Posted on 12/16/2011 7:45:27 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Welfare workers are constantly trying to figure out how to make their jobs effective, how to do something to actually combat poverty. Their jobs are very high-stress, so they often meet after work on Fridays, when happy hours encourage them to philosophize.
If only the clients had to look for work -- no, they're already under such a requirement. If the government built more public housing so the slumlords didn't grab every increase in benefits -- no, that's been tried. If food stamps and cash assistance were combined into one check -- no, that resulted in a class action suit, and threatened the criminal economy. There must be some way the welfare system can actually assist the poor.
Happily, there is an answer: shut it down. No, don't just suddenly chain the doors of the welfare office closed, as some workers suggest at the end of happy hour. Do a gradual shutdown that eliminates the system and its whole bureaucracy over a period of eighteen years -- a shutdown that salvages logistical resources and allows people to learn to take care of themselves at a rational pace.
First step: recognize that the entire concept of state and national public assistance is a mistake. Just like bilingual education, the War on Poverty is a beautiful theory that just doesn't work in reality. People are better off getting local assistance for verifiable emergencies, but to improve their general lifestyle, they are much better off if left to suffer the consequences of their behavior.
Just as children learn a target language more quickly on the playground with speakers of that language than they do in structured classes, people living in poverty learn to get away from it -- if they want -- much more quickly by suffering its disadvantages
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Apparently you haven’t been listening to Professor Gingrich. We are supposed to offer people a free choice of better foreign aid, corporate and farm subsidies, non-performing federal agencies.
Get with the program, okay? /s
Tough love, baby...
Personally, I don’t think better big government is a conservative argument.
I don't have to pretend.
I spent years in school, studying hard stuff.
Calculus, differential equations, stuff like that.
Spent years after that, going to bed early, no Midnight Basketball, getting up in the morning and going to work.
On a regular basis.
That's why I'm not poor.
“It could be you next week, don’t you see that?”
No, it would not be me next week. I follow Dave Ramsey’s advice. I consume far less than I produce. I save. I build wealth. God bless the American Dream.
One of the better typos this month.
Based on my years in the navy and a year working for a government contractor, I'd estimate that $500 or so of that $600 was spent for contract compliance and government-mandated testing.
True, some are. There are also those who pride themselves in 'getting over' on 'the system'.
For the former, I'd wager few of their parents were ever on 'assistance', and in the latter group, I'd wager most of their parents were on welfare at one point or another, or perhaps consistently.
There was a time when self sufficiency, when supporting a family, was the general goal of most Americans, and in some quarters, that ethic survives.
In others, sadly, the destruction of the nuclear family (Mom, Dad, and kids) is virtually complete, and the stripping of religious reference from public exposure has not helped those who are seeking guidance despite the clause "...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment.
The influences of television and pop culture are generally in the wrong direction as well.
For those who want better, there is better, but they cannot stay in the inner city and expect it to come to them. They either have to make it happen (tough to do with all the regulation out there favoring the status quo, not to mention cultural inertia), or they have to relocate and build a life for themselves. The latter is not easy, but it can be done. Productive people are sympathetic toward those who genuinely want to be productive people, too, and would much rather give a hand up than a handout.
I have met people from all over the US who have come here in search of work and found it. It isn't easy, but they are doing it, not just here, but in other areas where the oil and gas industry are going strong.
The biggest obstacles I have seen people run into are not being able to pass a drug test, wanting a paycheck but not work, and feeling entitled to a corner office on day one.
Here, for the next few months, the winter weather is an obstacle as well (you can't sleep in your car until the first couple of paychecks come in).
Most of that should be gone in 18 months, imho.
Auto correct. There is a website about auto correct and its hilarious. I think its damnautocorrect.com.
Yes, I see that. I have been there and didn't get the T-shirt.
This is why I am sympathetic toward a hand, but not an ongoing handout. I shovelled snow to feed my grandkids one winter and worked temporary jobs through the holidays (waaay 'underemployed') to meet the bills. People paid me for working, not to sit on my butt and whine.
For those who can't relocate, get on a 'spot jobs' list, put an ad in the local freebie newspaper for odd jobs.
You'll get the nastiest work available at the worst times. The pay might not be great, but it is something. But if you do those jobs without complaint and as well as you can, it may lead to more (one of my 1-week 'temporary' jobs ran three months, paying just enough to meet the pared-down budget, and I left on great terms to start my own business).
The point is, taxpayers should not be providing you with a permanent living. Assistance for a short time while you find a job or MOVE TO WHERE THERE ARE JOBS, is acceptable. As far as pumping out babies like it’s a contest, not on the taxpayers dime! There is no such thing as accidental pregnancy, we have known what causes it for decades now. Probably be a good idea to get that birth control implant as long as you are on the dole, and remove it when you are off.
My most radical idea, is to set up government stores in every major city where bread is baked and milk is bottled. Farmers, restaurants and charities would donate other food goods. If you want the food, you have to volunteer and work at the store to get the goods. Work, get tokens, trade tokens for goods. Think that is harsh? You don’t HAVE to participate, If you want brand name processed products, you are free to buy them like everybody else. What if you had a relative on this program? Wouldn’t it motivate extended family members to buy groceries for those they love? This is for survival only to prevent you and your family from starving. It is SUPPOSED to be uncomfortable so you will improve your situation.
The whole shebang isn’t going to last for 18 more years, point is moot.
You can buy milk (Not flavored), dry beans or peanut butter, whole grain bread or other whole grains, eggs, cheese, juice, tuna, and fresh fruit and veggies. That is pretty much it. No pop, no coffee, no sugar, no prepared foods, no meat, no ice cream. It is one of the only programs that has these restrictions and is one of the few where the money is actually mostly spent the way it should be.
It was probably a food stamp card. That is an entirely different animal.
Thank you for the correction! Having both numerous Franklin bios and Shakespeare's complete works on my shelf, I'm abashed!
The phrase “one by each” comes from a line in the Charles Bronson movie Breakheart Pass, in which the villain, who’s overpowered an Army fort, threatens to slaughter his hostages. He says he’ll kill “the bluebellies one by each.” He’ll get to them all, one at a time. In this case, my post meant let’s cut all the wasteful spending in time, but you’ve got to start somewhere.
Thanks. The well wishes are most welcome. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.