Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:20:11 PM EDT
Often I see the map of the blue and red counties overlaid on the United States map. We as a group often believe that riots will break out if the government checks were to stop, at least I know I do. However, has any one ever considered that the politicians and bureaucrats also know what will happen, and most of them live in high population areas. What is to stop them from deciding that the government is only going to continue making the payments to those in the higher population areas and stop the payments to those living in rural America?

For instance, I live in PA. What is to keep the government leaders from deciding on both the state and federal level that each county is now responsible for it's own welfare payments, with the exceptions of the highest population areas like the Philadelphia area, Harrisburg, and Allegheny county (Pittsburgh). The government would have money to buy off their own populations for a while longer, while at the same time causing troubles for areas which have not historically supported large amounts of government regulations or control in the past.

This could be started by simply requiring that anyone who receives a check must make an appointment to show up and be photo registered for fraud prevention (or whatever excuse they want) and simply limit the registration availability to the high population areas. Perhaps this will not happen anyways, but what if it is only the rural areas that end up without checks?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:26:58 PM EDT
The Senate has equal representation for each state, and any law must pass both Houses of Congress in order to be signed into law by the President. I would find it hard to believe that all of the Red states would lose to the few highly populated Blue states when it comes to Senate passage. Also, Senators do not represent a small district (unlike US Reps), so the vote to save their own neighborhood would not hold true. Lastly, we have the filibuster.

Bottom line - no way they can be selective with welfare based on highly populated urban centers.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:40:37 PM EDT
I President Obama hereby issue an executive order that all federal welfare payments are being distributed to only those counties that have a population over one million persons. Payments to all other counties will be regulated and issued by the state government in which those counties reside.

While I do not think this would happen this way, are you saying this could not happen?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:07:42 PM EDT
I have to admit I'm not well versed in how the Federal welfare program is run, but my understanding is the Feds give the money to the states to distribute. Yes?

Also, it would take about a heartbeat length of time for the ACLU to file a lawsuit.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:08:58 PM EDT
if you 'think' the government wont do something, rethink that we have a Government now on the cusp of doing as it damn well pleases and damn the Constitution..

they can and may well allow the system to collapse, much easier to get control over the masses, especially in the major polulation area once under martial law...

never say never...
look to a few of our members and see what they have posted if you dont think local LEO and NAT Guard wont draw arms against American citizens..
Chef
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:23:38 PM EDT
If most large population centers fell into rioting I find it hard to believe that the government can keep all of the high population areas under control with out draconian measures such as would be used by an invading army. They just do not have the manpower to control that many people on a nationwide basis. Furthermore, they have a poor history of doing anything efficiently.

In a disaster today, law enforcement comes from multiple states to help out the affected area. Where are they going to get the people, and the support their people need to control the cities if all the cities are rioting?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:32:50 PM EDT
I don't think the checks will stop. I think they will continue until they are not worth cashing. This will lead to a slower disenfranchisement and will probably result in a more gradual realization that the gravy train is over. I don't think these people will storm out of the city in a mob. I think they will start preying on each other first. I know someone who recently moved from Detroit who explained the current situation like this. "If you are walking down the street and see a mob, run the other way. They are not just young hoodlums. They are grannies and kids too. They will surround you, beat you and take what you have."

IDK if that will happen everywhere or not, but I don't think you can carry enough mags to handle that level of threat. Plus some will shoot back.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:39:08 PM EDT
There's this thing they've taken to doing called "deeming", where, if they don't have the votes to pass an unpopular bill, the majority "Deems" it to have passed without the actual vote. Look to a couple of the latest fiascos for how that works.

And anybody who doesn't think that the fed and state governments aren't already treating citizens as though they were a conquering army hasn't ever had to deal with DHFS, or IRS, or BATFE, or...
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:53:02 PM EDT
There's that pesky little equal protection clause in the Constitution that would prevent "selective" welfare checks.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:01:07 PM EDT
I think it is already happening, but not exactly like the OP suggested, not with Welfare checks.

The current Admin and Dems have done a great job directing Fed. Money to Blue Places.
There is evidence they had GM and Chrysler close down more dealerships in RED states, by a large proportion.
there is evidence that Stimulus money was purposely directed away from Red States, and more to Blue States.

Watch the flow of the money. I find it curious no one has done a big story on this, so far.

The big winners in the Stimulus money game were CA, IL, NY, MA and so on. Democratic liberal strongholds.

I'd be willing to bet that places like TX got far less, on a per capita basis, being they are RED.

It's already afoot. But Obama told us this up front, remember the "Redistribution" word?
He wasn't kidding.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:07:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FredMan:
There's that pesky little equal protection clause in the Constitution that would prevent "selective" welfare checks.


If the constitution was being followed, welfare would be distributed by churches and social organizations. The government would not be involved.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:31:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FredMan:
There's that pesky little equal protection clause in the Constitution that would prevent "selective" welfare checks.


Which they'll ignore with the same aplomb with which they ignore the rest of the Constitution when it gets in their way.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:04:00 PM EDT
Good part is we will all have advice notice before they stop the welfare checks! My guess is that checks that go to things like the G.I bill and disabled Vets will be cut off before they stop giving welfare checks. Stop and think Obama gave a raise to welfare but passed on raising the pay raise for are military.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 7:07:41 AM EDT
I was never implying that I thought the people in Congress would prevent this from happening because it is the "right" thing to do. They would do it because they want to protect their own backside. The people in Congress do whatever they need to in order to maintain their power. That is why they will not allow selective funding of welfare based solely on location.

I agree with one of the posters above in that the process will more likely be a gradual reduction in the benefits either by actual cuts or the deflationary effects of having to fund the "entitlement" programs with borrowed money.

Unless there is some kind of castastrophic event that causes a major disruption to the ability to supply the checks(multiple 9/11 attacks across the country), I find it hard to believe that the gravy train will stop any time soon.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 8:01:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 8:08:00 AM EDT by YaNi05]
Many communist revolutionaries, some who work/have worked for the.gov, have openly admitted that they want a total collapse of the economic system (formerly free market capitalism) in order to start again with a new system (socialism at best, but most likely communism). Taking away welfare checks would be biting the hand that feeds for the majority of politicians in DC. Obama's approval rating is somewhere in the mid 40% range, which corresponds with the percentage of citizens that receive .gov handouts. It would be the ultimate gamble for power. If there wasn't a collapse, they would have shot themselves in the foot and would be voted out the next election. Therefore the scum sucking politicians to would need to guarantee a collapse in the near future (or atleast before the next election) if they started canceling handouts. During the collapse, emergency power would be granted (which would be required to keep the looter class in line), powers which would never be given back.

I wouldn't doubt the socialist/communist think tanks are currently working on plans (if they don't already exist) for a new economic system/ government, just like they started working on the healthcare bill during the 90's under Clintax. If you want to get a chill up your spine read "You Don't Need to be a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows" by Weather Underground to see the goals that communist revolutionaries came up with in the 1950's that would be essential to the overthrow of capitalism (note how many goals have been accomplished). You don't just wake up one morning and decide you're gonna overthrow the last free society on earth...

Link Posted: 9/8/2010 8:39:10 AM EDT
I really expected riots this summer. Unemployment checks stopped for a few weeks and I thought S would HTF
over that. Well it didn't happen So I wonder if it had been welfare checks, then what?
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 8:59:52 AM EDT

Welfare and unemployment checks will never stop.

It would not look good on TV for the politicians, if the military were shooting and rounding up the poor and under-priviledged society that they have created.

Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:10:50 AM EDT
by government checks, do you include military salaries/pensions and federal employees, or just welfare and SSI?

Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:46:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hawk1:
I have to admit I'm not well versed in how the Federal welfare program is run, but my understanding is the Feds give the money to the states to distribute. Yes?

Also, it would take about a heartbeat length of time for the ACLU to file a lawsuit.


The ACLU has a very long history of supporting socialism over freedom. If their socialist allies supported it they would not blink an eye at it.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 1:19:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 1:20:13 PM EDT by Crito]
u cannot say government checks... if money is no good then the government will give food out, so there will no rebellions created by the poor.
where the government gets the food, is another debate
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 2:14:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 2:16:13 PM EDT by godzillamax]
Originally Posted By shooter_gregg:
I don't think the checks will stop. I think they will continue until they are not worth cashing. This will lead to a slower disenfranchisement and will probably result in a more gradual realization that the gravy train is over. I don't think these people will storm out of the city in a mob. I think they will start preying on each other first. I know someone who recently moved from Detroit who explained the current situation like this. "If you are walking down the street and see a mob, run the other way. They are not just young hoodlums. They are grannies and kids too. They will surround you, beat you and take what you have."

IDK if that will happen everywhere or not, but I don't think you can carry enough mags to handle that level of threat. Plus some will shoot back.


Regarding the quote in red, looking at nearly every riot/civil unrest in America over the past 100 years this has been the case. Pretty much once all the ghetto rabble-rousers have had a chance to vent their frustrations and anger and trash and burn some local stores, break some storefront windows, and steal a new TV for themselves they settle down and its back to the welfare line. But, if there is nothing to stop the riot/civil unrest or once all the ghettoites get a new TV and head home to watch Oprah if their welfare check isn't there in the mail on Friday so they can cash it to buy some booze for the weekend then, given time, they would eventually destroy all their own neighborhoods and begin to migrate out to the middle class suburbs.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 2:27:16 PM EDT
They'll shut the schools down before they stop the checks. Ain't gonna happen.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 2:49:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By godzillamax:
Originally Posted By shooter_gregg:
I don't think the checks will stop. I think they will continue until they are not worth cashing. This will lead to a slower disenfranchisement and will probably result in a more gradual realization that the gravy train is over. I don't think these people will storm out of the city in a mob. I think they will start preying on each other first. I know someone who recently moved from Detroit who explained the current situation like this. "If you are walking down the street and see a mob, run the other way. They are not just young hoodlums. They are grannies and kids too. They will surround you, beat you and take what you have."

IDK if that will happen everywhere or not, but I don't think you can carry enough mags to handle that level of threat. Plus some will shoot back.


Regarding the quote in red, looking at nearly every riot/civil unrest in America over the past 100 years this has been the case. Pretty much once all the ghetto rabble-rousers have had a chance to vent their frustrations and anger and trash and burn some local stores, break some storefront windows, and steal a new TV for themselves they settle down and its back to the welfare line. But, if there is nothing to stop the riot/civil unrest or once all the ghettoites get a new TV and head home to watch Oprah if their welfare check isn't there in the mail on Friday so they can cash it to buy some booze for the weekend then, given time, they would eventually destroy all their own neighborhoods and begin to migrate out to the middle class suburbs.


Same thing with taxes you'll have a migration. I lived in greenwood which is just south of IN a few years back. The mayor of Indianapolis along with the city county council jumped property taxes and a few other things up and almos tover night my nice quiet little apartment complex was swimming in lil thugs. Cars kept getting broken into, drunks wandering the parking lots, a couple drug dealers... and it was the same effect in other places near by. But we were just out of Indianapolis/Marion county so the tax situation was more beneficial. And due to increased demandfor the space inthe complex my rent went up substantially when my lease came due. I moved.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 5:45:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MikeSH:
I really expected riots this summer. Unemployment checks stopped for a few weeks and I thought S would HTF
over that. Well it didn't happen So I wonder if it had been welfare checks, then what?


Unemployment checks are for people who actually once held a job. These people are a level above the leeches who refuse to work and ride our coattails with welfare. The welfare types would riot far quicker than the people who are used to working and paying taxes to support the leeches.

I do not buy into the belief that the government would limit welfare to large cities, and let small towns wither. I do not believe that politicians would tailor aid to bigger cities to save their homes/family. 99% of politicians are people of means, and they can afford second homes away from the big cities. They would have government agents who could spirit their families away to safety for them, as well as some advance notice of collapse. There will be no selective welfare, only a slow grind down as they ride it to its end.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:05:48 AM EDT
Does this include farmers, many of whom receive govt checks to either not plant food, or price subsidies? What if many of them say frack it, since I'm not getting my check anymore, I'm a) destroying all this food, or b) not selling it and am going to hold on to it, or c) get out of farming altogether? Who feeds all those folk in the high density areas?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 4:11:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Nocturnal:
The Senate has equal representation for each state, and any law must pass both Houses of Congress in order to be signed into law by the President. I would find it hard to believe that all of the Red states would lose to the few highly populated Blue states when it comes to Senate passage. Also, Senators do not represent a small district (unlike US Reps), so the vote to save their own neighborhood would not hold true. Lastly, we have the filibuster.

Bottom line - no way they can be selective with welfare based on highly populated urban centers.


You seem to be under the mistaken impression the government has to pass a law to change the way the Federal bureaucracy works. Kind of like the EPA wanting to ban lead bullets.
Top Top