Ticker sent this email to me and I wondered what you all thought:
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 Hos, 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, and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, 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 Government welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Z: It's a little extreme in some cases, but the thrust of this makes some sense, no? We all know that not all people can be self reliant and that jobs are tough to find these days, but wasn't part of the problem for some people started years back with complacency and dependence on the Nanny State?
(thanks, Ticker)
16 comments:
Personally, I think it is a grand idea, except in the case of those who CANNOT work, which would be described as being in a physical condition worse than that of Stephen Hawking, who DOES work. (Hawking has a motor neurone disease that is related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a condition that has progressed over the years and has left him almost completely paralysed.)
Can't argue against anything here. If they put ME in charge, I would make things simple, the way the Founding Fathers did it: if you own property, you get to vote. If you don't own property, no voting rights for you, since you have no skin in the game, and should have no say in how the public good is managed.
And once we did this, then food stamps, welfare, and all transfer of wealth from producers to ne-er-do-wells would stop almost immediately.
That conflict of interest thing I like!
Yeah. I agree with Fredd. No property, no vote. Just one clarification, please. If you are married does the wife count as property?
Just kidding, Z. You should have to have more than one wife before you could count one as property.
Wow... great list, Z! Especially the not being able to vote while you're receiving benefits.
Ahhh... I've worked a job where I've seen quite a lot of fraud, but I've also been in the position to need some aid, and so I think this is too harsh.
When my Mom had a stroke and my dad left us and she was relearning how to function, she should've been on Norplant or suffered an invasive and permanent medical procedure?
Or should I, when my husband showed up for work and was told that, that very day, he no longer had a job and I applied for medical ins. for my children.
Too harsh. Punish the abusers.
Z - Only the one about voting do I question.
With the low voter turnout in this country - I don't think many people would be offended by not being able to.
Joe, it's discouraging to know that, while some people need help and our communities and families usually do reach out to them, there are slugs who just want a handout for nothing.....or individuals physically fit who don't bother to even look for work, and we all know they're around us.
Man, even Jesus said "You don't work, you don't eat"..but he reminds us to care for those IN NEED...and that's where our hearts come in for charity, etc...and should.
Fredd...It doesn't make SENSE to be able to vote your own freebies in, does it. But I do think there are good Americans who rent because they can't afford to buy and actually understood that those "no money down freddie/fanny" loans were dangerous and didn't succumb; I think they should vote.
The silly thing about so many on the left is when they try to tell us they're 'open minded' about the poor and needy, kinder than we are, when we KNOW DAMN WELL that it's FOR VOTES that they give our money away; then those poor dopes who thought they could afford a house if the gov't SAID they could, are now the big losers out on the street...horrible!
Beth, exactly.
Bob...the wife thing is hilarious, thanks for the giggle; NO offense taken! Remember, I'm the girl who says she's a chauvinist pig because she really doesn't like a lot of the women in office or candidates. I"ll never forget when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker...FIRST WOMAN SPEAKER...and she totally blew it by holding up her arms like Popeye as if "I'm like a MAN NOW" ...no dignity, no real female equality. And, why do the women always get KISSED when they meet other politicians? Ted Kennedy wouldn't kiss John Kerry! :-)
Sue, I don't think a lot of those people bused in to voting precincts would have voted, you're right; and don't care if they didn't. But their party does.
Karen..THAT IS SOMETHING I TOTALLY AGREE WITH. WHile I"m iffy on "you can't vote if you don't own property" because there are REALLY FINE AMERICANS who rent....I would absolutely say that you can't vote if you're receiving benefits.
You USED to be in charge until the government assumed responsibility for the MORAL HAZARDs of obesity, laziness, and all other forms of self-destructiveness associated with what was formerly "charity" in order to establish a new Democratic Plantation run by Momocrats.
I agree with most of it, just a few that I kind of winced at. My mom is on Medicaid, she is legally blind and unable to work, she is, however, a hardcore conservative and stays up-to-date on politics. I wouldn't want to take her right to vote. Because she has never missed an election and she is very committed to taking back America.
Joe, well said.
Leticia, I personally don't count Medicare or Medicaid in as a 'freebie'.......I think most of us here are talking about deadbeats.
This list would never happen, of course......but it is worth discussion, I think...especially the part about voting and freebies.
The problem is there are people like your mother and Brooke's mother (See her comment) and obviously there are good Democrat mothers in their situations, too; these people should vote.
It's those who won't work, and don't own property, etc., whose voting should be questioned.
ON the other hand, this is America and we should all vote!
It's a very tough call.
We aren't the people we were back then when people really cared about their country first, and dreaded taking welfare as a sign of weakness or laziness, etc etc....People were actually allowed to be embarrassed in those days; they had a conscience..
what do we do now?
There could be no wasteful government programs, if there were no government.
We aren't the people we were back then when people really cared about their country first...
Until the 1820s/30's, even white men needed a minimum amount of property in order to cast a vote... Tammany Hall changed that, though.
Fj, my comment was aimed more at our morality and our sacrifice; both of which we're sorely lacking these days.
One problem:
I used to live in Government housing and I know for a fact that Government houses are subject to random inspections without warning at any given time.
Yes, subject to, but it rarely happens if at all.
"There could be no wasteful government programs, if there were no government"
Beamish, if there were no government, there would be mob rule. We have to have the rule of law, and enforcement of same.
The problem is, that our Constitution has been turned on it's head.
Post a Comment