A Texan's Remedy!
 

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

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!

Going on Facebook...

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:

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:

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

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!

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.

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.

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:

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:

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

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?


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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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:

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 :) (Real as in, he exists)