Welfare Reform

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Dr. B' date='01 March 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1267499236' post='454676']
the difference being that Fanny & Freddie are not actual people with arms and legs, capable of swinging a pitchfork or sledge hammer.

jumping the gun? why am I not surpised?
[/quote]

Just who do think will underwrite these loans? We the people are feckin' broke... in case you somehow missed that news flash.

It's all the same, home loans, or welfare loans. makes no difference. a loan can't swing a sledge hammer either-just in case you missed that point... or you are proposing a debtor's labour camp/prison for the defaulters. (which I would have to say, is a novel idea, and I am completely on board for that program.) With no means to leverage their lives, and compel repayment, there would be no repayment. Expecting any shows an epic level of naivety.
greedy people are the ones who took out the loans they couldn't afford for houses, then cry when the banks enforce the leverage they held against the loan. Just what would make you think they would suddenly decide to pay the loan back if it were for basic living expences? That is some utopian silliness that is never going to happen. It would be great if people didn't suck, and would actually carry through with their word to pay something back. But they don't. The harsh light of reality makes such a plan unquestionably impossible. I remember early attempts to put people to work rather than on welfare, it was an abysmal failure. There simply are people that will not work if they can find anyone to sponge off of. Change that fact, and then there is hope.

What are you planning to do with the people that would sign up for this free loan when they don't pay it back... which will be the vast majority of them. What criteria are there for the use of the money? Who is going to make sure that loan doesn't turn to NHT, alcohol, what have you? Look at food stamp fraud, that is a very limited, well regulated program, and is wrought with fraud. Letting the same type people show up at the free-money window, then ever expect it to be paid back in any way is just not realistic. I apalud your optimisim, and faith in your fellow man, but your fellow man is just going to step on you.

Want to see them get a job, and quit living off the system? Simple. Stop welfare! shut the tap.
-Require that every person in a family-or living in the same family dwelling, must be a natural born US citizen (likely fix a lot of the problem all by itself).
-Cease any payments to anyone that has a baby on welfare. Require long-acting BC for both male, and female welfare recipients. Require an entry into a DNA database for anyone on the dole, then match any babies born on the dole to the proper father, enforce support using current "dead beat dad" laws. If they can't pay support, they can live in a tent city with the other degenerates.
-Set a hard wall time limit, say 5 years total usage over a lifetime, after that CPS shows up if children are involved, and they are wards of the state until the "parents" provide a proper income. After a given time terminate parental rights, and seek placement with a family that can provide a proper rearing for the children.
-Go to a flat-tax, or VAT with a 10 year levee that can't be changed, and enforce a balanced budget. Use the bureaucracy of the IRS as the new welfare agency. They have the infrastructure, and personality for it.
-Any violation above a minor misdemeanor permanently bans the person from the system. CPS moves in, and takes over the children.
-Any fraud, or attempt to defraud the system is a Federal crime with no plea bargain, and a mandatory 5 years, and permanently bans the criminal from the system. Once released if they move in with another welfare user, that user is also covered with the life ban.

Welfare is not a right. If they don't like the conditions that would be necessary for enrollment in the program, then they don't have to enroll. They could (novel idea here) get a damn job, and take responsibility for their actions, and themselves.


Personally, I think we need some debtor's prisons. I think the UAE has the idea, my hat is off to them!

[Rani]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='02 March 2010 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1267550483' post='454814']
[b]Welfare is not a right. If they don't like the conditions that would be necessary for enrollment in the program, then they don't have to enroll.
[/b]

[/quote]

Bingo!

As I recall from my history, a couple of the basic tenets of socialism is that all members of a Utopian society are supported equally regardless of their particular contribution to that society. The wealth class would be stripped of that wealth which would be redistributed so to establish the support of that society in which all are equal both in status and income. Staying home and raising children would count as a contribution to that society and be considered a "job"........ And that all of the above would be controlled by a benevolent government who would merely at as administrators to that society....

So......... let's see..........

1) We are redistributing income from those who work to support those who don't;
2) We are increasing taxation to support an arbitrary government that seems intent on passing legislation diminishing personal rights in the interest of overall "greater good";

Anybody still think what we're doing counts as democracy?

'Rani

[Dr. B]

[quote name='Venger' date='02 March 2010 - 09:20 AM' timestamp='1267543229' post='454793']
[quote name='Dr. B' date='01 March 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1267499236' post='454676']
the difference being that Fanny & Freddie are not actual people with arms and legs, capable of swinging a pitchfork or sledge hammer.

jumping the gun? why am I not surpised?
[/quote]
what you fail to grasp is we have taught most people on welfare that it will always be there. we have instilled a laziness into a select group of people. the only way to break the cycle is stop helping and let them decide to succeed or fail. There will be causalities but we can beat this.
trust in the fact we are all born to survive
Ray.
[/quote]

I expected that the pragmatist would fail to consider that the first iteration of a true solution requires not finding one which bends and conforms to practical expectations given ever-changing circumstances; but rather a theoretically sound ideal based on optimal conditions. From that ideal - the form; you initiate prudence in adapting it to the situations at hand, with regard to the predominant state . The way in which you are "jumping the gun" is akin to contending that it would be logical to require the purchase of snow tires in the state of Texas because it snowed last Wednesday: Ignoring the climate because of the weather.

Scotsman: Our sentiments are not so dissimilar; but like I said I chimed in being a little too vague about any criteria - I thought that the "/rough idea" would arouse y'all to give me the benefit of the doubt - about institutionalizing a new plan. Truth be told, no, I'm not ready to pretend that I know how to draft a bullet-proof welfare plan, nor am I prepared to defend the notion that such a plan exists. However, on a base rhetorical level I do defend the concept of welfare, but perhaps the "why" is a different subject than the "how"; and I do see a system bogged down with dishonesty and exploitation. I think so far we have established that this is an opt-in system with binding consequences. How far fetched does indentured servitude really sound?

The question then becomes: What is of more value: The assets a man owns or that which he can accomplish through work? Why?
I'm interested in how you respond to that.

[Dr. B]

heads up: legislation is being considered to require drug testing for unemployment and food-stamp recipients. I know FL, OK, AK, and a few other states are considering it on a state level but it might be a national consideration in due time.

[thatonethere]

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. It is a good idea.