A Texan's Remedy!

[Feuer Frei!]

This is priceless:
I want this guy as my Prime Minister.
:rock:

Put me in charge . . .
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Starcards; 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 powderedmilk 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.

AND While you are on Govt subsistence, you no longer can 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 Govt welfare check.

If you want to vote, then get a job.

Originally posted at Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX Nov 18, 2010.

This source: HERE (http://glenwoodfincafe.blogspot.com/2011/07/texans-solution-to-welfare.html)

[Onkel Neal]

Haha, perfect. Don't worry, someone will come along soon and cry about how harsh that is. Someone who wants to spend my money, of course.:shucks:

Remember, there is a whole political party geared toward making the misfortunate comfortable using someone else's money. They will never go for 50 pound bags of beans and blocks of cheese, oh no. That's unfair!

[Anthony W.]

Going on Facebook...

[Tribesman]

Haha, perfect.
Yes?
The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations.
:hmmm:
So how long would a woman have to lose her job for before you want to start cutting her apart?
Perfect eh:nope:

Someone who wants to spend my money
Operating on people is expensive and always risky, reversing that operation is even more expensive and riskier, but hey you can always save money with implants that are banned and further add the bill for the lawsuits you already pay for.

So the blog piece has a nice populist appeal, Neal jumped in in a populism is popular sort of way, but didn't think:03:

[Snestorm]

I've got a better fix.
A return to the days before Welfare & Socialism.

[Feuer Frei!]

Haha, perfect. Don't worry, someone will come along soon and cry about how harsh that is. Someone who wants to spend my money, of course.:shucks:

Remember, there is a whole political party geared toward making the misfortunate comfortable using someone else's money. They will never go for 50 pound bags of beans and blocks of cheese, oh no. That's unfair!
Ofc it's too harsh. How easy is it in society to get hand-outs or to get a food voucher?
Or to sit on your a@#$ and collect welfare off the tax payers?
I'm using the above examples from my country.
The need to work has been de prioritised, in favour of going on the dole and when the government doesn't give you any incentives nor takes the unemployment situation seriously, then we have a problem.
Oh how all the whiners and lazy clowns would cry and complain if they actually had to work for their dole money each fortnight! Or if the government implemented a system where you, when employed, payed into a seperate fund a certain percentage of your wage so that when you are unemployed you draw off that!
But the Einsteins and Geniuses wouldn't think of such a measure would they?
Too busy giving hand-outs to the bludgers and not doing anything about the scrubs who live off my hard earned money each fortnight, who mind you the employment agencies have pinpointed for intensive assistance because they have been out of a job for two years or more.
And before you take that sentence and argue about it, i'm talking about able-bodied mentally stable people who are able to work.
So, as the Texan says, grow some balls, get off your a@@ and if you want some of the perks and works that us workers get, get a job!
Let the whiners and dole bludgers come out of the wood works!

[NeonSamurai]

Hmm interesting, I wonder why he didn't propose sterilizing all the men... Particularly considering the surgical method on males, is far cheaper, safer, and, much more easily reversed.

[frau kaleun]

Hmm interesting, I wonder why he didn't propose sterilizing all the men... Particularly considering the surgical method on males, is far cheaper, safer, and, much more easily reversed.

Well obviously it's the wimmenz that be makin' all the babies, and need to be controlled.

Also you must remember that men's bodies, not being considered the property of others, are sacrosanct, and a man's right to spread his sperm (of which every one, praise Jeebus, is sacred) wherever he pleases cannot be interfered with. Unless it actually puts a bun in somebody's oven, in which case it is 100% the oven's fault.

[Growler]

Only fundamental flaw I see in the argument is the "Get a job" part. Wages are not increasing commensurate with expenses, and jobs for unskilled labor have been more cheaply filled by illegals than by citizens (citizens, who, by the way, don't work jobs that are "beneath them" - a whole other ball of cat fur).

Start paying good people good wages for good work, and you'll find a good economy.

[Tchocky]

Hmm interesting, I wonder why he didn't propose sterilizing all the men... Particularly considering the surgical method on males, is far cheaper, safer, and, much more easily reversed.

I'm going to take a wild-ass guess to the gender of the author.


Lovely idea about not allowing people to vote. That's almost cuddly :roll:

[antikristuseke]

Well obviously it's the wimmenz that be makin' all the babies, and need to be controlled.

Also you must remember that men's bodies, not being considered the property of others, are sacrosanct, and a man's right to spread his sperm (of which every one, praise Jeebus, is sacred) wherever he pleases cannot be interfered with. Unless it actually puts a bun in somebody's oven, in which case it is 100% the oven's fault.

The use of kitchen hardware comparisons seems odly fiting :D

*Legs it*

[frau kaleun]

The use of kitchen hardware comparisons seems odly fiting :D

*Legs it*


It's a good thing you're so thin not to mention half my age or I would never even consider making you a sandwich, you naughty boy! :O:

[Feuer Frei!]

Only fundamental flaw I see in the argument is the "Get a job" part. Wages are not increasing commensurate with expenses, and jobs for unskilled labor have been more cheaply filled by illegals than by citizens (citizens, who, by the way, don't work jobs that are "beneath them" - a whole other ball of cat fur).

Start paying good people good wages for good work, and you'll find a good economy.
Until then, get a job, any job!
Also the salary to expense ratio is kept in check by the Consumer Price Index. Quarterly here.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm going to take a wild-ass guess to the gender of the author.


Lovely idea about not allowing people to vote. That's almost cuddly :roll:

Yah, the concept of earning the right to vote or having the right just because you exist is a thorny one, but may need to be re-examined. Hard to imagine a majority today that is well-informed about much other than American Idol or Kim Kardashian. But let them vote, why not go to the other extreme and let them govern by resolution, like California?


Only fundamental flaw I see in the argument is the "Get a job" part. Wages are not increasing commensurate with expenses, and jobs for unskilled labor have been more cheaply filled by illegals than by citizens (citizens, who, by the way, don't work jobs that are "beneath them" - a whole other ball of cat fur).

Start paying good people good wages for good work, and you'll find a good economy.

Seriously, economics anyone? Employers pay people what they feel they are worth. Some jobs don't require much skill, so they don't pay as much. And people will look for work when they have no alternatives. The govt offers too many alternatives.

[Growler]

Until then, get a job, any job!
Also the salary to expense ratio is kept in check by the Consumer Price Index. Quarterly here.

Salary to expense ratio is subjective here, I fear, further complicated by American unwillingness to give up the personal car for good, efficient mass transit.

"Get a job, any job" sounds good, and in principle, I agree - even ten quid a week is better than no quid a week. However, as said earlier, there is a general unwillingness in a lot of people to do work that is "beneath them" - or a desire by employers to cut costs by hiring illegals; both issues need addressing before we'll get back to a good economy.

Here's a thought experiment: How would your work life be different if your boss thought of your salary as an asset rather than a liability? For instance, instead of going on the ledger as a 25K loss, it goes instead on the plus side as a 25K gain in value to the business?

[Herr-Berbunch]

Quite good, but iirc Britain forced Indian women to have birth control by pretending it was a vaccine - in the long term not a great move!

And if you tell someone they cannot vote, for whatever reasons, then it's not voluntry.

As for the rest, go for it. :yep:

[Skybird]

The man points the finger at the root of modern time's problem. Help of the social solidarity kind is meant to help in case of the person in question getting into probloems withoiut it being his/her fault. That help is meant to keep him/her floating to survive, it is not meant to allow him/her a luxurious life, or make a living and forming a family at the cost of others who are demanded to pay for that. You shall not procreate if you cannot financially support a family. You have an obligation to cut your time of need as short as possible, you owe that to those who pay for you meanwhile - else you rip them off shamlessly. As long as you raise yxour hand and take the stateÄS money, you have no say in altering that state's business and social wellfare policies, so indeed - you shall not be allowed to vote.

Too many people have willed to make a cosy comfortable nest in social wellfare payments. That is not what it is meant for. Politicians try to rise the demand for even more coziness, by making financial promises. These proimise should bring them more votes at the next election. result: our social security systems are overloaded and die of self-inflicted cancer. Our debts are rising and rising, because we pay more than our whole society can afford.

So far I agree. Just want to say that you need to be on your guard at the other end of the argument, too. Keeping the dependant weak can be understood by capitalistic predators to exploit them and not even allowing them to recover. Capitalism does not want neither econmic competition, nor zero unemployment, it wants monopolies and and the power to dictate the conditions. For that, a weak, depending population not having alternatives is the king'S road to success. Capitalism loves high unemployment as long as it must not compensate for that in a rise in social taxes. High unemployment helps to keep the wages low.

The man is right, in principle. But it is easy to abuse what he says for bad intentions.

[Growler]

Seriously, economics anyone? Employers pay people what they feel they are worth. Some jobs don't require much skill, so they don't pay as much. And people will look for work when they have no alternatives. The govt offers too many alternatives.


Whoa, didn't mean to strke a nerve, skipper. I don't get how what I said is in any way bad economy, but I'm not an economist, so I could be wrong.

I'm not speaking about paying disproportionate to the work. What I am saying is pay people who work a fair wage for their work, and the economy benefits by having those people spend on more than just subsistence level stuff. The economy doesn't grow if people are working for a net gain of zero - if all you're buying is Ramen and rice, you aren't helping it get better (but at least you're not making it worse by being a drain on overtaxed systems, either). If the net gain is zero, and then costs increase - you increase the drain on those systems. If the wages increase with expenses, you do'nt have that drain.

[nikimcbee]

What!?! There was no .357 involved.:hmmm: Speaking of TX, Texas' homeless are leaving TX and moving to ore-gone (portlandia) for all of the benefits(free) we give out.:dead:

[Onkel Neal]

I hope I didn't give the impression I favor mandatory sterilization, but I see nothing wrong with birth control for receipients of my tax money. Menz and women.

As far as the Sacred Right to Vote, I'm pretty sure 1/4 of the country would exchange their vote for a $50 voucher. What do you think?

Here's a real Texan's remedy (http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2011/07/13/nr.intv.ron.paul.debt.cnn.html) :) (Real as in, he exists)

[Growler]

Here's a real Texan's remedy (http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2011/07/13/nr.intv.ron.paul.debt.cnn.html) :) (Real as in, he exists)

Damn. Will have to watch from home, as I'm blocked here. That said, I will watch from home. I don't see eye to eye with him on some things, but damn, I wish he'd get enough support to win the thing.

[Armistead]

Sounds like the guy is a racist and bigot and passes the blame rather than to look at the social issues that causes many problems. No doubt the african race in the US in in trouble, but where does that stem from, maybe 100's of years of racism, lack of generational wealth, etc.. Who was it that implemented many of the welfare programs that destroyed the black family structure that was fairly strong before even in poverty?

Now with a failing economy all races are suffering about the same. When corporations send jobs overseas, millions lose them here along with benefits and end up on welfare roles, medicare, etc.. With a dysfunctional mass profit health industry, big insurance, pharma, medical, millions more fall into medicare because they can't afford cheap rent and insurance.

in just 20 years we've seen 60% of all wealth change hands from the majority to a minority. The elite through buying government is creating a two class system, all factors say it's coming in just another generation. US corporations have no problem creating a upcoming middle class in China and India.

No doubt we've had a social and moral breakdown, but let's honetly look at the facts how we got here.

I would have no problem with welfare and those disabled that can work take government jobs, wages and benefits...

[mookiemookie]

Sounds like the guy is a racist and bigot and passes the blame rather than to look at the social issues that causes many problems. No doubt the african race in the US in in trouble, but where does that stem from, maybe 100's of years of racism, lack of generational wealth, etc.. Who was it that implemented many of the welfare programs that destroyed the black family structure that was fairly strong before even in poverty?

Now with a failing economy all races are suffering about the same. When corporations send jobs overseas, millions lose them here along with benefits and end up on welfare roles, medicare, etc.. With a dysfunctional mass profit health industry, big insurance, pharma, medical, millions more fall into medicare because they can't afford cheap rent and insurance.

in just 20 years we've seen 60% of all wealth change hands from the majority to a minority. The elite through buying government is creating a two class system, all factors say it's coming in just another generation. US corporations have no problem creating a upcoming middle class in China and India.

No doubt we've had a social and moral breakdown, but let's honetly look at the facts how we got here.

I would have no problem with welfare and those disabled that can work take government jobs, wages and benefits...

It's all about the individual blame bias vs the organizational blame bias. Add a healthy dose of the "just world phenomenon" and there you have it. Some people believe the world is fair and because of that, anyone that doesn't succeed has no one to blame but themselves. In reality, it's a lot more murky than that simplistic worldview would imply.

[Growler]

It's all about the individual blame bias vs the organizational blame bias. Add a healthy dose of the "just world phenomenon" and there you have it. Some people believe the world is fair and because of that, anyone that doesn't succeed has no one to blame but themselves. In reality, it's a lot more murky than that simplistic worldview would imply.

The Casey Anthony trial followers might disagree with that. They all had the "unfairness of it all" thrust upon them, and are completely convinced that it was all "someone else's" - the jury's - fault.

See, the truth in, the world ain't fair, and anyone expecting it to be will be rudely awakened. We've been lucky, as a species - we've occupied the top of the ladder for awhile now, and as Americans, ever moreso. But we're killing ourselves.

Supporting our weakest (adult) and non-producing (adult) members of our society is solely based on emotion and misguided concepts of justice. In the truest sense of Survival of the Fittest, you take what you need to survive, and cast away that which will drag you down. What our current overburdened systems are doing is the opposite - trying to support everyone, failing on an increasing scale, and dragging all of the rest of us with it.

Now, I KNOW this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. For humanitarian reasons, we do have state and federal systems to help those to can't help themselves, and we have systems to provide assistance to others who are having a rough time - over the short term. The problem is too many are relying solely on those systems over long terms, and in so doing, deprive the use of those systems to others who genuinely need them. That ain't "fair" but it is "real."

It ain't fair that my wife and I both work our tails off and are still struggling with our relatively inexpensive mortgage. It ain't fair that we've lived in this house for seven years, and were 100% current on that mortgage until a few days ago. And it ain't fair that, if we don't get current, we risk losing our home. It ain't fair that seven years of equity evaporate. It ain't fair that, despite so many people up and walking away from their mortgages, we've struggled and fought to do the right thing by ours, and to the bank, that doesn't matter.

It ain't fair, but that's the way it is. The sooner people start getting that this sh*t ain't fair, the sooner we'll start standing up for ourselves and our country.

[Armistead]

The Casey Anthony trial followers might disagree with that. They all had the "unfairness of it all" thrust upon them, and are completely convinced that it was all "someone else's" - the jury's - fault.

See, the truth in, the world ain't fair, and anyone expecting it to be will be rudely awakened. We've been lucky, as a species - we've occupied the top of the ladder for awhile now, and as Americans, ever moreso. But we're killing ourselves.

Supporting our weakest (adult) and non-producing (adult) members of our society is solely based on emotion and misguided concepts of justice. In the truest sense of Survival of the Fittest, you take what you need to survive, and cast away that which will drag you down. What our current overburdened systems are doing is the opposite - trying to support everyone, failing on an increasing scale, and dragging all of the rest of us with it.

Now, I KNOW this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. For humanitarian reasons, we do have state and federal systems to help those to can't help themselves, and we have systems to provide assistance to others who are having a rough time - over the short term. The problem is too many are relying solely on those systems over long terms, and in so doing, deprive the use of those systems to others who genuinely need them. That ain't "fair" but it is "real."

It ain't fair that my wife and I both work our tails off and are still struggling with our relatively inexpensive mortgage. It ain't fair that we've lived in this house for seven years, and were 100% current on that mortgage until a few days ago. And it ain't fair that, if we don't get current, we risk losing our home. It ain't fair that seven years of equity evaporate. It ain't fair that, despite so many people up and walking away from their mortgages, we've struggled and fought to do the right thing by ours, and to the bank, that doesn't matter.

It ain't fair, but that's the way it is. The sooner people start getting that this sh*t ain't fair, the sooner we'll start standing up for ourselves and our country.

That' Mid-Evil thinking and the herd strategy. Let's see, what's the old Christian saying.

"The strong prevail, the weak to hell."

It ain't fair you say, but that's the way it is..please. That's the way it is because of unregulated government that sold out to special interests. How would you feel when your kids get hungry, have no shelter, etc...knowing the banks got rich from the housing ponzi scheme and the bail outs and did nothing with your tax dollars but invest for more riches.

It's mans way of looking at how animals survive to try to excuse it, but I agree with the element of truth to it, but it's not about survival, it's about greed to have more.

History has proven over and over it's not survival that brings down nations, but the greed of the few. The strongest few eventually will die out if they're not part of a big herd. The downfall of most kingdoms come when they create a two class system out of greed, eventually the masses that built the kingdom die out or revolt and the rich are pushed out and replaced. That's why corporations today love a global economy, their kingdom becomes the world, they no longer work for the nation they claim to be a part of, but the result is what we see now, the strongest nations of the world falling into a two class system.

We do know the healthiest of societies have many rolls and do contain those with less and those with more, but long lasting systems know that the basic needs and care of all must be secured.

The goal of American capitalism is probably the best system as long as it keeps checks and balances. We know socialism doesn't work, but we also know capitalism must be made to work for the masses.

There's a reason you here GOP leaders stating get rid of min. wage, medicare, SS, regulation, etc.

[Growler]

It ain't fair you say, but that's the way it is..please. That's the way it is because of unregulated government that sold out to special interests. How would you feel when your kids get hungry, have no shelter, etc...knowing the banks got rich from the housing ponzi scheme and the bail outs and did nothing with your tax dollars but invest for more riches.

They got bailed out, invested those tax dollars... and that's fair? Right after you tell me "please" over my assertion that life ain't fair?


It's mans way of looking at how animals survive to try to excuse it, but I agree with the element of truth to it, but it's not about survival, it's about greed to have more.

There's your problem. It's ALL about survival. It always, always is. "Greed to have more" is proof, not a rebuttal. What do you get if you have less, on an ever increasing scale? Death. So what do you have if the opposite is true?

As to historical context, who cares? Nations come and go - people will always remain people, regardless of their citizenship. Survival as a nation depends on the survival of its people, but the survival of people individually is not, and never should be, dependent on the survival of a nation.

[Armistead]

They got bailed out, invested those tax dollars... and that's fair? Right after you tell me "please" over my assertion that life ain't fair?



There's your problem. It's ALL about survival. It always, always is. "Greed to have more" is proof, not a rebuttal. What do you get if you have less, on an ever increasing scale? Death. So what do you have if the opposite is true?

As to historical context, who cares? Nations come and go - people will always remain people, regardless of their citizenship. Survival as a nation depends on the survival of its people, but the survival of people individually is not, and never should be, dependent on the survival of a nation.

You're contridicting yourself, the survival of people has always been through a national status and only been successfully done when people work together under a system of fair laws and regulations. Today most laws and regulations work only for a small group, thus why 10% now hold 80% of all wealth. You forget when those nations go, usually a majority of the people go with it, not sure about you but I would like to prolong that in the US as long as possible regardless how many nations in the world fall apart.

Survival and greed aren't the same, many survive without greed, tribal systems all over the world although not industrialized have done so for 1000's of years. Greed is when you obtain at the expense of others via slavery or unfair laws that benefit a certain group. People have always come together in groups to survive, but I agree not everyone in the group has the same status. Even ants have enough sense that all get the basic needs met, even if they have roles within the tribe.

The failure today is they're aren't enough roles and many roles don't pay enough for rent or food alone. Right now there are one jobs available for every 4 looking. Real employment numbers are about 16%.

Think, if we taxed the hell out of all the products that US corporations make elsewhere and ship here jobs would come back. Works for other countries that tax the hell out of us. Some suggest they would raise prices, nope, other businesses in the US could now compete and corps would come back to compete with them, but the GOP will never allow that, but they do want to give them a tax break so they can use those profits to create more jobs...in India and China.

[Snestorm]

I hope I didn't give the impression I favor mandatory sterilization, but I see nothing wrong with birth control for receipients of my tax money. Menz and women.

As far as the Sacred Right to Vote, I'm pretty sure 1/4 of the country would exchange their vote for a $50 voucher. What do you think?

Here's a real Texan's remedy (http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2011/07/13/nr.intv.ron.paul.debt.cnn.html) :) (Real as in, he exists)

I like the real Texan's remedy.
Good man!

[Snestorm]

Supporting our weakest (adult) and non-producing (adult) members of our society is solely based on emotion and misguided concepts of justice. In the truest sense of Survival of the Fittest, you take what you need to survive, and cast away that which will drag you down. What our current overburdened systems are doing is the opposite - trying to support everyone, failing on an increasing scale, and dragging all of the rest of us with it.

That's the damned Socialism!
Survival of the weakest, and the strongest will just have to give more.

The SOBs better start learning that,
There is no more to give.

I hate parasites!

[Tribesman]

That's the damned Socialism!
Survival of the weakest, and the strongest will just have to give more.

The SOBs better start learning that,
There is no more to give.

I hate parasites!
There we have the topic winner, a fan of Action T4:doh:

[Skybird]

We are not animals, but humans with certain added qualities that separate us from animals. These qualities we are - at least potentially - capable of, chnage the meaning of natural behavior that would be just natural for an animal, but for us would mean the added implication of being brutal, cruel and/or antisocial.

Social darwinism is not what I see as a solution. Socialiskjm isn'T a solution either. But accepting a certain sopcial repsoinsibility for those who are weak without their fault, and for the general communal interest, means to be social, not being socialistic. In fact I think that socialism has been shown over and over again to be extremely anti-social.

Americans tend to exaggerate the social darwinism thinking. Europeans tend to exaggerate the attempt to turn "being social" into "socialism" indeed. We both fail in our models, and get haunted by similiar consequences nevertheless: great injustice, debts, budget deficits, collapsing under the weight of our own society models that just do not work as being described in the books. And both we are extremely arrogant to nevertheless tell the other side that although we fail in our own model the other nevertheless should copy it. America, in dpoing so, even takes, at least took until just short time ago, onto all the world, and even today still wants to lecture others, even China on how to do like America itself.

But like some analysts and economists yesterday pointed out in a discussion on TV: twelve years ago, America, by the standards of the now dead Euro stability pact and Maasstricht criterions, would not have been qualified to join the Euro back then! It would have been needed to be left out, like Greece and Italy and one or two others should have been left out too!

And the Chinese finally popint out, increaiongly angry, that America lacks both the poltiicians and the plan, idea, policy - even the intention, to reduce its debts and to recover its economic strength that it has carelessly traded away in the past 20 years or so. The Chinese are right in this criticism.