What if we cut off all welfare? - Page 3

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What if we cut off all welfare? (Page 3 of 6)

Posted: 6/22/2012 12:52:15 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Inner cities would burn. The food stampless would also be homeless.

First post. FSA will meet head on with police/US Armed Forces, lose, get herded into box cars and will be given some free shit (housing and food and maybe an aspirin) at the FEMA camp. Will there be a Camp Hope, Camp Change and Camp Forward?

Posted: 6/22/2012 12:53:06 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
and take a good honest look at who is in desperate need? the old and infirm, the mentally impaired, the truly needy, and assist only them?
.

Before you even began, you lost this battle.

Charity is not the responsibility of the State.

What TRG said!

"Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot."
-Francisco d. Anconia's (Ayn Rand's) Money Speech in 'Atlas Shrugged'

It is charity when you give from your pocket––when you give from mine, it is theft.

Posted: 6/22/2012 12:54:37 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Written in 1512, and still the most accurate book on how shit works ever written.

http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Penguin-Classics-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0140449159

Here is cliffs notes pertaining to this topic: when a prince must choose between the nobels and the masses, choose the masses. It is very Machiavellian to impoverished the masses, and then provide them with high profile handouts, to gain their loyalty and dependance.

Seriously, if you want to know how the world really works, read this.

True, or easier just take the Golden Rule and do the exact opposite.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:01:47 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
You keep the hood rats happy lest they really get out and vote. Do you really think they are going to lie down and take that fuck no they are going to really get out and vote something fierce because you took their cheese? I shudder to think of the government that would be voted in next after that stupid fucking maneuver.

It would require restoration of godly order first, at least in the proposition of lawful suffrage as you point out, hence the necessity of restoring the meaning of property would necessitate that qualification to vote. That would not be as difficult as you might think, you simply buy them out of their elective franchise.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:05:52 PM EDT

[#5]

Riot cannibalism fire repeat

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:10:00 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You keep the hood rats happy lest they really get out and vote. Do you really think they are going to lie down and take that fuck no they are going to really get out and vote something fierce because you took their cheese? I shudder to think of the government that would be voted in next after that stupid fucking maneuver.

It would require restoration of godly order first, at least in the proposition of lawful suffrage as you point out, hence the necessity of restoring the meaning of property would necessitate that qualification to vote. That would not be as difficult as you might think, you simply buy them out of their elective franchise.

That will never happen the media would call anyone trying that a racist and the liberal organization would demonize anyone that stupid to the point of danger for that persons safety. By the end of that suggestion you would be worse than the KKK and demonized in public to the point of being a non issue.

Politics is finding a balance upset that balance to much and you reap the whirl wind fuck that is Poly-Sci 101 everyone with even some social science schooling knows that.

The only way you really change anything that radically in humanity is with a fucking huge Army and a bunch of weapons if you don't have that then go the fuck home because you aren't changing jack shit.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:13:00 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cities will burn with in 24 hours.

Shovel-Ready jobs for rebuilding the cities?

WIN - WIN??

Lots of people who just lost welfare can fill those "shovel" jobs.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:14:46 PM EDT

[#8]

Ok, after reading all the predictions of what would happen if we ended welfare.......what's the downside?

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:15:49 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
and take a good honest look at who is in desperate need? the old and infirm, the mentally impaired, the truly needy, and assist only them? What if we were to do away with school subsidies of lunch, breakfast, heating allowances, cell phone allowances, food stamps, et al. Would there be people dying in the street? Would there be children starving? I hold no, there would not be. I hold that there would be a renaissance in the job market, that there would be a lowering of the welfare rates, a balancing of the budget and a lowering of the deficit. There would be an incentive to get out and actually work for a living, to better themselves, not just to get by.

Van Jones had got one thing right about this country, we are a wealthy country, we are a very generous country, but we would be much wealthier if we didn't have a goodly portion of the country draining the wealth of the rest of the country by governmental force.

Picture the aftermath of hurricane katrina in every major US city. Masses of people roaming the streets like zombies looking for the next handout. And it wouldn't take them long to figure out there is still food and cash in the suburbs.

It would be major pmag popping time.

A temporary problem with a permanent solution.

Different type of "zombie" apocalypse. For edification: The LA Riots. Odd saying this after that scumbag RK just bought it.
Those Korean owners of those stores protected their property quite well . . . being armed in advance.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:19:29 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
You're talking about the old 'sermon in exchange for soup" deal? Why?
you're right that the secular civil-funded programs would bitch, because a lot of people believe that you are legitimately in need, you shouldn't have to sit through a sermon from someone who is only helping you so they can hold you captive to hear their sermon about saving your soul.

I believe in freedom, I think if you'll reconsider your statements they are concealing a hostility toward religion and failing to take into consideration that statist welfarism is a political religion. If you had an option of freedom, based upon your scenario, and could choose between baptists sermons, methodists sermons, presybeterians sermonds, the atheists union, the humanist guild to get your free meal or an enforced and coercive statist dogma of how much the centralized socialist state can save you?

Sermon for soup is codified today by the Federal government - it's a statist and humanistic sermon.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:20:03 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Ok, after reading all the predictions of what would happen if we ended welfare.......what's the downside?

A shit ton of pissed off people voting in the most socialist government ever seen by the light of day on American soil. Does that sound good?

Whats stopping them from voting nothing. Whats motivating them to vote the loss of their cheese. Do you really think they are going to not vote? You can't stop that and they will have a real good reason to get out and vote.

Do you have any idea at all how many fucking people get benifits. Fuck they would vote in such numbers it would be amazing and scary for anyone who does not like socialism.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:22:04 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

It would require restoration of godly order first, at least in the proposition of lawful suffrage as you point out, hence the necessity of restoring the meaning of property would necessitate that qualification to vote. That would not be as difficult as you might think, you simply buy them out of their elective franchise.

Godly order? Keep your faith in your home and place of worship where it belongs. How hard is that to understand? YOUR choice of faiths should not have any additional recognition in a neutral civil society over anyone elses choice of faiths

Buy someone out of their franchise? NO ONE should be denied the ability to have a say in their own government through their vote.

Quoted:

I believe in freedom, I think if you'll reconsider your statements they are concealing a hostility toward religion and failing to take into consideration that statist welfarism is a political religion. If you had an option of freedom, based upon your scenario, and could choose between baptists sermons, methodists sermons, presybeterians sermonds, the atheists union, the humanist guild to get your free meal or an enforced and coercive statist dogma of how much the centralized socialist state can save you?

Sermon for soup is codified today by the Federal government - it's a statist and humanistic sermon.

See above. Keep your sermons at home and in church. Aid should not be tied to being strong-armed into having to listen to sermons.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:40:20 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've heard them called the custodial class.

The trends are already set up. We're becoming a two tier society. There's a class of people who'll always need someone to support them. No amount of education will pull them up and out.

Unless you paid at least $28,000 in federal taxes last year you are being supported by others. That's the average share per tax-payer of the federal budget.

I have a feeling that a lot of people have a very distorted view of their actual contribution to covering the cost of government. The federal government receives the lion share of its support from a relatively small segment of the population. Everyone else is subsidized to some degree.

Every man, woman, and child, working, retired, and disabled, would have to pay over $11,000 each for the cost of the FEDERAL government to be equally shared. This of course doesn't include the additional cost of state and local governments which varies.

How many on this forum actually paid their fair share? I imagine very few.

Seems like we need to cut government back then!

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:47:57 PM EDT

[#14]

Stick to it and take the pain for a year and the USA would be back on its feet and moving forward.

Posted: 6/22/2012 1:52:41 PM EDT

[#15]

lol "inner cities would burn?" Cut off corporate welfare and see what happens.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:06:05 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It would require restoration of godly order first, at least in the proposition of lawful suffrage as you point out, hence the necessity of restoring the meaning of property would necessitate that qualification to vote. That would not be as difficult as you might think, you simply buy them out of their elective franchise.

Godly order? Keep your faith in your home and place of worship where it belongs. How hard is that to understand? YOUR choice of faiths should not have any additional recognition in a neutral civil society over anyone elses choice of faiths

Buy someone out of their franchise? NO ONE should be denied the ability to have a say in their own government through their vote.

Quoted:

I believe in freedom, I think if you'll reconsider your statements they are concealing a hostility toward religion and failing to take into consideration that statist welfarism is a political religion. If you had an option of freedom, based upon your scenario, and could choose between baptists sermons, methodists sermons, presybeterians sermonds, the atheists union, the humanist guild to get your free meal or an enforced and coercive statist dogma of how much the centralized socialist state can save you?

Sermon for soup is codified today by the Federal government - it's a statist and humanistic sermon.

See above. Keep your sermons at home and in church. Aid should not be tied to being strong-armed into having to listen to sermons.

Don't listen to the sermon then. Move on down the road to the next soup line. Your freedom of choice is intact. But, that's not what you are after, is it?

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:07:29 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Inner cities would burn. The food stampless would also be homeless.

Well yeah, but would there be a down side?

Not seeing a downside. Like pulling off a bandage.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:07:40 PM EDT

[#18]

We would see riots that make previous ones look like playtime on sesame street. Riots would carry on for months, spreading out of the cities. NG in every state would be mobilized and will not be able to contain the violence and destruction. Camps would be created to house the rioters who have been captured and those who are too malnourished to continue rioting. Eventually the rioting will stop if the govt doesn't give in, and we would now have a very large population in camps with nowhere to go. Just picture the crappiest places in Africa. Could possibly cause CWII.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:09:48 PM EDT

[#19]

after about a month of protesting and rioting a bunch of people would get jobs and you would see a MASSIVE political push against illegal immigrants and low skilled legal immigration as well.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:11:03 PM EDT

[#20]

It would be the start of the "REAL" zombie apocalypse.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:14:53 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The riots would start before the ink dried.

GD

This.
We've created a dependent class, a healthy portion of which idolizes a culture of lawlessness.
We're basically bribing them not to commit too many crimes

Speed

This. Id love to see it but know it could never happen

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:18:08 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
lol "inner cities would burn?" Cut off corporate welfare and see what happens.

That sounds good too!

-Price of sugar drops when sugar tarriff ends
-ethanol mandate ends
-GM goes bankrupt finally
-health care paid by individuals personally purchased insurer or with their own funds
-health insurance policies cost less since there are no mandates
-many consumer goods cost less as big-company desired product mandates end
-much much more!!!!

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:20:32 PM EDT

[#23]

First post yet again.

You think fighting a zombie apoc would be hard...

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:21:39 PM EDT

[#24]

The riots would be 100% worth it.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:23:11 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
The riots would start before the ink dried.

GD

I agree.

All the retail grocery store owners would riot first though.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:26:03 PM EDT

[#26]

The people who are generational welfare rats will not get jobs . They will refuse and live in a govt camp, run drugs, drink, rape, gamble. Pretty much what they do now but in a camp instead of section 8 housing. Nothing will change with them, they will continue to get fed and housed by the govt. Many would attempt to enter the job market but the market is hard already for people with education, experience, and no criminal record. How hard do you think it will be for these people to get a job, there are only so many McDonalds. It's really sad, but if you cut it all off right now, things would get worse and would not improve for at least a decade.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:28:31 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok, after reading all the predictions of what would happen if we ended welfare.......what's the downside?

A shit ton of pissed off people voting in the most socialist government ever seen by the light of day on American soil. Does that sound good?

Whats stopping them from voting nothing. Whats motivating them to vote the loss of their cheese. Do you really think they are going to not vote? You can't stop that and they will have a real good reason to get out and vote.

Do you have any idea at all how many fucking people get benifits. Fuck they would vote in such numbers it would be amazing and scary for anyone who does not like socialism.

If they all got shot while rioting, how would they vote?

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:30:47 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
That will never happen the media would call anyone trying that a racist and the liberal organization would demonize anyone that stupid to the point of danger for that persons safety. By the end of that suggestion you would be worse than the KKK and demonized in public to the point of being a non issue.

Politics is finding a balance upset that balance to much and you reap the whirl wind fuck that is Poly-Sci 101 everyone with even some social science schooling knows that.

The only way you really change anything that radically in humanity is with a fucking huge Army and a bunch of weapons if you don't have that then go the fuck home because you aren't changing jack shit.

Not in an instant, no; but a free republic and free enterprise capitalistic system was radically changed to a statist and socialistic one. I think one of the differences in our thought is that you presume a solution comes through the State, when I don't. I believe it comes in spite of and in contradiction to the State. A free society, especially a specialized one, requires progressive decentralization to sustain liberty; in contrast, the progressive centralization squelches liberty and freedom is lost.

There is a need for charitable services and the Church and private philanthropy is the proper ministry to develop them. But restoring qualifications to the electorate would not be as difficult as you portray as the vast majority of people are ready to give up their liberty voluntarily as the existence of our statist socialistic order testifies. They are destroying themselves and we can reliably plan on statism's suicide, we just have to be prepared to pick up the pieces and provide a solution that is marketable.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:32:22 PM EDT

[#29]

Riots are what would happen

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:33:26 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
lol "inner cities would burn?" Cut off corporate welfare and see what happens.

That sounds good too!

-Price of sugar drops when sugar tarriff ends
-ethanol mandate ends
-GM goes bankrupt finally
-health care paid by individuals personally purchased insurer or with their own funds
-health insurance policies cost less since there are no mandates
-many consumer goods cost less as big-company desired product mandates end
-much much more!!!!

Just give capitalism a chance!
Meh, it'll never happen

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:34:55 PM EDT

[#31]

And cut off Ethanol as a gas additive.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:43:14 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
and take a good honest look at who is in desperate need? the old and infirm, the mentally impaired, the truly needy, and assist only them? What if we were to do away with school subsidies of lunch, breakfast, heating allowances, cell phone allowances, food stamps, et al. Would there be people dying in the street? Would there be children starving? I hold no, there would not be. I hold that there would be a renaissance in the job market, that there would be a lowering of the welfare rates, a balancing of the budget and a lowering of the deficit. There would be an incentive to get out and actually work for a living, to better themselves, not just to get by.

Van Jones had got one thing right about this country, we are a wealthy country, we are a very generous country, but we would be much wealthier if we didn't have a goodly portion of the country draining the wealth of the rest of the country by governmental force.

Picture the aftermath of hurricane katrina in every major US city. Masses of people roaming the streets like zombies looking for the next handout. And it wouldn't take them long to figure out there is still food and cash in the suburbs.

It would be major pmag popping time.

good thing I have layed in a goodly supply of Pmags, ammo and ARs.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:44:24 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
You can't cut off welfare.

Why? Because cities would burn and politicians know it. It would cost more to rebuild the infrastructure from the looting and rioting that would follow.

I'm not saying all welfare recipients are bad. I've known a few where I'm from and they needed help to get through a hard time or two. But for the most part, especially in large cities, you have a large population of people who think they deserve the "gimmies" every month. The politicians have used this money to keep themselves in power and we are now to a point in this country where with so many taking from it, coupled with the entitlement mentality, we are now a nation that is held hostage by the welfare system. These people shit where they eat. look at everything given to them. It's never enough and it's trashed anyway.

"Pay up or we burn this mother to the ground!"

We've got a lot of people out there bored, with nothing to lose, just waiting to have a go at whatever they can get. All they need is the right "excuse". Take away that "free money" and it will be like throwing a match in a pool of gasoline.

gee, we either do it or we auger in.

This country seemed to get along very well before LBJ's Great Society, or FDRs New Deal, all those two managed to do was weaken our country to garner votes. we are now in the longest down turn since the Great Depression which was the longest. FDR had the Great Depression and Obama is reigning over the current debacle, both used the same tactics with much the same result.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:45:58 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
and take a good honest look at who is in desperate need? the old and infirm, the mentally impaired, the truly needy, and assist only them? What if we were to do away with school subsidies of lunch, breakfast, heating allowances, cell phone allowances, food stamps, et al. Would there be people dying in the street? Would there be children starving? I hold no, there would not be. I hold that there would be a renaissance in the job market, that there would be a lowering of the welfare rates, a balancing of the budget and a lowering of the deficit. There would be an incentive to get out and actually work for a living, to better themselves, not just to get by.

Van Jones had got one thing right about this country, we are a wealthy country, we are a very generous country, but we would be much wealthier if we didn't have a goodly portion of the country draining the wealth of the rest of the country by governmental force.

Picture the aftermath of hurricane katrina in every major US city. Masses of people roaming the streets like zombies looking for the next handout. And it wouldn't take them long to figure out there is still food and cash in the suburbs.

It would be major pmag popping time.

A temporary problem with a permanent solution.

My impression too.

Posted: 6/22/2012 2:48:42 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
The people who are generational welfare rats will not get jobs . They will refuse and live in a govt camp, run drugs, drink, rape, gamble. Pretty much what they do now but in a camp instead of section 8 housing. Nothing will change with them, they will continue to get fed and housed by the govt. Many would attempt to enter the job market but the market is hard already for people with education, experience, and no criminal record. How hard do you think it will be for these people to get a job, there are only so many McDonalds. It's really sad, but if you cut it all off right now, things would get worse and would not improve for at least a decade.

It would be worth the wait......

Posted: 6/22/2012 3:54:49 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
And cut off Ethanol as a gas additive contaminant.

FIFY

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:13:18 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I've heard them called the custodial class.

The trends are already set up. We're becoming a two tier society. There's a class of people who'll always need someone to support them. No amount of education will pull them up and out.

Unless you paid at least $28,000 in federal taxes last year you are being supported by others. That's the average share per tax-payer of the federal budget.

I have a feeling that a lot of people have a very distorted view of their actual contribution to covering the cost of government. The federal government receives the lion share of its support from a relatively small segment of the population. Everyone else is subsidized to some degree.

Every man, woman, and child, working, retired, and disabled, would have to pay over $11,000 each for the cost of the FEDERAL government to be equally shared. This of course doesn't include the additional cost of state and local governments which varies.

How many on this forum actually paid their fair share? I imagine very few.

Seems like we need to cut government back then!

LOL

I think if EVERYONE got an equal bill for it we'd have more support. Right now, all we have is people bitching about OTHER people's government and not their own.

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:22:49 PM EDT

[#38]

It was explained to me like this. You should view the free housing and welfare as a bribe you/we have to pay to keep the animals in their zoo. When does a wild animal become dangerous? When it is hungry.

So, if we cut off the welfare, the animals will come to see us at OUR houses and take from us what was previously given to them by the government.

I have said before and say again that you will see the military, police, firemen, EMS, road construction, IRAs and MANY other groups/programs cut before you ever see ONE PENNY of welfare cut.

Of course, one of the first things the animals will do is burn down their OWN FREE HOUSES that your and my tax dollars have paid for. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

Now all it would take to stop this shit would be for the military/national guard to shoot a few dozen JUST ONE TIME IN ONE RIOT AREA and the shit would stop everywhere but this will NEVER happen, of course, so the welfare will keep flowing to the inner cities like manna from heaven.

Sorry if this post seems harsh but it is what it is. And they would come to your house regardless if you are black, white, hispanic or purple, for that matter. This welfare culture of the inner cities is a different world.

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:23:25 PM EDT

[#39]

Sounds good to me. I feel for the truly disabled, the mentally ill, and neglected children. Anyone that can work and chooses not too needs to starve.

AS for the idea of riots, meh, not to worried. I survived Iraq I will survive a bunch of retards burning down walmart.

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:33:06 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Unless you paid at least $28,000 in federal taxes last year you are being supported by others. That's the average share per tax-payer of the federal budget.

I have a feeling that a lot of people have a very distorted view of their actual contribution to covering the cost of government. The federal government receives the lion share of its support from a relatively small segment of the population. Everyone else is subsidized to some degree.

Every man, woman, and child, working, retired, and disabled, would have to pay over $11,000 each for the cost of the FEDERAL government to be equally shared. This of course doesn't include the additional cost of state and local governments which varies.

How many on this forum actually paid their fair share? I imagine very few.

I did. and have for years. How about this scenario. Say you own a commercial property that rents for 5K a month. Say the tax on that property is over 13 grand a year. What else in this life , in the USA would we allow a 20 per cent tax on every fucking month? Not to mention all the city cocksuckers bleeding it out a hundred at a time. Feds ? take at least 15% off the top of anything left after the rest. This doesnt even include personal income taxes. Evil corporation must pay. then the evil owners must pay again.

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:42:12 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Unless you paid at least $28,000 in federal taxes last year you are being supported by others. That's the average share per tax-payer of the federal budget.

I have a feeling that a lot of people have a very distorted view of their actual contribution to covering the cost of government. The federal government receives the lion share of its support from a relatively small segment of the population. Everyone else is subsidized to some degree.

Every man, woman, and child, working, retired, and disabled, would have to pay over $11,000 each for the cost of the FEDERAL government to be equally shared. This of course doesn't include the additional cost of state and local governments which varies.

How many on this forum actually paid their fair share? I imagine very few.

I did. and have for years. How about this scenario. Say you own a commercial property that rents for 5K a month. Say the tax on that property is over 13 grand a year. What else in this life , in the USA would we allow a 20 per cent tax on every fucking month? Not to mention all the city cocksuckers bleeding it out a hundred at a time. Feds ? take at least 15% off the top of anything left after the rest. This doesnt even include personal income taxes. Evil corporation must pay. then the evil owners must pay again.

I feel your pain. The problem is the vast majority of Americans, as well as those on this board, do not pay that much in taxes to the federal government. Hell, 47% don't even pay federal income taxes. That's what makes spending federal money so easy.

Its one of the many evils of a progressive tax system. Spending OTHER people's money.

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:47:15 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've heard them called the custodial class.

The trends are already set up. We're becoming a two tier society. There's a class of people who'll always need someone to support them. No amount of education will pull them up and out.

Unless you paid at least $28,000 in federal taxes last year you are being supported by others. That's the average share per tax-payer of the federal budget.

I have a feeling that a lot of people have a very distorted view of their actual contribution to covering the cost of government. The federal government receives the lion share of its support from a relatively small segment of the population. Everyone else is subsidized to some degree.

Every man, woman, and child, working, retired, and disabled, would have to pay over $11,000 each for the cost of the FEDERAL government to be equally shared. This of course doesn't include the additional cost of state and local governments which varies.

How many on this forum actually paid their fair share? I imagine very few.

gee, and what if we didn't actually have a burgeoning underclass of layabouts who produce nothing (except children who in turn produce nothing but children) what do you think our debt would be? Fine you want to go fair share everyone , and I mean everyone starts to pay the same rate of taxes no bottom cut off, no deduction for property and every one has to produce, get or job or they go hungry. Hunger through the ages has been the greatest stimulate to get off your ass and feed yourself, that could be the only stimulation we need. The Brits became in part, an economic powerhouse by putting off a family, keeping the family to a managable number of kids, and saving their money. When it took a slide is when they ended the reliance on traditional charities and started to depend on the government, as did ours.If you can't feed your baby mommas and all your welp with a minimum wage job great it is a great inducement to get your self going or to stop the behavior that put you in the jam in the first place.

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:53:13 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
The riots would start before the ink dried.
GD

overtime

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:53:20 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I think it was the sociologist Jürgen Habermas who argued that governments "buy" peace and social order from their citizenry with subsidies, entitlements and other income transfers.
Therefore, no more welfare = no more pacified population = disorder and shenanigans.

I think you got the last part of the equality equation wrong.

no welfare = no pacified population = citizens question what true freedom is = citizens require a smaller government that works for them

When people are pacified they don't really care how much it costs to run a government or how involved a government is in their life. In a way it's like people and dogs. Naturally, dogs are wild and free, they expect nothing of man. They are actually afraid of man. Man feeds and shelters dogs. Slowly changing it's perception of freedom. No longer are other dogs required for packs, man takes that position. Man selectively breeds the dogs that are more easily controlled until he creates breeds that look as man wants it to look, does what man want it to do, and doesn't know real freedom. Government=man as man=dog

What you will see from the complete removal of welfare would be similar to what happens to dogs when they are dumped and abandoned in the backwoods. They know not how to fend for themselves and they will still see man as a food source but they will become wild and take food by force. They will no longer respect man and they will require being put down.

I know there are many people that truly love their dogs and won't understand the above.
In away we all have given up some freedom to become domesticated and create society with a government.

Posted: 6/22/2012 4:57:51 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Don't listen to the sermon then. Move on down the road to the next soup line. Your freedom of choice is intact. But, that's not what you are after, is it?

I'm after someone who wants to help without the ulterior motive of sermonizing.

Quoted:

There is a need for charitable services and the Church and private philanthropy is the proper ministry to develop them. But restoring qualifications to the electorate would not be as difficult as you portray as the vast majority of people are ready to give up their liberty voluntarily as the existence of our statist socialistic order testifies. They are destroying themselves and we can reliably plan on statism's suicide, we just have to be prepared to pick up the pieces and provide a solution that is marketable.

Nothings stopping you now if you want to work with private charity to help people

You continue to advocate for removing peoples freedoms. How would you like it if someone deemed that YOU should be disenfranchised?

Never mind

*click*

Posted: 6/22/2012 5:07:19 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think it was the sociologist Jürgen Habermas who argued that governments "buy" peace and social order from their citizenry with subsidies, entitlements and other income transfers.
Therefore, no more welfare = no more pacified population = disorder and shenanigans.

I think you got the last part of the equality equation wrong.

no welfare = no pacified population = citizens question what true freedom is, citizens require a smaller government that works for them

When people are pacified they don't really care how much it costs to run a government or how involved a government is in their life. In a way it's like people and dogs. Naturally, dogs are wild and free, they expect nothing of man. They are actually afraid of man. Man feeds and shelters dogs. Slowly changing it's perception of freedom. No longer are other dogs required for packs, man takes that position. Man selectively breeds the dogs that are more easily controlled until he creates breeds that look as man wants it to look, does what man want it to do, and doesn't know real freedom. Government=man as man=dog

What you will see from the complete removal of welfare would be similar to what happens to dogs when they are dumped and abandoned in the backwoods. They know not how to fend for themselves and they will still see man as a food source but they will become wild and take food by force. They will no longer respect man and they will require being put down.

I know there are many people that truly love their dogs and won't understand the above.
In away we all have given up some freedom to become domesticated and create society with a government.

What we have now is not what the founders had in mind, they did not desire us to be a pack of wild dogs. They envisioned us to be free, in the freest country possible, too bad because we have fucked it up. That does not mean that we can't turn it around, a start would be to dismantle the welfare system, not to regulate it, not to modify it, but to dismantle it. If it takes some pain so be it gerations counnt on us.

Posted: 6/22/2012 5:17:26 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I've heard them called the custodial class.

The trends are already set up. We're becoming a two tier society. There's a class of people who'll always need someone to support them. No amount of education will pull them up and out.

Unless you paid at least $28,000 in federal taxes last year you are being supported by others. That's the average share per tax-payer of the federal budget.

I have a feeling that a lot of people have a very distorted view of their actual contribution to covering the cost of government. The federal government receives the lion share of its support from a relatively small segment of the population. Everyone else is subsidized to some degree.

Every man, woman, and child, working, retired, and disabled, would have to pay over $11,000 each for the cost of the FEDERAL government to be equally shared. This of course doesn't include the additional cost of state and local governments which varies.

How many on this forum actually paid their fair share? I imagine very few.

gee, and what if we didn't actually have a burgeoning underclass of layabouts who produce nothing (except children who in turn produce nothing but children) what do you think our debt would be? Fine you want to go fair share everyone , and I mean everyone starts to pay the same rate of taxes no bottom cut off, no deduction for property and every one has to produce, get or job or they go hungry. Hunger through the ages has been the greatest stimulate to get off your ass and feed yourself, that could be the only stimulation we need. The Brits became in part, an economic powerhouse by putting off a family, keeping the family to a managable number of kids, and saving their money. When it took a slide is when they ended the reliance on traditional charities and started to depend on the government, as did ours.If you can't feed your baby mommas and all your welp with a minimum wage job great it is a great inducement to get your self going or to stop the behavior that put you in the jam in the first place.

I don't think many could. They don't produce enough to pay $28,000 to the federal government, on top of all the other taxes they pay. The only solution IS to cut government.

But cutting just "welfare" alone will not save us. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the really big entitlement and big government programs.

Posted: 6/22/2012 5:23:53 PM EDT

[#48]

Drop welfare spending and SS/DI/Medicare and we can cut half of the federal budget. Who couldn't do with 50% less taxes?

Posted: 6/22/2012 5:26:53 PM EDT

[#49]