Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: gimme1ibertee

This plan is an improvement over what we have now in that it demands some accountability and performance from the recipient, but it still leaves government in charge of administering the welfare assistance. Unlike King Midas, whatever the Gubmint touches sure don’t turn to Gold!

In the old days, there were workhouses for the indigent. This is an idea that we could use today - an employer of last resort.

Also, I remember back in the 50’s, the churches and society ladies raised a lot of money for helping the poor. They also demanded something from the recipients and made sure the recipients were not just useless sponges. We could have it that way again. Why not let everyone have their fun parties and raise money for good causes at the same time? Why let faceless bureaucrats just fritter money away?

The change in welfare over the years was prompted by a loss of religious values. People now are not “deadbeats” or “dopeheads”, they are “sick” or “oppressed”. Personal responsibility is not longer demanded.


31 posted on 06/22/2011 10:21:11 AM PDT by bopdowah ("Unlike King Midas, whatever the Gubmint touches sure don't turn to Gold!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bopdowah
it still leaves government in charge of administering the welfare assistance.

Local or state governments would be in charge,not the feds.Read the contract again carefully.Each state would be in charge.Take it out of the hands of the feds and put it in the hands of a smaller government and things could turn around in a positive way.
38 posted on 06/22/2011 10:38:22 AM PDT by gimme1ibertee ("Criticism......brings attention to an unhealthy state of things"-Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson