Put me in charge

[BuccaneerBrad]

This essay popped up on a friend's Facebook page.  It was written by a 21 year old Baylor student.  It's very explosive but raises some valid points


PUT ME IN CHARGE

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of EBT cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Twinkies, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese, sliced bread,  and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak, lobster,  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 legations. Then we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to smoke, drink, do drugs, or reproduce, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in military barracks? You will make sure OUR property is kept clean and im good repair. The home will be subject to inspections at anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a 4k TV or Xbox One, 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.  Any extras you may have such as 22 inch rims, low profile tires, and car blasting speakers will be sold off and the money will be put toward the common good


And while you are on government subsistence, you can NO LONGER VOTE!!  Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a government welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.


Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want government money, accept government rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin people's "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.

[Tenshot13]

I'm sure this will go over well on this site.

[dolphins4life]

enforcing these policies would cost far more money than it would save    however he does make a good point   the system is so flawed   I work forty five or so it's every week  some people only have to work twenty and get a disability check   that's so unfair  too many lazy   people   my coworker once told she hoped trump would stop this laziness?   has he done so?

[Spider-Dan]

I see some potential problems with the "Choose between eating or voting" policy.  I also find it puzzling that poor people voting for policies that give more money to them is a "conflict of interest," but rich people voting for policies to lower taxes or eliminate regulations is totally fine.

But I will say this: I am 100% on board with a government jobs guarantee, which seems like something the original author and I can agree on.  Here, in the richest country on the planet, any person who is willing to work should have a job with health coverage that allows them to live a decent life.

[BuccaneerBrad]

I see some potential problems with the "Choose between eating or voting" policy.  I also find it puzzling that poor people voting for policies that give more money to them is a "conflict of interest," but rich people voting for policies to lower taxes or eliminate regulations is totally fine.

Because taxpayer money isn't supporting the rich people.  That's why.  Also keep in mind that if poor people are voting for the candidate who will make policies that gives them more money, then why are they still poor?   You take a look at the top ten poorest cities in the nation (Miami is on that list).  They all have one thing in common.  None of them have elected a Republican mayor in the past 50 years.   

[Spider-Dan]

Because taxpayer money isn't supporting the rich people.  That's why.

Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them still qualify for (and need) federal assistance.  That is taxpayer money supporting the rich owners of Walmart.  Without taxpayer assistance, these employees would not be able to continue to work at Walmart.

When a fancy new housing development is built, guess who foots the bill for roads and sewers for this new neighborhood?  Taxpayers.  When a new fire department station needs to be built to reach these sprawling developments, guess who foots the bill?  Taxpayers.  Taxpayer money supports everyone.

Also keep in mind that if poor people are voting for the candidate who will make policies that gives them more money, then why are they still poor?

Because voting isn't a magic spell.  There is a wide range of policy outcomes that can exist, and "better" is not the same thing as "perfect."

You take a look at the top ten poorest cities in the nation (Miami is on that list).  They all have one thing in common.  None of them have elected a Republican mayor in the past 50 years.

No, Miami is not one of the ten poorest cities in America.  The poorest cities in America cannot support three major professional sports teams.  (Keep in mind that there is a difference between "poorest cities" and "cities with the biggest gap between rich and poor."  This is an example of the latter... but somehow I doubt you believe income inequality is a problem.)

Here's one list of the poorest cities in the US.  Top ten:

1. Sebring, FL
2. Brownsville-Harlingen, TX
3. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX
4. Las Cruces, NM
5. Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
6. Monroe, LA
7. Pine Bluff, AR
8. Fort Smith, AR
9. Valdosta, GA
10. Florence, SC

Not surprisingly: with one exception, they are all located in red states.  In fact, you have to drill down to #21 to find the next poorest city located within a blue state, and there are only 6 blue state cities in the list of the 40 poorest.

But I'm interested in hearing your explanation for why huge, expensive cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston all have Democratic mayors.

[fyo]

If your goal is to keep people dependent on government handouts, this seems like the perfect plan.

On the other hand, if your goal is to "convert" as large as percentage of this group into tax-paying productive members of society, doing the exact opposite of what this whack job proposed would be far more effective and cheaper in the long run.

[BuccaneerBrad]

If your goal is to keep people dependent on government handouts, this seems like the perfect plan.

On the other hand, if your goal is to "convert" as large as percentage of this group into tax-paying productive members of society, doing the exact opposite of what this whack job proposed would be far more effective and cheaper in the long run.

I think the goal of the writer was to make being on welfare uncomfortable so that people would stay on it only for as long as necessary.   

[Spider-Dan]

Being on welfare is already uncomfortable, especially in red states.  No one is "living high on the hog" at subsistence levels.

Keep in mind that most people who qualify for anything but short-term assistance are a) families with kids or b) those who have been judged as unable to work (i.e. on disability).  So when we talk about who needs to be made uncomfortable, let's be clear that we are primarily talking about children and the disabled.

[fyo]

This is where you are wrong.

Most people I know who get government benefits enjoy it and do everything they can to stay on it.  Most people I know on disability drink, smoke, and party all day.

This quote from somebody I was talking to online sums up the attitude Obama put into this country:

"I don't want to work more hours because I don't want to lose my benefits".

The question then becomes, has Trump done anything about this?

Forget about making America great, how about making America fair?

Every morning when I get up to go to work, I think to myself, "I wish I was on disability, so I could go back to bed, and then have the freedom to do whatever I want."

This is the dream millions of Americans realized under Obama.

Here's another quote from somebody on government assistance:

"My new year's resolution is to start a family"

She expects the taxpayers to pay for as many kids as she wants.  This is another attitude Obama instilled in America.  It used to be society expected you only to have kids if you could support them.  Now it's, "Have as many kids as you want because the taxpayers will take care of them."

Your anecdotal evidence to the contrary, that's not what serious scientific studies show.

Sure, there will always be at least some people who will just try and abuse the system and I have zero empathy for them. As someone NOT on welfare, what I want is to live in a stable, safe, and free society, with as few people on welfare as possible. Turns out the best way to get that is to provide a reasonable level of benefits, in a stable, predictable manner, with a large degree of freedom for the recipients.

That said, there are any number of ways in which society could nudge the behavior of those people, in one way or another, with far fewer "side effects" than the proposed insane strategy.

And, seriously, when you spout crap like "this is another attitude Obama instilled in America", you are simply delusional about the influence of presidents. As for your specific claim of "poor people getting more children, since they expect tax payers to pay for them" (paraphrased), that's just unsubstantiated garbage (and just plain wrong). The US fertility rate peaked right before the recent recession, dropped like a rock in 2007 and has wobbled around a much lower value since then -- even lower than the stable post-war (WW2) period or the shorter stable period in the late 90s / early 00s. All socioeconomic and racial groups have followed the same trend. The number of children in the US living in poverty, another well-tracked number, reflects those statistics, having fallen consistently since the end of the recent recession. The methods for calculating this number were changed 2014 directly causing a slight increase, but the drop continued with the new calculation.

But, yeah, I know a guy who says that XXXX or is XXXX. Well, that settles it then. XXXX must be accurate, despite studies showing the opposite.

[CF DolFan]

But I will say this: I am 100% on board with a government jobs guarantee, which seems like something the original author and I can agree on.  Here, in the richest country on the planet, any person who is willing to work should have a job with health coverage that allows them to live a decent life.

I swear I'll never understand this. For the life of me I can't understand why I should be paying $300 a month instead of $90 for my lawn or $30 for a hamburger, fries and coke just so teenagers and lazy adults can get benefits at McDonalds.  SMH The free enterprise system works just fine and anyone who wants insurance can find a job that offers it.

[Cathal]

I swear I'll never understand this. For the life of me I can't understand why I should be paying $300 a month instead of $90 for my lawn or $30 for a hamburger, fries and coke just so teenagers and lazy adults can get benefits at McDonalds.  SMH The free enterprise system works just fine and anyone who wants insurance can find a job that offers it.

You really don't understand how you'll end up paying less with universal healthcare. No matter how many times people tell you that fact, you just won't believe it.

[CF DolFan]

Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them still qualify for (and need) federal assistance.  That is taxpayer money supporting the rich owners of Walmart.  Without taxpayer assistance, these employees would not be able to continue to work at Walmart.

When a fancy new housing development is built, guess who foots the bill for roads and sewers for this new neighborhood?  Taxpayers.  When a new fire department station needs to be built to reach these sprawling developments, guess who foots the bill?  Taxpayers.  Taxpayer money supports everyone.
Because voting isn't a magic spell.  There is a wide range of policy outcomes that can exist, and "better" is not the same thing as "perfect."
No, Miami is not one of the ten poorest cities in America.  The poorest cities in America cannot support three major professional sports teams.  (Keep in mind that there is a difference between "poorest cities" and "cities with the biggest gap between rich and poor."  This is an example of the latter... but somehow I doubt you believe income inequality is a problem.)

Here's one list of the poorest cities in the US.  Top ten:

1. Sebring, FL
2. Brownsville-Harlingen, TX
3. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX
4. Las Cruces, NM
5. Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
6. Monroe, LA
7. Pine Bluff, AR
8. Fort Smith, AR
9. Valdosta, GA
10. Florence, SC

Not surprisingly: with one exception, they are all located in red states.  In fact, you have to drill down to #21 to find the next poorest city located within a blue state, and there are only 6 blue state cities in the list of the 40 poorest.

But I'm interested in hearing your explanation for why huge, expensive cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston all have Democratic mayors.

Florida is a purple state for now and I'm not familiar with all of them but I do know that a few of those may be in Red states but they are Democrat controlled. The City councils of Valdosta, GA and Florence, SC are both liberal.

They all have Democratic mayors because they have the most low income people who think they will get more free crap or they are so liberal they think illegal aliens should have more rights than American citizens and that women should be able to kill their kids up to like 5th grade or something. Not like it's not obvious.

[CF DolFan]

You really don't understand how you'll end up paying less with universal healthcare. No matter how many times people tell you that fact, you just won't believe it.

you seem pretty brainwashed by what Obama said over and over. "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,". I think you should pay attention to what actually happened and quit falling for smooth talking points.

I pay about $550 for a family of 4 a month and I can call my doctor and see him today or even just have him call me in a prescription. There is no way in hell I will pay less or have the same access to a doctor that I have right now if I have to wait for people who are paying nothing to go in front of me.

[Sunstroke]

I think the goal of the writer was to make being on welfare uncomfortable so that people would stay on it only for as long as necessary.

I agree, but the way it is written makes me 100% certain that this person has never been on welfare of any kind, and has very-very little experience in dealing with people who ARE on welfare.