" (although it's not exactly taxes). If they go from $15k/yr to $25k/yr in salary, but lose $9k in gov't benefits because they no longer qualify for them, the incremental tax rate on the additional $10k in income is 90%. They might have to work a lot harder in their new job, but they will only have an additional $1,000 in income to show for it.

The democrats set up a horrible system of benefits that encourages laziness and punishes ambition.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by chemgator

Teacher:


6-Year-Old:


Yes, it's that bad. My wife actually had that conversation with one of her school kids.


A big part of the problem is the system that democrats set up that punishes marriage and punishes people who try to improve themselves. If you have two adults making $15k per year each, and they are unmarried, they are eligible for all kinds of gov't benefits. If they get married, they are a couple making $30k a year, and most of the benefits disappear.

Also, if they have a chance to get a better job and improve their pay, there is little or no incentive for them to do so, as they will lose benefits at a rate almost equal to their salary increase. They call it the "incremental tax rate" (although it's not exactly taxes). If they go from $15k/yr to $25k/yr in salary, but lose $9k in gov't benefits because they no longer qualify for them, the incremental tax rate on the additional $10k in income is 90%. They might have to work a lot harder in their new job, but they will only have an additional $1,000 in income to show for it.

The democrats set up a horrible system of benefits that encourages laziness and punishes ambition.

I agree the way the system was originally set up was problematic. One good way to start would be to revisit these guidelines and see how we can go about helping to restore two parent families.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by mocgator

We can start by not having government subsidize the bad behavior and choices.

That sounds good but it really doesn't flesh out any answers. Do you propose to just cut off all of the money in one fell swoop, and if you do how far have you looked into the future? Actions always have consequences no matter who the actions are implemented by.

[T3goalie]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

That sounds good but it really doesn't flesh out any Answers. Do you propose to just cut off all of the money in one fell swoop, and if you do how far have you looked into the Future? Actions always have Consequences no matter who the actions are implemented by.

I agree with you 100%.

The current answers create dependency, entitlement mentality, illiteracy, high incarceration rates, sh!t schools, little to no opportunity, high crime rates...

The future for these economic slaves is children and grandchildren living in the same sh!tholes, in the same sh!t schools and continued generations of illiteracy and ignorance.

Actions have consequences see Detroit, see Chicago...the consequences of today's lunacy are decades and generations of the hopeless souls who know no better and live hand to mouth on subsidy, low employment or crime with little to no chance at upward mobility. They represent a guarantied voting block for their Masters who give them morsels to live on while the real buying power diminishes daily. Those who claim to love and care create an insidious system of control and slums. Answers? that is a joke. Today"s Answers are the cause of the problem. With love like that who needs hate? Brave new world indeed!

[oaklandroadie]

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100...?mg=reno64-wsj

58% of first births (the mother's first child), is to unwed mothers. Sort of blows away the premise by some on this thread that single moms are escaping a bad situation.are

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by gatordowneast

I would agree. We have 3 generations (starting in the mid 60s with the war on poverty) that have the playbook down of where to apply for what program and how much you get.

The gov't spends more money on the play book for "What to do when you fail" then it does on the play book on "How to succeed"

Whatever happen to "failure is not an option" ?

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by northgagator

The gov't spends more money on the play book for "What to do when you fail" then it does on the play book on "How to succeed"

Whatever happen to "failure is not an option" ?

Libbies never learn this philosophy which is why (unless they are funded by someone else) they aren't willing to put themselves in the arena. It is better to be the "best of the worst" and the "worst of the best". Average.

And of course have guvmint or you and I pay for their Average existence. And lord, don't try to hold them accountable or responsible.

[dynogator]

Originally Posted by oaklandroadie

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100...?mg=reno64-wsj

58% of first births (the mother's first child), is to unwed mothers. Sort of blows away the premise by some on this thread that single moms are escaping a bad situation.

It "blows away," nothing, unless all these single parents are also on welfare. Is that the case?

[chemgator]

I would propose (for a start) that WIC cards only be used for purchasing basic staples. That includes: fresh or canned fruits or vegetables, pork or chicken (no fish or beef), milk, American cheese, peanut butter, jelly, bread, generic cereals, and 2+ lb. bags of rice. Maybe Spam, and maybe cooking oil. That's it. No beef, no shrimp, no salmon, no Doritos, no Spaghettios, no donuts or cookies, no ice cream, no Coca-Cola, no candy. Find out how much of these items a particular sized family needs every week to survive, and limit the WIC card to that amount or less.

After a while, we will start seeing more skinny poor people, and we'll improve the health problems caused by all that gov't-funded obesity, AND we'll be saving money to boot. An added benefit is we'll be reducing our gov't funding of gambling, illegal drugs, and alcohol.

[dynogator]

Originally Posted by chemgator

I would propose (for a start) that WIC cards only be used for purchasing basic staples. That includes: fresh or canned fruits or vegetables, pork or chicken (no fish or beef), milk, American cheese, peanut butter, jelly, bread, generic cereals, and 2+ lb. bags of rice. Maybe Spam, and maybe cooking oil. That's it. No beef, no shrimp, no salmon, no Doritos, no Spaghettios, no donuts or cookies, no ice cream, no Coca-Cola, no candy. Find out how much of these items a particular sized family needs every week to survive, and limit the WIC card to that amount or less.

After a while, we will start seeing more skinny poor people, and we'll improve the health problems caused by all that gov't-funded obesity, AND we'll be saving money to boot. An added benefit is we'll be reducing our gov't funding of gambling, illegal drugs, and alcohol.

I think you're confusing WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) with food stamps. WIC is much more restrictive. The eligible items should meet with even your approval:

What can I buy with WIC checks?

"WIC checks are easy to use! You can use them to get free healthy food and formula at over 1000 authorized grocery stores and pharmacies statewide. WIC foods are chosen because they contain the nutrients that women, infants and children need during pregnancy, breastfeeding, infancy, and early childhood. Examples of WIC foods include milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruit juice, peanut butter, dried beans/peas, canned beans, whole grain bread, tortillas, brown rice, canned fish, infant formula, infant cereal, baby fruits and vegetables, baby meats, tofu, soy milk, and fruits & vegetables."

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by chemgator

I would propose (for a start) that WIC cards only be used for purchasing basic staples. That includes: fresh or canned fruits or vegetables, pork or chicken (no fish or beef), milk, American cheese, peanut butter, jelly, bread, generic cereals, and 2+ lb. bags of rice. Maybe Spam, and maybe cooking oil. That's it. No beef, no shrimp, no salmon, no Doritos, no Spaghettios, no donuts or cookies, no ice cream, no Coca-Cola, no candy. Find out how much of these items a particular sized family needs every week to survive, and limit the WIC card to that amount or less.

After a while, we will start seeing more skinny poor people, and we'll improve the health problems caused by all that gov't-funded obesity, AND we'll be saving money to boot. An added benefit is we'll be reducing our gov't funding of gambling, illegal drugs, and alcohol.

And no getting cash from an ATM with the EBT rip off the taxpayer cards. And no cash back at the grocery store.

[gator85jd]

Originally Posted by gatordowneast

And no getting cash from an ATM with the EBT rip off the taxpayer cards. And no cash back at the grocery store.

Why not have those who need food participate in urban gardening? Participation would make them eligible for food (some that they've helped grow and some other nutritious fresh food) and other essential OTC health products and household items from a co-op style distribution center that is staffed by others who need assistance.

[DarthG8Rv2]

I received this in an e-Mail , makes sense .


"IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER,YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM"

WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE

Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best.

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.

[Swampmaster]

Originally Posted by gatordowneast

A good start on correcting the problem would be to cut out the "reward" for birthing children out of wedlock. You get X amount of money to help you

Why should you get a penny of taxpayer money for having a child??

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by DarthG8Rv2

I received this in an e-Mail , makes sense .


"IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER,YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM"

WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE

Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best.

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.

When I was 11 yrs. old my dad died making my mother an instant single mother with three little boys 5, 8 and 11.
My dad had no life insurance (he was uninsurable) and we lost our home. I am here to tell you that we took not one dime in welfare money of any kind. We went to work. Even my 8 yr old little brother worked a paper route and gave the $15 per week to his mother. I worked as a bus boy in the restaurant where my mother got a job as a waitress (she was 43 at the time) I also worked an early morning paper route and at night in the concession stand of a drive in movie. We struggled, we did without but we stuck together and all of us boys became successful. We stayed in school and got good educations. We made it without welfare. My mother instilled character in us and self pity was unthinkable. That was a long time ago in an America that valued self respect and self reliance. There was no "welfare" as we know it today. We didn't need it. The sad results of current welfare programs speak for themselves. I vote for the above solutions.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

When I was 11 yrs. old my dad died making my mother an instant single mother with three little boys 5, 8 and 11.
My dad had no life insurance (he was uninsurable) and we lost our home. I am here to tell you that we took not one dime in welfare money of any kind. We went to work. Even my 8 yr old little brother worked a paper route and gave the $15 per week to his mother. I worked as a bus boy in the restaurant where my mother got a job as a waitress (she was 43 at the time) I also worked an early morning paper route and at night in the concession stand of a drive in movie. We struggled, we did without but we stuck together and all of us boys became successful. We stayed in school and got good educations. We made it without welfare. My mother instilled character in us and self pity was unthinkable. That was a long time ago in an America that valued self respect and self reliance. There was no "welfare" as we know it today. We didn't need it. The sad results of current welfare programs speak for themselves. I vote for the above solutions.

That's a very admirable accomplishment for all of your family. I didn't have it as hard as you but I worked tobacco at a young age; then got an early morning paper route a day before I turned 13. Went to work at Winn-Dixie at age 16. My sister worked as did my younger sister when she came along. It was just a normal part of life during that time for kids to get jobs.

My mother has a lady that helps take care of her who is a single mother. This woman also has another job and her son comes over and does yard work or anything else we need him to do. He is a hard worker and also plays football. She keeps a tight reign on her kids with one now going into the service with the intention of becoming a surgeon. We know it's hard on her at times and try to help her in other small ways but the biggest thing is she is not sitting around watching the world go by.

[rpmGator]

Thought the thread might be on this state, where Republicans gave us socialized home insurance and charge people who don't even own property on thier car insurance, to subsidize Donald Trumps beach front house insurance.

Might want to start in our own party before we worry about the other side doing the same things.

Socialized house insurance for the rich is ok, socialized health insurance for the poor is not.