All those against federal entitlement programs say "I"

Nov 2010
39
0
My understanding of Entitlements you could say is the difference between "now and then."

Does anyone remember what this nation was like before entitlements? Parents took care of their children, and when the parents got old, the children took care of their parents. Parents were not shoved into a home and forgotten about, paid for by some entitlement. In times of trouble, communities helped one another, and churches helped people as well.

Even during the "great depression," THERE WAS NOT ONE ENTITLEMENT THAT HELPED ANYONE. I wanted to make that point plain. If you can find one entitlement that helped one person through the great deperession, I would like to know about it. There was no cash assistance, no food stamps, and no Social Security. By the time any governemnt program started, the depression was pretty much over.

You might wonder where I get my facts. I talked to people who lived through those years, like my dad, my mother, aunts and uncles, and older people when I volunteered at a nursing home. One lady was very specific. While the government would have us believe that if it weren't for the government people would not have made it though the great depression. But, older folks that lived through those days had a different story. That one lady at the nursing home pretty much hated the government for their lies. She was upset with her children for putting her in a home. "This didn't happen when I was younger," she said. "We took care of our parents." She had a lot to say about those days. I will never forget her.

If you want to see what life was like in this country before entitlements, simply read or watch "Little House on the Prairie." When the Ingalls suffered through a tornado that destroyed the entire crop, and killed their cow, there was not one government program to apply for aid. It was the people of Walnut Grove that helped the Ingalls family. And that is what life was like in this country before entitlements. "People helping people" was more than than a slogan, it was a reality. Of course, to make things interesting, Walnut Grove had Mrs. Oleson, their resident capitalist. If redistribution of the wealth is evil, it seems the people of Walnut Grove were very evil. Because, to help the Ingals family, they, at times had to redistribute the wealth. And that is the way it was. People helping people by distributing to anyone who had need. And it was all done without some Government Control Program.

This country survived very well without Federal Entitlement/Government Control Programs for about 150 years.

That was then. What about now? For that part of this discussion, I will draw on personal experience. And I hope I do not lose any respect from those who hate Entitlements, because I hate them too. And I wouldn't be on any if I didn't have to be.

In 1977 I developed something in my left ring finger that was very painful. Bumping that finger felt like being hit by a sledge hammer. I had to really protect that finger or suffer excruciating pain every time I bumped it. It is really hard to work with your hands when you only have one hand that you can use. So, I went to see a doctor. He said I needed surgery. Well, I didn't have the money, neither did my family. So I went to the church I was a member of. The preacher told me to go to the government for help. I had no choice. About 15 hospitalizations later I am still on Government Control Programs. And that is what they are.

I hate it. Federal Entitlements have ripped the heart and soul out of the nation. My church telling me to go to the government for help is just plain wrong. But, that is a symptom of a greater problem. People don't help people anymore, not like they did. Why should they when the government does it? But these goverment programs are not about helping people, they are about government control.

Becuase of my situation, I understand both sides of the Entitlement issue.
The reason there are so many people on entitlement programs is because Government has created and atmosphere where they have to be. Overtaxation, overregulation, free trade agreements that do nothing but send jobs overseas, have all created this atmosphere. The economy is being destroyed by the Government, as a result, people are losing good paying jobs, being forced to to get jobs that do not pay as well, if they are fortunate enough to get a job at all. My conservative friends know these things to be true, but fail to see the connection between the government destruction of the economy and the need for people to collect from the government. It seems to me that everytime we have economic problems in this country we place blame on poor people, instead of blaming those that have created these economic problems in the first place, which is Congress. Congress has been whittling away at our economy and our freedom for at least the last 50 years, and it's time for that to change.

If we want to do something about Entitlements, we must first change the direction of our Government. Therefore, I propose we end all business taxes, end all OSHA regulations, create a minimum wage system that is based on the cost of living. No one should be denied a living wage. I further propose that we end our participation is job stealing treaties, such as NAFTA. I further propose that we once again collect tariffs. These steps would once again allow businesses to earn a decent profit, while at the same time hire American workers, and pay them a living wage.

In the 60s and early 70s, there were all kinds of factories. Shirt factories, undergarment factories, etc. But, today, even the "Great American Chocolate Bar" is made in Mexico. We need to bring those jobs back to America. When we do that, then we can do something about Entitlements.

I use to be a radio announcer, but because of national shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, etc., and radio stations being controlled by computers, or satallite hook up, people like me are no longer needed. So we can't just simply say we need to get rid of Entitlements. It would be inhumane to all of a sudden take people off Entitlements when they are dependent on them.

I hate what Entitlements have done to this country, and if we could just end them without hurting anyone, that would be great. But that is not reality.

By the way, I don't remember this country having a homeless problem before Entitlements. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks for your time.

:help: - this discussion
 
Aug 2010
862
0
You act like entitlements are a new thing. What about all the discounts to support slavery? What about the protectionism tariffs and subsidies to prop up American bossinesses? The only thing that's changed is that entitlements have been aimed more at people rather then businesses.


Slavery has been illegal for an awfully long time and even so isn't really a reasonable situation to which an analogy could be drawn.

Businesses are owned by people and employ people.

Trade protectionism is aimed at indistries not individuals so this too doesn't really fit. Further, proping up American business industry wide intends to help the businesses and a fortiori the owners and employees. Whether this actually works is subject to debate.

"The only thing that's changed..." actually that's not very accurate. The reason that they are called entitlements is because a right to this benefit has been established. There is no right to a subsidy or protective tariff
 
Nov 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
Its a vague clause empowering congress to spend money without specifically tell them what to spend it on

but, constructionists believe it is limited to those duties mandated in the constitution rather than entitlements

Well I don't know if I am a "constructionist" but that sound right to me. Although "general welfare" is vague, I noticed that later on in the constitution it lays out exactly what it should do and it is very specific. Nowhere in there does it say it should feed, cloath, or shelter people. But I suppose if someone believes that the constitution is out dated and needs to adapt to new times, then it becomes hard to make that point valid to them.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Slavery has been illegal for an awfully long time and even so isn't really a reasonable situation to which an analogy could be drawn.

Businesses are owned by people and employ people.

Trade protectionism is aimed at indistries not individuals so this too doesn't really fit. Further, proping up American business industry wide intends to help the businesses and a fortiori the owners and employees. Whether this actually works is subject to debate.

"The only thing that's changed..." actually that's not very accurate. The reason that they are called entitlements is because a right to this benefit has been established. There is no right to a subsidy or protective tariff

And no 'entitlements' are rights ether. Some people that have gotten addicted to them may think so but the whole idea of welfare is to help people get out of poverty, not to live off of it (which is why I think welfare should be repaid after a time). The problem is the right seems to think anyone that uses welfare is some leach and thinks there entitled to it. I understand this politically as such a view is needed to use the dirty word 'entitlement' to demonize welfare but it's not actually true. Welfare and 'entitlements are temp programs that are based not on the idea that they themselves are rights but that people have a right to get helped up if over their heads.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Welfare programs are not temp, people stay on them for life and avoid bettering themselves in order to stay on them.

That's people, the programs themselves are designed only to help people up then be discontinued. I already took up that point with my call to have welfare recipients pay everything back after a time.
 
Nov 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
That is true, and the reform you sugested would be good. My point is simply that they may be intended to work one way but it doesn't mean it does. The Federal government cannot control the beasts it created.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
That is true, and the reform you sugested would be good. My point is simply that they may be intended to work one way but it doesn't mean it does. The Federal government cannot control the beasts it created.

Enact my reform. Make it clear that if you take gov't money that you're expected to get work, save and repay. Also make clear refusal to pay will mean it'll get forced out of you (slavery is still legal as punishment for a crime, so they could be made to work it off). Considering welfare is voluntary, nobody can complain.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
And no 'entitlements' are rights ether. Some people that have gotten addicted to them may think so but the whole idea of welfare is to help people get out of poverty, not to live off of it (which is why I think welfare should be repaid after a time).

Not sure where you got your law degree but you need to sue for malpractice.

They are called entitlements exactly because they are rights. If the person meets statutory qualifications they may not be denied.

entitlement n
1 : the state or condition of being entitled
: claim [evidence of victim's to money seized "National Law Journal"]
2 : a right to benefits that is granted esp. by law or contract (as an insurance policy) NOTE: Some courts have held that entitlements are a property interest and therefore subject to procedural due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution when denied by federal or state governments.
3 : a government program that provides benefits to members of a group that has a statutory entitlement
;also
: the benefits distributed by such a program


http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/entitlement.html

The problem is the right seems to think anyone that uses welfare is some leach and thinks there entitled to it.

The larger problem is that you do not understand the subject you are discussing.

However, many people who accept these programs ARE deadbeats. Certainly not all but they do exist. The simple fact is that subsidizing unwanted behavior will produce more of it.

As to the sources of poverty I'd direct you to Daniel Patrick Moyniahan's report when he was Asst Sec of Labor under LBJ and the advice of George F Will. Will said: Graduate from high school, don't have a baby until you are married, don't marry while you are a teenager. Among people who obey those rules, poverty is minimal.

I understand this politically as such a view is needed to use the dirty word 'entitlement' to demonize welfare but it's not actually true.
Welfare and 'entitlements are temp programs that are based not on the idea that they themselves are rights but that people have a right to get helped up if over their heads.

Again, you don't understand and it actually is true. The term is used not to disparage these rights. It is used because it describes these rights. People generally take a dim view because they don't like the amount of money we spend on entitlements. This is a rational response to a policy they disapprove of.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Enact my reform. Make it clear that if you take gov't money that you're expected to get work, save and repay. Also make clear refusal to pay will mean it'll get forced out of you (slavery is still legal as punishment for a crime, so they could be made to work it off). Considering welfare is voluntary, nobody can complain.
You say, "Make it clear that if you take gov't money that you're expected to get work, save and repay." If they could, banks would be happy to give them the loans. The point is the welfare recipients don't or can't.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
Not quite on topic, but relatively solid proof that recipients consider welfare a right could be found by cutting off those benefits, and observing the ensuing riots.

Amusing thread, and a nice place to enter the fray after a few weeks absence.

Congratulations, David, on a masterful bit of obfuscation.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
You say, "Make it clear that if you take gov't money that you're expected to get work, save and repay." If they could, banks would be happy to give them the loans. The point is the welfare recipients don't or can't.

If they can't repay, they shouldn't get the benefits. If you don't work, don't expect to get support when you're down. I only make an exception for the disabled in this view.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
If they can't repay, they shouldn't get the benefits. If you don't work, don't expect to get support when you're down. I only make an exception for the disabled in this view.
My point is that you don't need government if you believe in what you said here. Banks are always happy to lend to people who will pay them back- the problem is most welfare people can't or won't do that, so they won't get the loans to hold them over.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
If they can't repay, they shouldn't get the benefits. If you don't work, don't expect to get support when you're down. I only make an exception for the disabled in this view.

You're missing myp's point.


....................................
 
Nov 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
You say, "Make it clear that if you take gov't money that you're expected to get work, save and repay." If they could, banks would be happy to give them the loans. The point is the welfare recipients don't or can't.

You make a very good point Myp, but I think that forcing recipients to show proof of making improvments in their situation should be a requirement to keep getting benifits untill they eventually no longer need them.

Not quite on topic, but relatively solid proof that recipients consider welfare a right could be found by cutting off those benefits, and observing the ensuing riots.

Amusing thread, and a nice place to enter the fray after a few weeks absence.

You are correct AK_ID but how bargaric that would be of us to do.

Btw glad you like the thread, I am glad it has stayed on topic so well.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
You make a very good point Myp, but I think that forcing recipients to show proof of making improvments in their situation should be a requirement to keep getting benifits untill they eventually no longer need them.



You are correct AK_ID but how bargaric that would be of us to do.

Btw glad you like the thread, I am glad it has stayed on topic so well.


Willy, myp, David.....

One of the larger problems here is that unless these requirements are including in any enabling legislation they cannot simply be imopsed by policy.

Entitlements are rights cereated by statute. As long as statutory requirements are met a person cannot be denied. Their is no discretion permitted.

Should we make such changes? Yes. See Tommy Thompson and welfare reform... workfare etc
 
Nov 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
You are correct, and it is going to take time. This type of reform we're talking about is a good place to start, with the end goal of eventually one day having no federal entitlement programs.
 
Top