It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do people seem to think welfare is Constitutional?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Many people like to claim the "general welfare" clause authorizes expenditures of our extorted tax dollars in the name of welfare and other social programs. nowhere in our founding documents is the idea of providing for the individual welfare mentioned, yet more and more people seem to think this very basic act of socialism is acceptable.

Have people grown lazy, or has the sense of entitlement infected more people?




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
This quote comes from the front page of kansansforfaithfulcitizenship.com

“Politics should be about an old idea with new power – the common good. The question should not be, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” It should be, “How can ‘we’- all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable – be better off in the years ahead?”
-Faithful Citizenship Guide, US Conference of Catholic Bishops

I guess that sounds all well and good, and I can agree that we as a nation should look after those folks who are indigent. As for it being a constitutional right. Senior, who can say?

There is a lot of thought that should go into a social program. Unfortunately, we don’t have the kind of smarts in Washington.

I don’t have a problem with a social program, or “safety net” for the indigent in our nation. I do have a problem with the waste of our nations wealth. If a person is able to work then they should work. Nor do I think any one has an entitlement to anything.

Socialism can be a dirty word in America, but it should not synonymous welfare. Our welfare system, if properly managed, is a good thing. There are good hard working folks, who at one time or another fall on hard times and need help. Nothing wrong with that.

This type of help should not be an entitlement but rather a privilege. If some one has been a productive member of our society and put there fair share of work in, then when they need it, the help would be there.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Slackerwire, that is a good question.

I am not against welfare, but I think it should be very limited and rationed. One good thing, about the only one the Clinton did, was that he made it to where a person could only be on welfare for two years without working... After that point, they are cut off and have to either find a job, or live off of family members. Whatever floats their boat.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Slackerwire, that is a good question.

I am not against welfare, but I think it should be very limited and rationed. One good thing, about the only one the Clinton did, was that he made it to where a person could only be on welfare for two years without working... After that point, they are cut off and have to either find a job, or live off of family members. Whatever floats their boat.


2 years still seems excessive to me. I have been dirt poor (the day I turned 17 I left home) and still managed to make it without any form of social assistance. Worked 2 jobs and still managed to graduate high school while I was buying packs of ramen noodles and mac & cheese with pennies.

If people want to use the excuse that they have a family and can't manage to make ends meet, tough cookies, they shouldn't have had kids they cannot afford to support and the taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize someone elses irresponsible choices.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Slacker, I would tend to agree with you. Of course, I am from a state, Texas, where even if you do get assistance, it is bare minimum. I have seen mothers who had three children only get 600 dollars a month in welfare benefits.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Slacker, I would tend to agree with you. Of course, I am from a state, Texas, where even if you do get assistance, it is bare minimum. I have seen mothers who had three children only get 600 dollars a month in welfare benefits.



Do those mothers complain that they don't get enough?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

Do those mothers complain that they don't get enough?


To the welfare department? I don't know. However, they certainly do complain about it to outside individuals.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth




To the welfare department? I don't know. However, they certainly do complain about it to outside individuals.


Theres that nasty sense of entitlement again. People do not seem to realize that they aren't entitled to anything at all.

Even though I know it will never happen, I am a form supporter of mandatory birth control and drug testing the moment anyone signs up for any form of public assistance.

If someone can't get their life together in a month or 2, they are a lost cause and don't deserve another dime from the taxpayer wallet.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
One reason is that if you shout a lie long enough people start to believe it. For example i cannot believe how people are still saying that separation of church and state is in the constitution and they use that in almost any argument. Liberals shout it for years and the masses perceive it as true.

Welfare is needed as a safety net but is abused beyond belief in society today. Then selfish people want even more out of the taxpayers because "They deserve it". My family had to use welfare for about 4 months but they got off it and my father got a better job. Why can't more people do that?

[edit on 14-8-2007 by spinstopshere]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinstopshere


Welfare is needed as a safety net but is abused beyond belief in society today. Then selfish people want even more out of the taxpayers because "They deserve it". My family had to use welfare for about 4 months but they got off it and my father got a better job. Why can't more people do that?

[edit on 14-8-2007 by spinstopshere]


Judging by my observations, there is a 2 part answer to your question:

1. The idea of self responsibility has died.

2. The shame that people used to feel about being on welfare is long gone. Now welfare recipients wrongly believe they are entitled to other peoples money.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
Even though I know it will never happen, I am a form supporter of mandatory birth control and drug testing the moment anyone signs up for any form of public assistance.

If someone can't get their life together in a month or 2, they are a lost cause and don't deserve another dime from the taxpayer wallet.


Hey slackerwire. I have to give you props, you're not afraid to go out on a limb with your beliefs. I admire that in a person.

I agree with the mandatory drug testing part of your post. Mandatory birth control - That one I am torn. I understand your point, and it is valid, however there are extenuating circumstances in alot of cases.

Saying that someone is a lost cause if they can't get their life together in a month or two is a little strong in my opinion. Well actually I don't agree with you at all on that one. There are alot of cases, that I personally have witnessed where ALOT more time was needed than that to get back on track.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
If you teach a man to fish, right?

Limit qualifications for welfare and more people must work to support themselves and their families. It's just about that simple in most cases.

This government was created to protect its people from oppression. The more we legislate to help these unfortunate people, the more rules we create to aid our poor, for example, the more we oppress them.

This goes for Education, Energy, Taxes, virtually everthing the government of today seems to represent. The Patriot Act was designed to protect us from terrorism, but can also be applied to investigate domestic threats, anything illegal that happens via the internet. Good intention, bad result.

Our government takes too much of our own hard earned money, plain and simple. If this government was a business, it would be failing miserably. Normally when businesses begin to fail, they cut back. Our government instead asks for more money. More of OUR money so they can continue to do what THEY think is right.

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lombozo



Hey slackerwire. I have to give you props, you're not afraid to go out on a limb with your beliefs. I admire that in a person.

I agree with the mandatory drug testing part of your post. Mandatory birth control - That one I am torn. I understand your point, and it is valid, however there are extenuating circumstances in alot of cases.

Saying that someone is a lost cause if they can't get their life together in a month or two is a little strong in my opinion. Well actually I don't agree with you at all on that one. There are alot of cases, that I personally have witnessed where ALOT more time was needed than that to get back on track.


Thanks for the compliment


What sort of extenuating circumstances are there that would interfere with mandatory birth control? If it's against someone's religion, thats fine, they don't need the welfare money that bad then.

I understand and agree that there are certain circumstances that would need a little more than a month or 2 to correct, however I believe those to be the exception, not the rule. Private charity could also play a role in a situation such as that.

I will probably get hammered for this one, as I have on other forums, but I also believe the moment one signs up for any form of public assistance, they should lose their right to vote until they are off of the public dime.

We do not need a bloc of voters whose sole interest is voting people into office who promise to give them more of our money for not doing anything.

Some people will whine that it is a Constitutional right to vote, however I never see those same people filing the same argument when it comes to convicted felons. They too cannot vote, and not a peep is heard. Voting should be done by productive, informed members of society, convicted felons and welfare recipients are neither.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
slackerwire - we're going to get along just fine. We might disagree, and we do, however you maintain your civility, and give lucid comments.

You ask what type of extenuating circumstances. I'll use an example that I have witnessed. There was a young couple who lived in our neighborhood. Nicest paople you could ever want to meet. Just bought a home, and were trying to start a family. He made a good living. Out of the blue, the company he worked for went out of business and he was jobless. It didn't take long for their savings to be depleted, and they had to go and apply for government assistance. Finally after about 6 months, he found a job, and eventually they got back on their feet. During their 'downtime', she managed to get pregnant. They have both said more than once, that knowing they were pregnant is what kept them focused, and sane.

There is a BIG difference between a convicted felon, and someone down on their luck, so I disagree with you on the voting comment as well.

Look, we both know that there are those that take advantage of the system. But there are those who genuinely need a crutch while they get back on their feet due to circumstances way beyond their control as well. To group all Welfare recipients as the dregs of society, and call them non productive is using too wide a brush stroke in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Instead of questioning the people who need assistance, why not question the system that underpays while overcharging...


It is barbaric (yes, barbaric -- as in UN-human) that our lives, our health, our virtue, is based solely on our financial viability.

"I have more shiny things than you, so I am better than you!!!
"

It's bullplop.

It's this 'sink or swim' mentality of capitalism that I loathe, detest, despise...

Instead of selflessly helping, we cut their legs out from underneath them, then degrade and shame them for not being able to take care of themselves.

We deny our humanity for our egos.

Bullplop!!!


[edit on 15-8-2007 by Diseria]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Conditions are quite different from a few hundred years ago.

The land and mineral reiches have been stolen at the point of a gun and essentially given away. You cannot just head out to unused land and make a living for yourself. This is in fact a reason for the real American revolution -- the Shay's rebellion. Unfortuanately, the link to the article I was going to post either disappeared or cannot be found with Google at the current time.

some sites about the issue include www.cooperativeindividualism.org... www.progress.org... www.earthrights.net... www.geolib.com... www.taxreform.com.au... www.wealthandwant.com... and undoubtably many others.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lombozo




You ask what type of extenuating circumstances. I'll use an example that I have witnessed. There was a young couple who lived in our neighborhood. Nicest paople you could ever want to meet. Just bought a home, and were trying to start a family. He made a good living. Out of the blue, the company he worked for went out of business and he was jobless. It didn't take long for their savings to be depleted, and they had to go and apply for government assistance. Finally after about 6 months, he found a job, and eventually they got back on their feet. During their 'downtime', she managed to get pregnant. They have both said more than once, that knowing they were pregnant is what kept them focused, and sane.


Forgive me for asking a few obvious questions here:
Why did it take him 6 months to get a job? We all can't have the job we want, but even a crappy job would have sufficed in the meantime wouldnt it?

Does the thought of living on a bus stop and starving not provide enough motivation to get a job and stay sane?


There is a BIG difference between a convicted felon, and someone down on their luck, so I disagree with you on the voting comment as well.

By no means was I comparing them, I simply used felons as a way to show that it is possible for a U.S. citizen to lose their right to vote.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria
It's this 'sink or swim' mentality of capitalism that I loathe, detest, despise...



So, you'd rather have a society that is dependent upon the elite? Instead of people trying to better themselves, you'd rather see just everything be GIVEN to EVERYONE freely? Let me ask you a question. What motivation is there for anyone to strive to better their self, if they know that everything they need or want is going to eventually just be given to them?



[edit on 16-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria
It's this 'sink or swim' mentality of capitalism that I loathe, detest, despise...




Never forget this quote:

The government that gives you everything you want is the government that takes everything you have.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join