Americans angry about paying for Illegal sex.

[GS78]

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio ... 5522237526


I don't know why I am posting this, but if nothing else it is amuzing.

[gunderwood]

Not at all what I expected.

[allingeneral]

hah. hmmm... that's something.

[Drumstix61]

Christ O Mighty,

You gotta be kidding me???

Welcome to Mamby Pamby Land.

[gunderwood]

I wonder what section of the Constitution provides for a right to receive government funded sex assistance? If surgery, medicine, and tools are permitted, what is stopping services? Just saying...

[Sotiris]

That's just great. We'll help illegals with their personal problems, but we leave our own citizens hanging out to dry. It really says something about us as a country, and what it's saying is not at all a good thing.

[DWinter]

Every day I think our leadership can't possibly do or allow anything to happen more stupid than the prevoius day, and unfortunately every day they manage to impress me with something like this. Talk about a band of overachievers we have in DC. They seem supremely commited to idiocy and they set new standards of it every day. Geez, now I need a drink!!!!

[KaosDad]

[BlkChickwGuns]

I see this everyday working with the Medicaid Population of Virginia. deemed a "quality of life " Issue. What about the quality of life of American taxpayers?

[allingeneral]

I see this everyday working with the Medicaid Population of Virginia. deemed a "quality of life " Issue. What about the quality of life of American taxpayers?

Oh, man - someone who knows about this first-hand?! "Quality of life"? Unbelievable.

I'm telling you right now - our gene pool is getting weaker and weaker by the day. We pay people more welfare the more babies they have. Let's agree that people who receive welfare are generally at the bottom of the gene pool. So, more babies from them adds more people to the bottom of the gene pool. These babies grow up knowing only one way of life and that's to "Live off of the Government". So the cycle repeats.

Now (continue to) add illegal aliens into the mix, who have no right to be here anyway... I'm tired of working my @$$ off so that I can pay taxes that get used in this manner.

If you want to give my tax dollars to someone who's making an effort, working at McDonalds, barely making ends meet - but at least they're TRYING - then so be it. Stop giving my taxes to illegals and people who have no ambition.

</rant>

[9MMDerringer]

I made an observation over the weekend. Almost everywhere I went this weekend all over Northern VA, I saw 'Help Wanted' and 'Hiring' signs in windows. From stores to restaurants, a lot of places were trying to give people jobs. So how is the unemployment numbers so high when places are advertising for workers? I suspect that many of the people collecting the unemployment benefits do not really want to work!!!!

[SgtBill]

When will the people in our country learn. In Nov. I hope we can start to bring this great nation back to where it should be and even better. We have to vote out all the A$$holes that think they have a cushy job and vote in people that are going to do the following.

1. Work
2. Listen to the people of our country
3. Get things done that the people want done not special intrest .
4. Make them vote on a 4 year term limit for themselves without the benefit of a pension other then Social Security and Medicade. I am sure there are many other things but I will stop my rant here. It is time for me to take some of my expensive pills that I pay for so that I can stay alive and pain free forget about an erection!
Bill

[KaosDad]

My Dad's viewpoint on welfare was simple; in order to go on welfare, you had to submit to sterilization. Not checmically, Irreversable medical procedure.

[gunderwood]

I made an observation over the weekend. Almost everywhere I went this weekend all over Northern VA, I saw 'Help Wanted' and 'Hiring' signs in windows. From stores to restaurants, a lot of places were trying to give people jobs. So how is the unemployment numbers so high when places are advertising for workers? I suspect that many of the people collecting the unemployment benefits do not really want to work!!!!

Unemployment often pays better too.

My Dad's viewpoint on welfare was simple; in order to go on welfare, you had to submit to sterilization. Not checmically, Irreversable medical procedure.

That is extreme, eh? Doesn't really solve the problem either. Welfare will always invoke a moral hazard because the funds are taken by force and provisioned to another who did not work for them. You can not solve this moral issue by sterilization, voter restrictions, or any other means. Those treat symptoms, but not the root cause.

[KaosDad]

My Dad's viewpoint on welfare was simple; in order to go on welfare, you had to submit to sterilization. Not checmically, Irreversable medical procedure.

That is extreme, eh? Doesn't really solve the problem either. Welfare will always invoke a moral hazard because the funds are taken by force and provisioned to another who did not work for them. You can not solve this moral issue by sterilization, voter restrictions, or any other means. Those treat symptoms, but not the root cause.[/quote]

No, think about it. You tell some of these gang bangers that to go on welfare they loose the ability to spawn AND may even loose the ability/desire to have sex, that put's it in a whole new light. Remember - "irreversable" - that usually mean removal of certain parts. Given the choice between that finding work, which way would they go? Sure, we will not catch all of them, but if we even get 60% off welfare and into the job force, that's significant.

It's OK - I've been accused of being simplistic before - I'm cool widit.

[gunderwood]

My Dad's viewpoint on welfare was simple; in order to go on welfare, you had to submit to sterilization. Not checmically, Irreversable medical procedure.

That is extreme, eh? Doesn't really solve the problem either. Welfare will always invoke a moral hazard because the funds are taken by force and provisioned to another who did not work for them. You can not solve this moral issue by sterilization, voter restrictions, or any other means. Those treat symptoms, but not the root cause.

No, think about it. You tell some of these gang bangers that to go on welfare they loose the ability to spawn AND may even loose the ability/desire to have sex, that put's it in a whole new light. Remember - "irreversable" - that usually mean removal of certain parts. Given the choice between that finding work, which way would they go? Sure, we will not catch all of them, but if we even get 60% off welfare and into the job force, that's significant.

It's OK - I've been accused of being simplistic before - I'm cool widit.

First, you have to deal with the concept that governments were instituted among men to protect our rights, not violate them. To do this governments bear the sword and punish those who harm others. The logic being that they only could punish someone after they had violated your rights. That aside, as it isn't particularly relevant, violating the rights of the people by confiscating wealth for non-Constitutional purposes is an issue. At least there is a rational for taxing us for national defense, the courts, etc...because we gave government the privilege to do so (and we can take it back). Abuse of the general welfare clause aside, they have no such authority and as such, it is immoral. To take without consent is theft.

Second, now that they have confiscated money from some people to give to other people they are faced with another dilemma. Clearly, the system would be abused if no threat of punishment existed for such abuse. I.e. who wouldn't want free money or at least to get back what you put into the system? After having committed theft, has the government grown an conscience? Hardly, it is a matter of survival. Such programs give the government great power and if there is one thing it craves, it is more power. If the program collapses under abuse, the government will lose its power. However, note that it does not have a reason to virtually eliminate abuse, but rather to eliminate just enough that their power is not removed by those who illegally bestowed it upon them (at the paying classes demand). In fact, it is trivial to show that a system with no abuse has less money and consequently less power for the government to wield than a system with just a little bit less abuse than the people will take. It is in the interest of the people receiving the wealth, the politicians and the bureaucracy to allow for as much abuse as the people footing the bill will allow; they all have maximum benefit at our expense.

Now that is it understood why and how much abuse they must curb, they are left with another dilemma. Do they violate yet more rights as conditions to be in the receiving class? Never, for such an act would cause resentment among those receiving the benefit and that would reduce the political clout of the politicians. I.e. To require something from the receiving class would cost the politicians something in return and that is not what this scheme is all about. They much prefer to acquire political brownie points with someone else's cash, not their own negotiating power. Thus, all such restrictions on privilege payouts will be avoided unless those paying the bill find out just how much abuse there is. When the abuse is uncovered, the politicians will quickly find a "solution" to the problems; blame a few bad apples (commonly called scape goats) and point out how giving them yet more power is the only answer. Rinse and repeat.

The idea is extreme because it is attempting to have two wrongs make a right. Violating the paying classes rights by confiscating their money can never be made up for by ensuring only the really needed get it (which requires a second wrong to be committed under your dads system). Even without the second wrong and assuming a perfect system with no abuse, can the violation of the paying classes rights be ok. That was the difference between the old, dead Republic and today's Democracy.

If you understand the cause and effect above, you likely understand that in all likeliness there is no going back peacefully...it is generally not within the character of government to do so.

[allingeneral]

A very insightful post, gunderwood.

As we continue down this path, the idea of "Class warfare" becomes more and more instilled in our culture. At what point will the straw break the proverbial camel's back? When will the "Tax-paying class" finally have enough of this and demand some meaningful welfare reform? This reform must remove some of the tax burden by legally forcing those who are capable of working to do so instead of allowing continued manipulation of the system by those who knowingly and purposefully abuse it.

Perhaps instead of requiring castration (I like the way you think, KaosDad) - Maybe we should treat those who collect welfare payments the same way that we treat a felon - IF YOU COLLECT WELFARE, YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.

Or I guess we could take this a step further - since we don't want to deny the right to vote for those who collect welfare out of necessity (i.e. disabled, etc) - we could make it a felony for any "Able-bodied" person to collect welfare for more than one year, unless extenuating circumstances can be proven. If convicted of "abusing the system" in this manner, this person would now be a felon and their right to vote would be removed under current law.

[SgtBill]

I like what Garret had to say. Rick I can go along with the loss of voteing power. If this were the case Pelosie would not try so hard to get illegals the right to vote that would help her stay in power. I don't go along with the 1 year bit and makeing them a felon because when you do so we are still paying to keep them locked up. There has to be something better like make them work for the welfare if able to do so within the city or county that they live in. Make them have to show up for work or there is no check at the end of the mo.
Bill

[gunderwood]

A very insightful post, gunderwood.

As we continue down this path, the idea of "Class warfare" becomes more and more instilled in our culture. At what point will the straw break the proverbial camel's back? When will the "Tax-paying class" finally have enough of this and demand some meaningful welfare reform? This reform must remove some of the tax burden by legally forcing those who are capable of working to do so instead of allowing continued manipulation of the system by those who knowingly and purposefully abuse it.

Yes, but I fear that it can no longer be done peacefully or without a great economic crisis in the USA. The number of people not paying taxes is approaching 50%. At some point the politicians will realize there are more votes to be had by listening to the receiving class regardless of what the paying class demands. Perhaps we have already gone past the tipping point.

Perhaps instead of requiring castration (I like the way you think, KaosDad) - Maybe we should treat those who collect welfare payments the same way that we treat a felon - IF YOU COLLECT WELFARE, YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.

Or I guess we could take this a step further - since we don't want to deny the right to vote for those who collect welfare out of necessity (i.e. disabled, etc) - we could make it a felony for any "Able-bodied" person to collect welfare for more than one year, unless extenuating circumstances can be proven. If convicted of "abusing the system" in this manner, this person would now be a felon and their right to vote would be removed under current law.

First, see above.

Second, is voting a right, privilege or duty for a citizen? If it is a right, it should not be restricted under any circumstances unless you personally violate another's rights violently. Just because the government does it to the paying class on your behalf isn't enough. If it is a privilege, does sovereignty really rest with the people as the founders wanted? I would contend it doesn't. A duty is somewhat strong; perhaps it is morally correct and provides for good self-governance (given certain assumptions). A duty to whom? The state/government? The ideal? The country? The problem is that all of these quickly become co-opted by the government as a duty to it, just like a draft vs. a militia.

Lastly, technically it is a definition of an able bodied person. The government would contend that there are no able-bodied people on welfare except for those that abuse the system. Since abusing the system is fraud and already illegal, what additional protection does your scheme provide? Practically, I would suggest none.

Again, fundamental arguments. Unless a scheme addresses these, it is not a solution, but rather a smoke screen. It gives the impression things have changed when they have not.

At the end of the day, I think the only way to avoid these moral and ethical issues is for the government to not indulge in them at all. I would contend the founders agreed. Show me one founder (beside Hamilton who was a nut job and argued things like interstate commerce allowed the fed to regulate anything like they do today) who wrote that the general welfare clause covered health care, welfare, SS, etc. It doesn't. The only Constitutional argument those who support these programs contend is that the founders couldn't foresee the future and so we need to reinterpret the Constitution for modern society; a living document. It isn't in there because the founders understood it to be contrary to good, moral governance and ethics.

Edit: Further, what reason would the government have to hunt down those abusing the system? Any politician who stands up and provides a smoke screen just "earned" the votes of the abusers (try suggestion a crackdown and see what I mean) and since they aren't found to be abusers/able-bodied people, they never lose the right to vote. Like I said, there is an incentive to have as many people in the system as possible, regardless of reason.

[SgtBill]

With all this in mind then there is only one solution GUNDERWOOD FOR PRESIDENT
Bill