Article

2010-07-14 -Short Attention Span Theater-

You want/need welfare? No problemo. Just surrender your right to vote.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-14 00:19|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Welfare was probably a well intentioned idea that just got lost along the way. Nobody wants people dying in the streets of the wealthiest nation in the world. It should be temporary and with many strings attached though. If you get a check you are either working, training for a better/more useful role in society, or some other offset to the cost of supporting you. No more permanent welfare, no more cash welfare, no more excuses from Sacramento or any other state capital. Combine that with the fact that we're broke anyway and you have an even better reason to choke them off the teat. As for letting them vote, I don't think that would stop the flow of money. Only bankruptcy will do that, unfortunately we're at the threshold now.

Posted by bigjim-CA 2010-07-14 01:32|| 2010-07-14 01:32|| Front Page Top

#2 This is an old idea, which doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea. One person, one vote is a relatively new system. Prior to that the franchise was based on being a property owner, taxpayer.

One person, one vote is largely responsible for the dire finacial straits most governments find themselves in.

In a democracy there are 2 constituencies, the people the government bribes to get their vote and the people who pay the taxes to pay for the bribes.

A rational strategy for politicians is to always increase the bribes and therefore taxes, because the bribe recievers always outnumber the taxpayers.

Of course, longer term this leads to financial disaster of the type we are currently experiencing.

Posted by phil_b 2010-07-14 01:42|| 2010-07-14 01:42|| Front Page Top

#3 I believe we are all fully aware of how we have progressed to the current system. I wish you all the very best of luck in your efforts to change it.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-07-14 01:46|| 2010-07-14 01:46|| Front Page Top

#4 I'd agree with Besoeker, but add that the far greater problem to my mind is the epidemic of illegitimacy that has accompanied the establishment of entitlements. If they want their welfare check, make them report to a physical location where they are administered a birth control injection before receiving their check. Multiple administrations of the injection might even have deleterious health consequences. Like unwanted facial hair and manboobs.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-07-14 05:47|| 2010-07-14 05:47|| Front Page Top

#5 Intriguing, but I think you overlooked the proverbial 600 lb. gorilla.

Namely, SSA/FICA are taxes too, and I suspect the half of American citizens don't pay taxes doesn't include those payments as "taxes". It thinks they are "contributions".

More interesting yet is the study which shows that 100% of our taxes (including SS/FICA) pay only for SS, Medicare and Medicaid - in essence, every other government expenditure is debt/deficit-financed.

I've long thought a more interesting idea is to change or eliminate withholding and force taxpayers to write a monthly check for amounts owed. Let's call it "reform".

It would certainly change the paradigm and make everyone consider taxes more like utility, cable TV, credit card and similar obligations. Namely, repeated, frequent and continual focus on what are we getting for our payments rather than the once a year or once every few years election focus.

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-07-14 08:35|| 2010-07-14 08:35|| Front Page Top

#6 Here's an easier idea. Force everyone to memorize the Gettysburg Address. Our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights) define what we are, but the Gettysburg Address defines why we are: a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Posted by Spot 2010-07-14 08:37|| 2010-07-14 08:37|| Front Page Top

#7 Spot, why not that AND gorb's idea. Toss in the idea "you don't work, you don't eat".

Posted by Rob Crawford 2010-07-14 09:54|| 2010-07-14 09:54|| Front Page Top

#8 I think this is a great idea. Some additional proposals:

1) Make it so that if 1/3 of their income is from an 'unearned' source (welfare)they give up their voting rights. Note that for this definitions SS is'earned' as is 'unemployment' (people can debate weather 'unemployment extensions' are...).

2) Require that everyone re-register, in person, with positive photo id once every 4 years (this is done with drivers licenses...). This will definitely help clean up the rolls.

3) And of course require positive photo ID at the polling place.

4) Require people to vote at a polling place, unless they are truly absent or physically unable. I think if people have to put some effort into it - they will value it more (and maybe even use a few brain cells...)

Of course all this would be called 'racist' and 'disenfranchising' by the liberals and the lapdog media.

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-07-14 09:59|| 2010-07-14 09:59|| Front Page Top

#9 Kill that idea dead. The first thought that would cross the mind of a villain would be to make welfare "mandatory", for their political enemies, and exempt their friends on welfare from any limits on voting.

And the "welfare" given to their political enemies would amount to less than nothing. Mail delivery is "welfare", as is military and police "protection", highways are welfare as well as all other government services.

VA loans are "welfare", as are student loans to white kids. Any subsidized medical care is "welfare" as well, including your doctor's student loans.

Another rule of the Chicago Way, is that the "boss" gets everything, some of which he doles out to his machine. And the opposition gets *nothing* from "the government", even things that everybody is supposed to get.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-07-14 10:21|| 2010-07-14 10:21|| Front Page Top

#10 We have public housing here as other places. People who live in public housing are on a sliding scale for rent. If they improve their income by working harder or getting promoted or working two jobs, they have to pay more rent. The policy sucks and tends to keep people stuck in public housing. I think the policy is designed to make people beholden to government and to insure votes for those who give out the benefits.

If you get a check you are either working, training for a better/more useful role in society, or some other offset to the cost of supporting you.

This is a good idea. If a helping hand is offered, it ought to be a hand up and out of dependency.

Many people run into difficulties and need public support occasionally until they can get back on their feet. In other cases, there are people who are permanently disabled who need help. I don't think these people should be denied voting rights.

Chronic, long-term welfare where people are having babies just to "draw" as a way of life should be discouraged--particularly where this starts to span generations. If there is no movement out of this mire even though help such as training, etc. has been provided, then maybe voting rights should be suspended and earned back. However, this is a real thorny issue.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-07-14 10:24|| 2010-07-14 10:24|| Front Page Top

#11 Change tax deadline day to the Monday before Election Day.

Or change general election day to April 16th.

Posted by charger 2010-07-14 11:15|| 2010-07-14 11:15|| Front Page Top

#12 Solve another problem, too.

Anyone receiving a government paycheck - from military to civil service to LEO & firefighters to welfare recipients to professors gettring grant money etc. - must be enrolled in a random drug testing program.

First failed exam gets a warning. Second gets a removal of your funding and a ban on ever receiving a public sector check again, for life, no exceptions, as well as a lifetime ban on the right to vote.

Any cost of testing will be more than offset by the decrease in "drug war" costs.

Posted by no mo uro 2010-07-14 11:19|| 2010-07-14 11:19|| Front Page Top

#13 I have a two-step program to keep taxes in check, too:

1) No taxes except income taxes
2) All your paychecks go straight to the government until your taxes for the year are paid.

If necessary:
3) Lamppost, rope, politician. Batteries not included, some assembly required.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-14 11:46|| 2010-07-14 11:46|| Front Page Top

#14 We are now at the brink of this situation, since half of American citizens don't pay taxes.

This statement irritates me. It simply isn't true.

Half of American citizens may not be paying federal income tax, but they most certainly are paying taxes.

Sales tax. Property tax (directly or indirectly through the rent). Utility taxes. Gasoline tax. One could go on.

I don't have a problem with a progressive income tax, and I don't have a problem with people at the bottom of the economic ladder paying little or no income tax. Let the poor keep more of their income and they'll do better. That's a conservative, not a progressive, notion. Instead of larding out welfare benefits, keep taxes low for everyone and lower for the poor.

With that, I've junked what this author had to say.

Posted by Steve White 2010-07-14 13:10|| 2010-07-14 13:10|| Front Page Top

#15 Sales tax. Property tax (directly or indirectly through the rent). Utility taxes. Gasoline tax. One could go on.

These are taxes you pay no matter what. I'm not really including them in the idea. I know people who are receiving tons of welfare, which is bumped up to cover these taxes.

And with that, I have restored what I the author had to say.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-14 13:26|| 2010-07-14 13:26|| Front Page Top

#16 The more I think about tying voting rights to whether or not one is on welfare the more my gut tells me this is a bad idea.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-07-14 14:59|| 2010-07-14 14:59|| Front Page Top

#17 Does your gut also tell you why it seems bad?

Posted by gorb 2010-07-14 15:19|| 2010-07-14 15:19|| Front Page Top

#18 Tough call. I see what you are getting at and have had the same thought. I have seen personally welfare work and get abused. Those two experiences specifically, and a number of others positive and negative, have me favor an approach where a person can collect only so much over a reach of time; similar to the points system for driving violations.

There are many layers of welfare: Tax refund, unemployment from fired/layoff, food assistance, COBRA, so forth. Does SS/MC count?

State of Kansas proposed mandatory drug testing for those who collect welfare, though it is still AKAIK pending and IMHO vague on at what level of assistance this testing would kick in.

It would be that same question I would ask for this topic: at what point would this kick in, and then what needs to be done to requalify?

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-07-14 15:39|| 2010-07-14 15:39|| Front Page Top

#19 Heinlein tied voting rights to public service. The proven record that each citizen has at one time provided service to something other than himself / herself. He described it as not perfect, but very much better than any system that came before.

Posted by Rob06 2010-07-14 15:41|| 2010-07-14 15:41|| Front Page Top

#20 I have seen personally welfare work and get abused.

I'm not trying to punish people for using welfare. I have used it myself. I am just toying with the idea of a parallel welfare/capitalist system that works together for the greater good.

Each citizen chooses the track that suits them and reaps the benefits and pays the prices.

I'm just trying to keep those on welfare from being a burden, and I'm trying to keep them from voting themselves more welfare.

I know my idea is full of holes, but I didn't have 2700 pages to flesh it out like some folks do. And even then, it's full of holes!

Posted by gorb 2010-07-14 15:51|| 2010-07-14 15:51|| Front Page Top

#21 Fair question Gorb.

Many people receive SSI. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and

It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

It doesn't seem like these people should be denied the vote because they receive this form of welfare.

Presently, people who have been prosecuted for a criminal offense lose their voting rights. People on welfare are not criminals. Even criminals can restore their voting rights.

Medicare often looks like welfare. Suppose a retiree gets a catastrophic illness such as cancer. Treatment may cost more than a person paid into Medicare or ever will.

Should they be denied the vote?

Working for the government at times looks like another part of the welfare system. People are getting paid for doing little to nothing. Some people watch p0rn and get a check while others work hard.

It is not likely these people will be denied the vote.

I think it is dangerous to democracy to deny classes of people the vote based on whether or not they get some or all of their income from the government. Income testing might suggest that a person with the most money would be more qualified to vote. That is not necessarily true. That said...

Congress critters serve at the will of the people (supposedly). I think Congressmen and women who don't read bills should not be allowed to vote on the bills--thus denied the vote. They should be kicked out of the job.

I think voters should be required to be informed and knowledgeable about the candidates, issues, and the workings of our government. Maybe this should be the criteria for voting.

I don't think we should foster a climate of continuous welfare often across generations. People should be given an opportunity to get out of the welfare system--a hand up and out.

Current housing assistance tends to keep a person stuck and mired in the welfare system. If you try to better yourself by working harder, your rent increases and you are never make enough to get out into your own house or rent a place. This is not a good policy.

I think people in organizations such as ACORN who try to sign up people to vote multiple times should lose their voting rights for life. People who intimidate others at the polls should lose their voting rights for life.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-07-14 16:13|| 2010-07-14 16:13|| Front Page Top

#22 Yes, these are things I was thinking about. Maybe someone here has solutions to allow these two systems to live in the same box and help each other rather than one being a net drag on the other as it is today. And there are many shades of grey between what we have today and a pure dual-track socialist/capitalist system. Maybe voting rights could be restricted to issues that are not a conflict of interest.

This idea is not perfect. Neither is the system we live in now. But I'll bet this way could be made to work substantially better.

As for criminals losing their voting rights, that's another issue entirely. I certainly wouldn't want to imply that having one's voting rights changed would make them a criminal!

And certainly military folks who are injured and voting rights would be an issue, but they should be supported anyway so it shouldn't be much of a problem.

The problem with exceptions is that as soon as you make one, everyone on the planet suddenly starts taking advantage of it.

If the two systems coexisted, it may not be so bad, even if the socialist folks couldn't buy the nicer things in life unless they joined the capitalist system. At least they wouldn't have to run around worrying about where they could make their next buck, they would be told where to work! Even the do-nothings would have to do something productive, and not spend their excessive welfare on the latest phones, fashions, organic salmon and what-not.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-14 16:50|| 2010-07-14 16:50|| Front Page Top

#23 Gorb, I agree with what you say more than I disagree. I think by posing the question, you have gotten us to thinking about solutions.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-07-14 17:08|| 2010-07-14 17:08|| Front Page Top

#24 We as a country can't continue in the direction we are heading.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-07-14 17:12|| 2010-07-14 17:12|| Front Page Top

#25 Didn't think you were gorb. I agree with JohnQC that the way this is all currently setup has an ending; not sustainable. Like I said, had some game theory on it which included olde Athens vs modern Athens, spent some time on this consideration. Spent some more time last night talking to a buddy; both agreed that there is too much reward for failure out there. Know a guy who was a solid worker until he turned into a party screwup and was fired. "Why get a job, I make as much now as I did working." That is not work ethic that is laziness, and that is the spiritual battle as a nation and culture panning out right now. Funemployment is the battlecry for the Forces of Sloth.

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-07-14 17:32|| 2010-07-14 17:32|| Front Page Top

#26 "Nobody wants people dying in the streets of the wealthiest nation in the world."

Why does the individual wealth of the citizens of this nation have anything to do with that, jim? Some people/businesses are wealthier than others because they're smarter, or harder-working, or occasionally just plain lucky.

There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to confiscate one person's money and fork it over to another person (after taking a large cut, of course), particularly one who won't work. Whether or not the individual states can do that depends on their state constitutions (and what the voters will put up with).

Welfare as it stands now doesn't keep people from "dying in the streets" as far as I can see. "Entitlements" are no longer basic food and a roof over one's head (if they ever were); now they seem to be cigarettes, liquor, cell phones, tattoos, and a wide-screen TV. The people on welfare today for the most part have more possessions than the average middle-class family had in 1950.

It's no longer shameful to be on welfare. It used to be people reluctantly used it when they hit a rough patch, just until they could get on their feet again (which is as it should be). Now it's a way of life deliberately chosen by a hell of a lot of people, and I'm tired of it.

Unlike what people, including a lot of politicians, seem to think, there is no Magic Money Tree.™ To paraphrase Lady Thatcher, we've run out of other people's money.

As as for taking care of those who truly can't (not won't) care for themselves, it's called charity. It used to work that way until a lot of people began to think it's the "government's" responsibility - forgetting, or not caring, that the government, in the final analysis, is

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-07-14 18:45|| 2010-07-14 18:45|| Front Page Top

#27 oops - dunno where the last word went - it was supposed to be US.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-07-14 18:54|| 2010-07-14 18:54|| Front Page Top

#28 I'm not sure how I fit in all this. I get three separate checks every month: one Air Force retirement check, one VA Disability check, and a Social Security disability check (SSDI). All but the VA is taxable, yet with all the "deductions" built into our tax code, I seldom pay income taxes (plenty of other kinds, though...). Out of all that, I pay for all my needs, plus help out my children as much as I can in these difficult times.

My son draws SSDI. He suffered tremendous brain damage in infancy, before he was taken from his abusive parents and we adopted him. His SSDI covers his living expenses in a group facility, and he gets about $75 a month spending money. If he goes to work, he loses $1 of SSDI for every $2 he earns, even if he only brings home $1.10 of that after taxes. If he makes over $500/month, he loses his Medicaid.

In the past, "welfare" was provided by churches and other "social" clubs and organizations. Then the "progressives" decided that wasn't fair, since you had to belong to a denomination, or apply to a group of individuals who would decide whether you were truly "in need", or just too lazy to work. The government took over, and the "rules" were trashed.

The way to really FIX the problem is like the 1994 Congress tried after the "Contract with America" and welfare reform. It passed, it did some good, and the "Progressives" have been trying to dismantle it, one piece at a time, ever since. Unless, and until, we can continue to bring OUTSIDE pressure to bear on Congress over a very long period of time (two or three generations), there will be little incentive for them to change welfare, and keep it changed.

All citizens have the right to vote - it's part and parcel of being a citizen. All citizens should also be eligible to receive a little help now and then to help them over a rough spot. Spending a LIFETIME on welfare should not be permitted, if you healthy enough to hold a job and don't have physiological problems that either severely limit what you can do, or make it impossible for you to hold a normal job. Just as with illegitimate children, however, there is no social stigma attached to people who use welfare as an escape from hard work and self-development. Until THAT changes, no matter what else we do, people will continue to live off welfare. They'll find ways around the limits, and will be helped every step of the way by sleazy politicians.

Posted by Old Patriot 2010-07-14 20:36|| 2010-07-14 20:36|| Front Page Top

#29 I'd add this exception to limiting the vote to taxpayers - service in the armed forces.

"Service guarantees citizenship"

Posted by Hellfish 2010-07-14 21:02|| 2010-07-14 21:02|| Front Page Top

#30 You'd have to be careful not to eat into the middle class. That would be bad. They are the soil of a capitalist/market economy.

Another thought I have is that welfare has been eating away at the institutions of charity and family. I know several single moms who have a boyfriend but refuse to get married because it will cut into their benefits. I'm sure some have gotten divorced in order to receive benefits. And if your relationship is deemed to be more of a pain than you feel like dealing with, well just run down and get divorced rather than work it out! Yes, I know some can't be worked out, but I'm sure if people put more energy into it, more marriages could be saved.

Welfare has given people the "independence" they need to do stuff that is bad for society. It's too easy to get, offers too many benefits, and keeps its recipients beholden to politicians. It allows people to wall themselves off from society, their neighbors, their community, their family.

Maybe the "lifers" who can't show disability or caregiver role ought to be made to live in some kind of institutional environment with absolutely no perks until they get training and a job. Not even "gifts" from friends or family. Or a right to vote.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-14 22:53|| 2010-07-14 22:53|| Front Page Top

00:07 JosephMendiola
00:01 Skidmark
23:58 Skidmark
23:57 Skidmark
23:52 Cloud Banks
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:47 Old Patriot
23:47 rammer
23:45 KBK
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:26 gorb
23:24 Asymmetrical Triangulation
23:23 gorb
23:15 gorb
23:12 gorb
23:10 gorb
23:08 OldSpook
23:04 OldSpook
23:04 gorb
23:03 Asymmetrical Triangulation
23:03 anon1
23:01 gorb
22:53 gorb