government subsidies

This was sent to me via Email a little bit ago.

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

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 ligations. 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.

Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON...I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET THIS BACK, IF EVERYONE SENDS IT, I WILL GET OVER 220 BACK!!! I WOULD KNOW YOU SENT IT ON!!!

Interesting… While I don’t think that everyone on a government subsidies plan is there because of some “mistake” they made, I do feel that voting while receiving monetary benefits from the ones you’re voting on to represent you is a conflict of interest. Also, why shouldn’t people have to work for what they receive if they are able to work? I do not think that is an unreasonable request.

I like the idea of having people respect where they live and keep it maintained...although some of what was written was a bit over the top. Sterilization? :huh:

But yeah, I think working for your keep helps raise self esteem. I know it makes me feel better about myself being able to go out everyday and accomplish something, earn a paycheck, and decide how to spend it...even better when I make smart decisions like paying my bills before I go and buy anything fun.

True that… I think quite a bit of it was gross over-exaggeration.

But who knows… with the world population climbing at the rate it is, who’s to say that some sort of population control program shouldn’t be implemented? I am by no means suggesting that it should be done explicitly on people on government subsidies, nor am I saying that it should be limited to any one group. Just that it is very possible we should be considering some kind of population control.

her solution of "get a job" is far easier for someone to say that already has a job...it's far more difficult putting in action....i know, i've been there...it took me 3 f...ing years to get a part time job working 2 days a week...with 7years experience as a carpenter, 5 years experience in drywall, 4years as a warehouse supervisor, plus all my various military training...if it was as easy as "getting a job" then there would be a lot fewer people on subsidies...yes i agree some do abuse the system, and they disgust me because they make it much more difficult for the honest ones...

now her idea of making people on subsidies do government labor....it would create a cycle in which those on subsidies wouldn't be able to put in time to find a job...has she ever tried living in the real world?...to get a job you need: transportation, a means of contact (phone most often), identification, and time....i was severely limited in my efforts to get a job because i had no license, no transportation, and no phone...now that i have a meager source of income, i can get the things i need to find a better paying job or more hours...the financial system we have in place creates a system of oppression in which the rich make the rules, hold all the money, and keep the poor in need, meanwhile the poor are trapped in a continuous struggle that only occasionally lets up enough for one or two to slip out from the oppression....

need leads one to going on subsidies, being on subsidies makes employers etc, cut hours/jobs to pay the increased taxes, these cuts create more need for subsidies...its a hard to escape cycle...and one i only reluctantly ever considered...this girl that wrote the article needs to spend some time on the wrong side of the tracks before she goes off assuming that everyone on subsidies is shady...we all know what happens when you assume....

Wescli Wardest wrote: we should be considering some kind of population control.

i'm telling ya'll "national geriatric hunting day" would work wonders :evil: they've already lived long lives...and ugly/stupid should be required to have a license before breeding :whistle: j/k on that part

RyuJin wrote: her solution of "get a job" is far easier for someone to say that already has a job...it's far more difficult putting in action....

now her idea of making people on subsidies do government labor....it would create a cycle in which those on subsidies wouldn't be able to put in time to find a job...

this girl that wrote the article needs to spend some time on the wrong side of the tracks before she goes off assuming that everyone on subsidies is shady...we all know what happens when you assume....

There are several good points here…
We should never assume anything! Amen! Not all people or situations are as they seem and honestly, who are we to judge?

I agree that it is easier to say something then it necessarily is to do it. Oddly enough, I have never been on any kind of government subsidies and I have found a few jobs in my life. One thing I have noticed is that it is far more attractive to employers if you are currently employed. Which seems a bit unfair because it is the ones that aren’t employed that need the job! But, just because someone has to do some work to “earn their money” does not mean that it would be impossible for them to find work. It does mean that they may have to put some extra effort into it though. And not to be harsh, but after a set amount of time not working, it probably means that the market in that area is soft. If one isn’t going to move to where the jobs are, then while they continue to wait for the economy in that area to improve so that there is a job for them to have, would it be too much to ask that people “earn” a living by doing work for their communities?

I admit, I have never been unemployed for any length of time. I have always either been in school, the military or worked. And I am SO looking forward to retirement… it’s just SO freaking far away!

benefits are useful to the rich. What if poor people were given nothing? You think they wouldn't rob banks, kidnap your kids, kill you for 20 quid then eat you? Similarly, the purpose of universal healthcare is that if no-one is ill, diseases find it very difficult to grow. Someone with a cold could very well start an epidemic if many have no access to antibiotics.

I have no idea what benefits you are referring to Ren…

I have healthcare and several different kinds of insurance… and “I”, no one else pays for them. And to some people I may be considered “rich.” Not by my standards, but I will admit, compared to many I am pretty well off.

As to illness… things like the common cold mutate so readily that creating a “cure” for it is impossible by current technological standards. Hence, no one getting sick is out of the current realm of possibility. I like having health care available to all people. And I support the well being of a society, but I am failing to see the connection you made with your last post.

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of corporate welfare. I'd end offshore tax havens so fast Bermuda would declare war. Those sweet no bid multi-million dollar contracts to whoever Senator Joe Blow pleases? Yeah, no more of those. It would be (gasp!) actual capitalism, no bailouts, survival of the fittest, and profits reinvested and not paid out in $20 million dollar CEO golden parachutes. btw, CEO pay would be capped at some reasonable level, like 100 times the amount of the lowest paid employee instead of the 400 plus times that is the current reality.

In addition, we (this not being whoever the hell is politically appointed to do so, which is usually whoever 'donated' the most money to said candidate during the previous election cycle) would determine the 'common good' to actually benefit the majority of people, whatever their income level. blasphemous, i know. Downtowns would be revitalized, jobs programs would actually find a person a job, old people would not be forced to subsist on handouts, and etc etc etc.

Also, sterilizations??? is this lady freakin serious? did she teleport right out of a 1940s era nazi eugenics program? oh, and lets spend hundreds of millions testing people for those big bad drugs and CIGARETTES? really?? lets ask florida how that is working out for them.

and before her rethuglican cheerleaders write with all the support for this and condemnation for the poor, remember that the gap between rich and poor is at the greatest level in hundreds of years. and the last time it was this extreme, heads were rolling. im not concerned about somebodies self esteem. im concerned that they have the minimum amount of food, clothing, shelter etc to be an effective and productive human being, and demeaning, degrading, subhuman crap like this ignorant young lady espouses does not get that done. this would engender animosity, anger, even hatred. and rightly so. if it were attempted to be placed upon me, i would lead the charge to dismantle it.

and the no voting thing barely phases me. even in the most important election in the land, the only one most people bother to vote in, only 57% of registered voters actually voted. its much lower for others, pretty much in descending order of size. and thats only those who are actually allowed to vote and are not disenfranchised by criminal record, age, location and so forth.

Now, if you have the guts - ARGUE WITH ME. i can and have decimated many, many opponents who hold that kind of ignorant, bigoted rethuglican mindset and still dare to pretend that they care about anything but their own selfish little worldview. you can have those views, sure. but dont lie to me and to yourself and pretend that its for anyones good but your own.

Desolous wrote: PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of corporate welfare. I'd end offshore tax havens so fast Bermuda would declare war.

OMG.... I almost spit coffee on my computer! hahahhahahhaha :woohoo: That was funny! :silly:

You seem very emotionally conected to this topic Desolous... any particular reason why?