the franchise

[RespectTradition]

Contracting and the like is extraordinarily similar to welfare. And in your system, these recipients will be in a position to ensure they continue to receive their benefits, by ensuring that their vote goes to the individual who will supply them with contracts.

How many defense contractors put out a product immediately? Do you consider the F22 to be similar to walking into Target, giving $20 and getting a Lawn chair?

If not, defense contracting is an investment, not a service. Not a product. It is an investment in a future product to be developed, tested and deployed if useful.

Entitlements are also an investment. It is an investment in, at its root (arguably ineffective, but never-the-less), the future of the individual.

Parasites, such as myself, are invested in, so that one day, we can give back. Other "parasites," are invested into, in the hopes that they come out of their situation... and give back.

How is this different than defense contracting? Both require money. Both require time. Both are investments.

And in theory, both give returns in the long term.

I thought we were talking long, but apparently, you are selling short.

You truly don't see the significant differences between paying for goods and services and welfare-like spending?

As for defense contract "investment", we have serious flaws in that process as well. For example, the constitution says:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

and that makes it very plain that there can be no long-term investment by the government into military spending. The fact that they ignore the clear text is no surprise to anyone who watches the other things they do.

But even without that, in the case of welfare spending, if we pretend, and that is a big if, that it is an investment, it is clearly a case of throwing good money after bad. If the baby has drowned, there becomes a time that you do throw it out with the bathwater. (that sounds wrong, but you appear to be smart enough to know what I mean by it)

 

[sjt18]

I understand that position. How then can we fix the wealth redistribution problem? (you may not consider it a problem, but I am assuming)

One place to start would be mandatory drug screening for anyone on public assistance. Most employers now do randoms. I don't think it is too much to ask for those taking public assistance to submit. IMHO, you would get rid of many of the ones currently scamming the system with this one simple change.

Another would be to add a lifetime benefit limit for programs like food stamps, AFDC, medicaid, etc.

Another more aggressive idea would be to require implanted birth control for anyone male/female receiving public assistance. Don't want it? Find another way to make money.

 

[sjt18]

FTR, I actually oppose social programs on principle believing that communities, churches, and families did in the past and would now do a better job of taking care of the poor and elderly.

 

[RespectTradition]

FTR, I actually oppose social programs on principle believing that communities, churches, and families did in the past and would now do a better job of taking care of the poor and elderly.

:hi:

 

[fl0at]

You truly don't see the significant differences between paying for goods and services and welfare-like spending?

Oh, I see the differences. I also see the parallels; something you seem to discard.

As for defense contract "investment", we have serious flaws in that process as well. For example, the constitution says:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

That is why they have to continually re-vote the measure. By narrowing the field of voters, you can be assured that those that benefit will strive to keep their system in place, just as they do now. They will just face less opposition, due to less voter participation.

and that makes it very plain that there can be no long-term investment by the government into military spending. The fact that they ignore the clear text is no surprise to anyone who watches the other things they do.

The Constitution does not say "no long term," it says no "Term" greater than two years. How many "terms" did it take you to graduate college? Now... how many years did it take? Terms are renewable.

But even without that, in the case of welfare spending, if we pretend, and that is a big if, that it is an investment, it is clearly a case of throwing good money after bad. If the baby has drowned, there becomes a time that you do throw it out with the bathwater. (that sounds wrong, but you appear to be smart enough to know what I mean by it)

Again, you are too nearsighted here. Are there individuals that do not get off welfare? Sure.

But... are there cases were the next GENERATION did... because the first generation had enough to provide.

Family A gets Federal housing assistance, food stamps, funding for school and free lunch. Household mom and dad never get off benefits. Little Johnny grows up and goes to college.

All you see is that Family A is forever on welfare. I see a kid that rose up, made it out, and is now productive... whereas he wouldn't have been likely to, otherwise.

 

[RespectTradition]

Oh, I see the differences. I also see the parallels; something you seem to discard.



That is why they have to continually re-vote the measure. By narrowing the field of voters, you can be assured that those that benefit will strive to keep their system in place, just as they do now. They will just face less opposition, due to less voter participation.



The Constitution does not say "no long term," it says no "Term" greater than two years. How many "terms" did it take you to graduate college? Now... how many years did it take? Terms are renewable.



Again, you are too nearsighted here. Are there individuals that do not get off welfare? Sure.

But... are there cases were the next GENERATION did... because the first generation had enough to provide.

Family A gets Federal housing assistance, food stamps, funding for school and free lunch. Household mom and dad never get off benefits. Little Johnny grows up and goes to college.

All you see is that Family A is forever on welfare. I see a kid that rose up, made it out, and is now productive... whereas he wouldn't have been likely to, otherwise.

Ok, the spirit of the clause I referenced was that no long term military planning, buildups or investments be made. If you don't believe me, look up the relevant history on the debates about it. Just because they evade the spirit of the rule by continually reauthorizing something doesn't change the fact that it has become a de facto long term budget item.

I grew up in a dirt poor area. Most of my family is dirt poor. Virtually none of them go on govt assistance. It's called pride and self-respect. A lot of the kids in my class in school qualified for the free lunch program, but their parents refused to enroll them. Those kids learned the value of hard work and sacrifice and most of them have made good. Handouts are a form of racism and class warfare imo. The entire design is to consign 'undesireables' to a hopeless place that very, very few ever escape from. If you don't believe me, look up the government numbers on it and you will see that the vast majority of those on welfare had parents on welfare. Welfare destroys communities. It destroys lives.

A friend of mine is moving into her Habitat house next week. She had to work on other Habitat projects in order to qualify. She did this in spite of being a single mom of three, with a low paying job, supporting her disabled grandmother. She had to help work on her own house. What do you think her children learned from this? Did they learn that if they are unproductive enough others will take care of them, or did they learn that if you want something you have to work to get it?

I am not gonna go into details of my personal life, but I can assure you, if it had not been for my scholarships I could not have afforded to go to college. Neither could my wife. We both come from low-income families. Families that taught us to work hard. Our hard work payed off. When I got sick, my doctor wanted me on disability. I had to argue with him for three months before he would sign off to let me go back to work. But eventually, he gave in. And I went back to work. Why? Cuz that's who my daddy taught me to be.

 

[fl0at]

Cuz that's who my daddy taught me to be.

This is the route you took. It is an excellent route, filled with pride, self-respect and desire.

What works for you, however, is not what works for everyone.

This is the same as stating that I quit smoking cold turkey, therefore nobody should need nicotine gum, Chantix or patches. It just isn't the case.

 

[RespectTradition]

I think we have probably exhausted all the possibilities of this conversation. It's been entertaining. I love to have my ideas questioned, and I enjoy questioning others. Its the only way to be sure what we believe it true, don't ya think?

 

[utgibbs]

Howdy,

I have a proposition.

What if we passed a law (mebbe need an amendment) that limits the franchise in federal elections to those who pay net positive taxes? That way, the people who actually pay for what the government does (oversimplification, I know) are the ones who get to say how the money is spent. Anyone can be eligible as long as you do not receive welfare/subsidies/ss, etc and pay positive taxes, ie, not taking so many reductions or credits, etc that you wind up owing nothing or even getting more back than you paid in.

Oh, and let's also include anyone who works for the fed govt too. My boss certainly doesn't have to ultimately answer to me. Choosing a life of 'Public Service' should be a sacrifice, otherwise get a real productive job.

What say you?

A poll tax, in other words? :facepalm:

Just when I thought they had gone as far as they could in rolling back the Enlightenment, I get to hear the new voice of retrograde.

I'd like to know your thoughts on what a "real productive job" is. Especially since you are posting on a website that is technically (in the language of bourgeois economists) "downstream" from a socialist institution you purport to support.