A reader sent this. Apparently this appeared in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco, Texas, on November 18, 2010.
__________________________________
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 all the powdered milk you can haul away. 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 and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, 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, whatever 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.
Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Thursday, November 18, 2010
He who will not work...
This past Sunday in church it was my turn to do the Bible readings on which the sermon text was based. I love giving the readings because there are few things to equal the majesty of reading Scripture out loud.
And it was an extra pleasure because the New Testament readings were one of my favorites:
2 Thessalonians 3: 6-10
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
This echoed an interesting post my friend Enola Gay recently had on her blog. Her grandfather sent her a piece called The Truth of the Welfare State, which expresses the frustration many of us feel:
Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, one the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT doing drugs or whatever they want while I work.
Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
This all reinforces the Great Divide in this country. No, it’s not the Haves vs. the Have Nots. It’s becoming the “Work” vs. the “Work Nots.”
Please note the Bible verse says “The one who is UNWILLING to work.” Other versions say “shall not work” or “will not work.” This differs greatly from CANNOT work.
People cannot work for a huge variety of reasons. Some are too old. Some are disabled. Some are too young. Some are single mothers (I distinguish between women who have been abandoned by their men versus women who crank out babies for profit). And, especially in this economy, many are simply unable to find work, no matter how hard they try.
This greatly differs from those who WILL NOT work.
There are very few among us in this nation would are not willing to help those who are truly in need. When we see people who are UNABLE to work, collectively there is a deep-seated instinct to help. That’s one of the reasons I admire and support such organizations as the Union Gospel Mission, which takes people off the street and “teaches them to fish” rather than merely “giving” them fish (to paraphrase the old saying). Charities such as this are privately run, efficient, and deserving of praise.
But just as there is a deep-seated instinct among us to help those in need, there is equally a deep-seated resentment among us to have our hard-earned money forcibly removed from our pockets and “redistributed” to those who, quite often, are UNWILING to work.
Giving money to those unwilling to work is cruel. It destroys their incentive, ruins their work ethic, and supplies a false sense of entitlement. It rips families apart (since the man is no longer necessary as the critical breadwinner). It teaches children that age-old virtues are unnecessary.
In short, giving un-earned money may well lead, directly or indirectly, to the destruction of our nation. It’s a chain-reaction downward spiral, apparently encouraged by our government so it has a built-in cadre of dependent voters willing to keep the entitlements coming if only they vote in the same ol’ politicians.
I would dearly love my girls to inherit a nation worthy of them. We are endeavoring to teach them that hard work, self-sufficiency (from government assistance), and independence are the tickets toward true freedoms. But our government is burning these notions down around their ears.
And it was an extra pleasure because the New Testament readings were one of my favorites:
2 Thessalonians 3: 6-10
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
This echoed an interesting post my friend Enola Gay recently had on her blog. Her grandfather sent her a piece called The Truth of the Welfare State, which expresses the frustration many of us feel:
Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, one the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT doing drugs or whatever they want while I work.
Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
This all reinforces the Great Divide in this country. No, it’s not the Haves vs. the Have Nots. It’s becoming the “Work” vs. the “Work Nots.”
Please note the Bible verse says “The one who is UNWILLING to work.” Other versions say “shall not work” or “will not work.” This differs greatly from CANNOT work.
People cannot work for a huge variety of reasons. Some are too old. Some are disabled. Some are too young. Some are single mothers (I distinguish between women who have been abandoned by their men versus women who crank out babies for profit). And, especially in this economy, many are simply unable to find work, no matter how hard they try.
This greatly differs from those who WILL NOT work.
There are very few among us in this nation would are not willing to help those who are truly in need. When we see people who are UNABLE to work, collectively there is a deep-seated instinct to help. That’s one of the reasons I admire and support such organizations as the Union Gospel Mission, which takes people off the street and “teaches them to fish” rather than merely “giving” them fish (to paraphrase the old saying). Charities such as this are privately run, efficient, and deserving of praise.
But just as there is a deep-seated instinct among us to help those in need, there is equally a deep-seated resentment among us to have our hard-earned money forcibly removed from our pockets and “redistributed” to those who, quite often, are UNWILING to work.
Giving money to those unwilling to work is cruel. It destroys their incentive, ruins their work ethic, and supplies a false sense of entitlement. It rips families apart (since the man is no longer necessary as the critical breadwinner). It teaches children that age-old virtues are unnecessary.
In short, giving un-earned money may well lead, directly or indirectly, to the destruction of our nation. It’s a chain-reaction downward spiral, apparently encouraged by our government so it has a built-in cadre of dependent voters willing to keep the entitlements coming if only they vote in the same ol’ politicians.
I would dearly love my girls to inherit a nation worthy of them. We are endeavoring to teach them that hard work, self-sufficiency (from government assistance), and independence are the tickets toward true freedoms. But our government is burning these notions down around their ears.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The philosophy of feeding
Last week we moved the cows to their winter quarters, the wooded side of our property. Normally we feed them through the winter since, of course, they can't graze through snow. But since we haven't had any snow yet, and since we're trying to preserve our hay supply, we've been letting them pick through the remaining grass in the woods.
But a couple days ago we thought we'd better start feeding. The calves had never been fed at the feed boxes before, so it took them a day or two to figure out that free food magically appears in the feed boxes twice a day.
Now the calves "get it." In fact, everybody "gets it." Mornings and afternoons, we have eleven discontented animals (ten bovines, one horse) standing impatiently next to the feed boxes, waiting for us to get off our lazy duffs and give them food. They bellow. They moo. They whinney. They don't shut up until we feed them.
It's not as though there's three feet of snow on the ground. There's still food in the woods if they look for it. But it's so much easier, don'cha know, to gripe and moan and complain until they get their free food in the feed boxes. Conditioned by the handouts, they are now too lazy to go look for food themselves in the woods.
But of course, the food isn't free. My husband and I paid for it. And we're the ones doing the labor of feeding. Wind or rain or shine, we trundle the wheelbarrows over to the haybales, pitch the hay into the barrow, trundle it over to the feed boxes, and heave the hay into the boxes. We fill the wheelbarrow three or four times each feeding. We feed twice a day. It doesn't matter what other chores need doing, or what the weather is like, or even how we feel. And if we're late, they complain.
Until the snow flies and feeding becomes imperative, it finally dawned on me what the problem is.
Our cows are on welfare.
But a couple days ago we thought we'd better start feeding. The calves had never been fed at the feed boxes before, so it took them a day or two to figure out that free food magically appears in the feed boxes twice a day.
Now the calves "get it." In fact, everybody "gets it." Mornings and afternoons, we have eleven discontented animals (ten bovines, one horse) standing impatiently next to the feed boxes, waiting for us to get off our lazy duffs and give them food. They bellow. They moo. They whinney. They don't shut up until we feed them.
It's not as though there's three feet of snow on the ground. There's still food in the woods if they look for it. But it's so much easier, don'cha know, to gripe and moan and complain until they get their free food in the feed boxes. Conditioned by the handouts, they are now too lazy to go look for food themselves in the woods.
But of course, the food isn't free. My husband and I paid for it. And we're the ones doing the labor of feeding. Wind or rain or shine, we trundle the wheelbarrows over to the haybales, pitch the hay into the barrow, trundle it over to the feed boxes, and heave the hay into the boxes. We fill the wheelbarrow three or four times each feeding. We feed twice a day. It doesn't matter what other chores need doing, or what the weather is like, or even how we feel. And if we're late, they complain.
Until the snow flies and feeding becomes imperative, it finally dawned on me what the problem is.
Our cows are on welfare.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Davy Crockett vs. welfare
Here is a remarkable excerpt from a book entitled "The Life of Colonel David Crockett" written by Edward S. Ellis in 1884. A reader brought this to my attention. It's long, but worth reading to the very last line.
Most of the text relates a discussion between Crockett and a farmer named Horatio Bunce on the subject of dispersing government funds to alleviate individual hardship, i.e. charity or welfare. Crockett had at first voted in favor of this in a particular instance; but after a discussion with Bunce, he profoundly changed his mind.
Some highlights:
Horatio Bunce: "Your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine...The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions...Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?...Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose...You have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people."
Davy Crockett: "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Most of the text relates a discussion between Crockett and a farmer named Horatio Bunce on the subject of dispersing government funds to alleviate individual hardship, i.e. charity or welfare. Crockett had at first voted in favor of this in a particular instance; but after a discussion with Bunce, he profoundly changed his mind.
Some highlights:
Horatio Bunce: "Your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine...The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions...Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?...Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose...You have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people."
Davy Crockett: "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)