rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco, TX Nov 18, 2011


PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .



Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding
Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese
and powdered milk. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.



Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth
control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol,
and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a
job.



Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will
maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be
subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a
plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.



In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will
report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and
repairing public housing, wh**ever we find for you. We will sell your 22-inch rims
and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money
toward the "common good."



Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above
is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this
would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self-esteem," consider that it wasn't that long
ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and
lowered self-esteem.



If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to
make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for
continuing to make bad choices.

And while you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can V**E! For you to v**e
would be a conflict of interest. You will be removed from v****g lists while you are
receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to v**e, then get a job.

--Bob

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

I knew Texans really didn't believe in our Constitution... thanks for the proof.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Aside from the v****g clause, sounds reasonable...

handouts are not good for self esteem,

a little skin in the game of SNAP, housing, etc. might be a good thing.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

You got a problem with that? I would call it a good start.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

A lot of skin in the game. Put their lazy ass to work. No work, no benefits!

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Nothing on that list in conflict with the Constitution. Might not be as nice, kind and gentle as you would like, but not unconstitutional.

I know, you will say the no v**e part. Well the Constitution (original version) left v****g in Federal e******ns up to the states by allowing each state to decide who v**es. If you are qualified to v**e in your state, then you can v**e for federal offices (some differences, none major). And the state sets qualifications for v****g; age, mental health etc. By the way states can allow non citizens to v**e in local e******ns. There are a few cities and local groups that allow v****g in local matters today. They cannot v**e in Federal E******ns, that law was signed by President Clinton. At one time or another over 40 states and territories allowed the v**e to non-citizens under certain circumstances. None officially does so today, but it has been pointed out that in CA a drivers license can be used for ID to register and the drivers license data base is not open to search to determine if the license holder is a citizen or not. So if a non citizen used their license to register (illegally) no one would know it if they didn't have personal knowledge of the person's status.

And if you depend on gvt for your living, well you would v**e for those who promise you more, so it is a conflict of interest. In the UK they restricted the v****g rights and ability to run for office of the clergy of the Church of England. Why you ask? Because it was an established church and receives tax money. Therefore v****g or holding office could be a conflict of interest.

As to the living conditions, etc. Well let us just say that while in the Army that was pretty much standard procedure in places I was stationed. I once went on a tour (actually more than once since I attended several of the summer seminars) of the federal jail in downtown LA with a graduate level seminar class on the Constitution for working classroom teachers. (NEH sponsored and paid for.) Plenty of kinder, gentler, sheltered life souls in the classes. They were going on about how harsh the living conditions were and how sorry they were for the inmates. They got some strange looks from the locals, I informed them that compared to places I lived on active duty it was at least a 3/4 star hotel. Better beds, TV, toilet and sink in each cell, good food, exercise room, library, juice bar and snacks, AC/heat etc. For that matter back when I was a beginning teacher with a young family we paid to stay in worse places while on summer trips cross country and to visit relatives.

I could with no reservations support a version of each of these. I would add something. Education, required to attend classes aimed at a GED, or work training in a field where there were jobs to be had in addition to/in place of the work requirements.

My home county had to be forced to participate in the modern welfare programs, when I was a kid in the 50s and 60s they had church programs and the "Commodities Program", basic foods like rice, beans, potatoes, flour etc from government purchased surpluses/stocks were issued to those on the welfare rolls. And back then it was still considered shameful to be on welfare unless you were disabled. I remember one family the sheriff actually sent a deputy to escort the father to pick up the family food on distribution day. The man was a construction worker and farmer (small farm that wasn't enough to support his family, but he owned it!) who had broken his back and was unable to work for about 5 years while recovering but he was too proud to take the food. The sheriff saw they got the food, the churchs and local doctors saw they had clothing and health care. The neighbors plowed his fields etc. His kid's friends often had "parites" to plant, weed etc. Oh, somehow the taxes got paid so he didn't lose the farm, the money just sort of appeared on tax day.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

I am a big proponent of not giving out free money... something like the CCC during the depression, would work much better in my opinion.

But taking away v****g rights (at the federal level), drug-testing foodstampers, mandatory birth control and making welfare people spend their benefits in a certain way... seems like basic human rights are being violated by a nosy government.


...also sounds like a definite move towards bigger government and more socialism...

"Your 'home' will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried."
"In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will
report to a 'government' job."

tramsey Loc: Texas

Then tell me why I have to pay a food stamper food bill for ho hos, pizza, ice cream and so on and then pay the medical bills when they develop diabetes. If you have been in married housing in the military then you know the Govt is smart enough to take care of its housing.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

the same reason you and I each had to pay $1250 to k**l 1/3200th of an innocent Iraqi.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

How so? Can you point to the specific areas of our constitution that you are talking about?

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

This is more of a feel good list for the self righteous than any kind of solution. Welfare is really for the protection of the haves, not the have nots.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Not exactly, although there has to be a safety net, there can be little serious argument about that but Welfare and public assistance is being grossly abused by both recipients and politicians alike at the expense of future generations.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

v****g rights are determined by the states... I'm pretty sure it says something along those lines. 14th/15th amendment?

dljen Loc: Central PA

I always have thought that people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to have a baby every 5 yrs. unless they improve their lot in life, ex. going to work and hiring child care. There are too many children in this world, especially unwanted children. Two kids, continue to get welfare, automatic tubal.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

it makes sense on the surface... but any attempt to limit who can and cannot have children could become a very slippery slope.