Let's go back to our pre-1940 ways and end government entitlements to all, except children. Let's end AFDC, TANIF, and Food Stamps. Let's tighten up on disability claims and child support. Make people work again for their money/food. Work, what work you say? Well, they say necessity is the mother of invention. Maybe people will start inventing again, use their skills and hobbies to support themselves rather than sit at home and get paid for it. Maybe their buy land and start a farm. Open a daycare. Build a better automobile. Invent the next great gadget. Write the next great novel. Get an education. Stop having children they can't afford to take care of. There's a whole world of possibiilities but without motivation, why look at any of them.
Did you see past yourself long enough to see the affects and effects of what your post would do, if it was implemented?
I guess not.
Cagsil, I thought about what would happen if this were to be implemented. First, there would be riots in the streets. People have become accustomed to their entitlements and are not about to let them go. After that, who knows...civil war? You do realize that welfare programs were meant to be temporary, right? So was Social Security but these programs were continuously extended until now they are thought of as entitlements. Will unemployment benefits follow this trend?
Apparently, you didn't put enough thought into it.
And, this is productive how exactly?
It would be nice, if people agreed on what an "entitlement" was to begin with, don't you think?
That's coming regardless of what is done. I've already seen it coming.
Yes, some programs were meant to be temporary. I suggest you talk to your Representative/Senator or even the President. They are the morons who have mismanaged America.
Social Security was NEVER meant to be temporary and to say it was, is supportive of misinformation, derived by ignorance of politicians spreading more distortion.
Unemployment benefits are another thing that politicians have mismanaged. But, then again, politicians have failed to manage the Economy properly and are at fault for why unemployment is where it is now. It's not the individual's fault(at least in most cases it isn't).
This is just an idea to be explored not a proposal to Congress. I realize that programs would have to already be in place so when people are phased off social service programs that they'd have something to turn to. This is why I suggest more scholarships for schools, especially state-supported schools. Job training programs should be implemented and/or broadened and made a requirement for people on unemployment or welfare programs (i.e. AFDC, Section 8, etc). Term limits should be set on welfare programs so people cannot expect to receive payments for the next 18 years which may inform people's decision to get pregnant. Social Security should be defunded and/or people allowed to save their money in IRA-type accounts (that are similar in nature to 401K's) that cannot be touched until age 65 (or later). These accounts could be paid a decent interest rate as they are assured funds. People can decide how much or how little they invest but know that how much they save is all they'll have to live on at retirement. There should be some measure of individual responsibility in this.
Do you have any idea what happened to 401K's and IRA's in the last 3 years? Do you realize what happened to people's most valuable investment - their home? Social Security is a safety net paid for by the workers themselves. It's ment to give them some limited level of support when their other investments leave them in a lurch. Do you really want to take away a basic lifelihood from most Americans who do not have the savy to invest for themselves. What happens in your scenario when retired persons are pennyless. Will you let them starve in the streets? Have we come to this where we don't care about each other anymore?
ZOMG, people would have to work to feed themselves?
EVERY SINGLE PERSON I've ever met who was receiving welfare was abusing the system. There are rumors around town that the Somali families in northern Columbus are intentionally interbreeding to get more welfare for having disabled children.
It's pretty F*d up what perverse government "good intentions" can create.
It is a laudable idea to unwind the Federal government from all aspects of our lives. When it has happened it has usually redounded to the benefit of the group targeted for the public largess. The Welfare reform of the 1990s actually resulted in a decline in childhood poverty. There is no better anti-poverty measure than a job. The best way to create jobs is to further unwind government from the economy.
The Cut, Cap and Balance Bill and the Ryan Budget were good ideas. A crushing defeat for the Democrats and establishment Republicans and the election of a conservative (not an empty Ken Doll like Romney) in 2012 would be a good beginning.
You have strayed far afield from Jesus's teachings, in my opinion.
Really? Where does Jesus teach that people should be dependent upon the government for their care? Doesn't the Bible say that if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat? Now, I understand that some people need programs, like the disabled, the elderly; but abled-body men/women should not be dependent upon the government for their daily support. People who are on welfare become trapped in a vicious cycle of dependence. They lack motivation to work. Why work when you have free money coming in every month?
Don't you remember the part where Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar and unto God that which is God's" And then sent his soldiers into the crowd to take, at sword point, money from everyone who had a job. Seriously, it is in there.
The part where the rich young man asked Jesus, "What should I do to follow you." and Jesus said, "Give everything you have to Caesar and he will make sure some of it gets to the poor. Or I will send my soldiers to take it from you." Seriously, it is in there.
The parable where two servants are given money by their master and one multiplies it through hard work and the other buries his. When the master gets home and discovers that one had made more money than the other he beats the successful servant and takes his money and gives it to the foolish servant. Seriously, it is in there.
It is an extension of the idea that I am my brother's keeper.
Do programs get abused? Certainly. So does religion. Should both be eliminated? Cut off the leg to remove the wart?
Did Jesus say Caesar is your surrogate in the whole "I am my brother's keeper" bureaucracy?
No, but government can reflect the sympathies that Jesus espoused, and that's what many of them do. They do not take on the mantel of total responsibility for the individual, but they are a helping hand in times of trouble.
That is one of the problems with the American myth of the rugged individual. It comes at the cost of any sense of having fellow countrymen, that the success of the country is wrapped up in the success of us all.
So rather than having the rugged individual as an ideal we now have that oxymoron, the compassionate bureaucrat?
Is setting up a false dichotomy the best you have? You create a demon alternative and present it as the only one.
Very poor argument for anyone that actually pays attention. Fortunately for you, many people don't, and will buy this shibboleth.
I do, however, prefer the idea of a compassionate government than one that is indifferent to the condition of its people.
It's funny, lots of the folks who spout the Christian Nation fallacy want to make sure the Christian Nation lets the poor fend for themselves, and want to use the military might of the Christian Nation to wage war in the name of Jesus.
Ha, ha! It appears you've began a good thread of a post.
I have to agree with Cag look further and deeper please to see the devistation you are proposing here. End welfare, yes, but make earning a fair living and making a life possible first, ok. When the field has fair play possibilities, then the reason to have welfare would be very much lessened. But not the way it is now. You are proposing caos, not solution.
Welfare is the crutch of the poor. It has the same effect as unending unemployment insurance. What motivation does a person have to look or a job if they get checks for laying at home on the couch? I'm not saying that people should not get unemployment checks; only that they should not be unending. Same with welfare checks. If people are going to get money for simply having children, what motivation do they have to get an education or to get a job?
Sometimes tough love is necessary. Even birds push their offspring out of the nest and tell them to fly or fall. First, what's wrong with telling people that they will only get so much of the pie so in the meantime they should get a paid education and then get a job. Second, did you ever think that a lack of welfare might force people to become self-providers? They could work in fields, dig ditches, repair roads, even start their own businesses. What did people do before welfeare? They either worked or starved. Yet, the government wasn't broke. Look at us today, we're trillions of dollars in debt and millions dependent upon the government for their livelihood. You can't say that that is healthy.
"What did people do before welfeare? They either worked or starved."
Before welfare, most people lived where they worked or within walking distance of it. You could easily have a start-up fix-it business if you were handy and willing to work. Now? It's not so simple.Take a look around and see if you can find a job--any job--within walking distance of where you live.
Now think about whether you have children. Assuming you can find a job within walking distance of your home, you'll need someone to look after your kids while you're at work. Fine, but that costs almost as much (if not more) than many low-wage jobs. So instead of raising your kids yourself, you give them to a stranger to raise while you go to a job and end up paying for the privilege, there being a net loss after childcare is paid for.
I'm not saying that it's right and proper to deliberately sit at home and collect public assistance instead of working, but pointing out that "get a job" isn't anything close to a useful suggestion.
Dear sir, what you have presented is good commonsense. While many people believe in government support in times of dire emergencies until the situation eventually improves itself, there are many people who use governmental entitlement such as welfare as a means of permanent support. There are instances that there are seven generations of people on welfare, now come on!
Such people have inoculated their children that the government will take care of them and they do not have to make much effort and look for work. However, before the event of massive government entitlement, there were impoverished families who were entirely supported by their wealthier family members. I know an instance of poorer relatives in the South who were entirely supported by their wealthier siblings. The idea of the poorer relatives is why should they work and exert themselves when the wealthier relatives will support them.
Of course, there will be less governmental spending if welfare was cut by 50% or more. Yes, this should be done. Many welfare recipients can learn from many recent immigrants that no job is beneath you if you have no job and that a job is often the road to economic self-sufficiency.
I cannot help but notice that most of the suggestions made require something more than motivation, to bring them about, and that is cash.
Someone out of work or in a financial crisis is not able to buy a farm - if they are losing the roof over their heads through debt, like wise many of the other ideas.
2uesday, It is true that most of these ideas would require some cash. That is what the Small Business Administration is for. Are you proposing never-ending unemployment checks which are merely band-aids on an open womb? People can get creative to earn money...sell things, collect cans, mow lawns, clean houses, use the library's resources--most of which are free.
To what end? Would there be sufficient money? Wouldn't that result in even more commercialized religion? Wouldn't churches become even more business-like? How intolerable would that be? I am not paying to receive Eucharist.
Two reasons: the main reason is that churches are non-profit organizations and the second reason, in my opinion, is the doctrine of separation of church and state forbid the government from taxing religious organizations.
" ... end entitlementss to all, except children. Let's end AFDC, TANIF [sic], and Food Stamps ... " Do you know that AFDC stands for Aid to Families with Dependent Children? Who do you think are the primary beneficiaries of AFDC, TANF and Food Stamps? Yes, children.
You're right that ending these programs may defeat their purpose. Here's the problem: the funds are designed for them but oftentimes mismanaged by parents similarly to child support. What's the answer? There is no answer. As someone once said, you can't legislate morality meaning you can't pass laws that will force parents to use the money to take care of their children. There are people who sell their beneifts to get things Food Stamps won't buy like smokes and alcohol. There are people who live with men in open violation of AFDC policies. In short, people have found ways to beat the system.
Survival of the fittest, social Darwinism revisited.
I think these are all great ideas...but can only be implemented after the big crash of the current systems...or rather it would be better if they were slowly unwound...
these are all the things that do need to change...but we are going to have to go through big pain in order to get us to the place where these changes will be accepted as needing to be implemented because they are more psychologically sound ways of moving the people of a society forward in dignity and in a sense of self worth.
Things have not been done correctly that provided humanity with the desire to work equitably for their daily bread and the betterment of their society...
wouldn't it be nice if all people did change to do so?
but sad to say there may always be some who can't get that psychologically sound...
Problem is there are real people who depend on the system. I would favor a decrease over several years until they are gone. Of course, many of these programs are also contributed to by the states, so this really might not eliminate all of them. They exist to buy votes.
Yea like my ex, who takes my sons SSI money and drinks at the bar all night. He has no job... Real Nice system we have here....
How do you really know how they are spending the money. They do not have to account for a penny of what they spent the money on....
Wouldn't it be a social good to compel those who exist on public plunder to have their use of that plunder made perfectly transparent and available for review by those from whom that property is plundered?
Aren't there large private corporations on public plunder,like GE and Exxon Mobil ?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/03/25 … e-welfare/
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ … exxon-tax/
This should make the blood boil of every tax paying American.
Oh I do not disagree with you at all. Remember G.E. CEO Jeffery Immelt has a very powerful buddy, Barry Obama. I agree the only public money that should be secret is that used for necessarily secret things. That should be a very small number of projects.
No way!... I still got a hundred weeks of unemployment money to collect... then some welfare and maybe even a lil disablity.
Then of course I will be due for my govt pension and retirement and Soc Sec.
Perhaps we should get some crack private sector company like Halliburton to administer SSI and AFDC, etc. programs.
I mean, with the war in Iraq wound down 'n all, I'd hate to think of those well trained, well armed mercenaries being out of work and collecting... unemployment!
Simple answer, accounting and accountability, every time we meet the third person on the system you meet one who is a fraud.
Seldom is anyone prosecuted for fraud Welfare ,S/S ,unemployment, disability....To say nothing of the waste alone.
I was casually talking with an older woman at work and she made a good point. The government has been saying they may consider delaying Social Security Checks and/or cutting their benefits in some way or another. You never hear of delaying or cutting
Social Service checks. The work force pays into both of these programs for years and years in order to gain some benefit.
It does not sound fair or just to cut people's benefits who have worked all of their lives. There must other ways with a panel of great minds to solve our Nation's financial problems.
There are plenty of other places to cut, but they would be going against what the big money re-election donors would want.That's why they aren't even mentioned. Corporate welfare has to be around 200 billion a year now, the tax rates the corporations pay is no where near what it needs to be and the Crusades for resources in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are costing us how many dollars a month not besides all of the useless death. The game is rigged and You don't matter.
There is such a big noise against the poorest and weakest members of society - yet huge corporations play fast and loose with money shuffling games to reduce their taxes to the single digits. Bankers and hedge fund managers rob the country blind and are rewarded by golden parachutes. Medicare is not allowed to bargain for medicines with big pharma and must pay top dollar. 20 billion dollars a month for the wars. Oil speculation has driven the cost of transportation up increasing the cost of doing business.
Yet people want to get rid of food stamps and cut money for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. How about a return of shanty towns, disabled beggars on the street, the elderly living in squalor?
Why is it that in troubled times, when the upper crust is living high off the hog with reduced taxes (that were supposed to give us jobs, haha), people so vilify the poor? I guess it's easier to attack the weak.
Why don't we make the politicians take a major pay cut. That alone would probably balance the budget.
Maybe they should serve with no pay since it is a privilege to serve ones country - not a career.
by Petra Vlah4 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
by jiberish7 years ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01900.htmlIn this Washington Post article it says that two-thirds of the stimulus went toward tax cuts, fiscal aid to states, and expanded unemployment benefits and food...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security...
by Jack Lee8 days ago
The question is, is this a good sign or bad?How many people are on food stamps? What percent of our population depends on it?Under Obama, he was called the foodstamp president for a reason. The roll of food stamps...
by My Esoteric3 years ago
Unemployment hasn't been this low since 2008 while 113,000 more jobs were added during one of the worst winters America has seen. E\What do you think?
by shazz011097 years ago
Any people who are part of the TEA Parties here, what is your issue/complaint with either or both of the major Parties?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.