Engraved at the base of the statue of Liberty
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Emma Lazarus, 1883
There is a group of people within America’s Welfare Class that is metastasizing into a downward spiral of decadence and depravity. The nature of a Welfare System replicates itself and gains in power and funding by rewarding those who exist as parasites, fuels the cancer of degeneracy or an entitlement of the most useless.
Unfortunately, there are Americans who have factors in their life that predispose them to being wards of the state. This article is not meant to demean their plight or condition, but rather, this sense of victimhood that is building among ever increasing group of able bodied that see the Welfare System as means of existence to be manipulated in order to work their way up the ladder of life and success.
These are generations lost, their numbers are growing and the system is encouraging their sloth, laziness, and degeneracy. The Bouchards epitomize the darkest side of this entitlement system.
Alicia Bouchard Encouraged Sexual Relations Between Her Husband And A 12 YO To Gain Extra Government Money
A child of 12 years of age was placed in the care of the Bouchards and was encouraged to have sex with the “Man” of the house so that the couple could claim welfare money and benefit when she became pregnant.
The Carefree Husband And Playboy Was Willing To Work To Get Ahead
An investigation started when the girl was suspected of being sexually molested. Apparently the 41 year old Alicia Bouchard encouraged the sexual relations, but made sure the relations were within certain standards of decency by serving as a chaperone and observing the statutory rapes committed by her husband Mathew, 26 upon the 12 year old girl.
Normally, the case is filled with alleged and suspect phrases, but in this particular case, that has yet to go to trial, Ms Bouchard wrote the girl a letter apologizing for forcing the girl to watch she and her husband have sexual relations and that it was wrong for her to have watched the girl and her husband having sex. Ms Bouchard has also expressed regrets; she wrote, ‘dang sure [she] should not have allowed [her] to have sex with Matt.”.
It is obvious that Ms Bouchard is overwhelmed with remorse as to the whether the incident was a wise decision; especially, now that she and her husband are in jail awaiting trial. Ms Bouchard has been booked on charges of being a principal to sexual battery, soliciting sexual activity with a child, and being a principal to child abuse, her bond has been set at $70,000.
If this were not a Liberal program, they would be asking whether Matt was at for committing the rapes or was it the circumstances that raped the girl for the purposes of getting welfare benefits.
Promoting dependency, of able bodied people, upon government creates a parasitic relationship that inevitably causes individuals to lose their integrity and self respect. The system is self-perpetuating since it works to their advantage to breed more to get more dollars, normal considerations concerning the middle class play no part in the decision to have a child.
From personal experience, I have talked to my workers who feel it is okay for very young girls to have a baby because the government pays them to have children and it is seen as an alternative to having a job. Actually, it is seen as a job; the government is paying young girls to have babies and to raise them. In the mind of the welfare recipient, the government is seen as a very benevolent government that is encouraging this explosion of the welfare class. Thus the government is promoting the concept being fruitful and multiplying among those least able to care for the new wards of the state. Liberalism provides for its own increase in funding and power by creating a breakdown of traditional values and the eventual tyranny of the welfare class.
Epilogue: This is a disgusting subject with despicable people. I hesitated publishing this for several days because of the ugliness it represents; unfortunately, the events and people are real and many more are thriving in this welfare system that has been allowed to run amuck with corruption and fraud. Until the system is overhauled, we should know that degenerates like these will be working the system to their advantage.
@AJ Hill: Thank you AJ. It has been a long fight for me, I was born with Tetralogy of Fallot and now in my adult years (I am 48), I suffer from pronounced arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.
@AJ Hill:
People need to be thanked more when involved in that part.
Thank you and yours.
Hubby owns a print shop.
A 22-year employee got a call today.
His 19 year old son had been killed in a motorcycle accident.
He left immediately.
We heard from him later that his son’s organs could help a lot of other people.
They are taking great consolation in this fact.
@Nan G: Nan, that is awful news to get. Please let the family know that they will be in my thoughts and prayers.
@ AJ Hill
I guess I’m a truly unusual human being, but I certainly hope that isn’t the case. I spent my early years in a trailer park. We had nothing, but my mother refused to even put us on the school lunch program. I was raised to believe that a man’s honor was the only thing he truly owned, everything else can be taken away.
I joined the Air Force when I was old enough, got an education, and took advantage of every opportunity that was thrown my way. I’m now a telecomm engineer and will have my Master’s in software engineering, hopefully by the end of 2012. That same opportunity is available for practically everyone living in the US. Are there those that don’t have that opportunity because of physical or mental disabilities…absolutely. And I believe a country as rich as we are has an obligation to take care of them. But an able-bodied person that just decides to allow society to take care of them deserves nothing. I’m not talking about people that have hit a low spot and need a helping hand, I’m talking about those that just refuse to help themselves at all.
On a different subject, we lost our 19 year old son to a car accident four years ago next week. His organs were donated and every once in a while we get a letter from one of the recpients. I don’t think we’ll ever get over the loss of our son, but knowing that a part of him is still making a difference in someone’s life is nice.
Good luck antics, and like AJ and Nan said, I would encourage everyone to be an organ donor.
@Aqua: Thank you Aqua and I am very sorry for your loss.
.
.
@anticsrocks:
Just so! And I merely extrapolated your comment about guilt. In my experience, many religions rely on guilt and fear to elicit the behavior they desire; so I associate guilt with religion.
This is clearly a topic that demands care with words. I’ll try to choose mine carefully.
I don’t associate inequity with guilt, as you suggest. In my view of the world, inequity has to do with justice (or lack of it) and responsibility (mine, not anyone else’s). Basically we’re talking about the resources that enable a person to live a healthy, comfortable life and to achieve goals that make that life worth living. (Although not identical, Jefferson’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” alludes to the same idea.) I believe that every person should have access to these resources as a basic human right. Some people have that access, while others -through no fault of their own – do not. I call that an inequity; and, as a moral being, I feel a personal responsibility to do what I can to rectify it. Furthermore, I believe that we, as a moral society, have the same collective responsibility, as well as some compelling practical reasons to do the same thing.
Your overall characterization of our society bears little resemblance to reality. To note a few points of departure:
I have little doubt that by “class warfare” you refer to attempts to identify or remedy the inequities in society. Ironically you seem to exclude from consideration the systematic despoliation by the rich of those less fortunate than they. Warren Buffett has aroused the ire of conservatives by drawing attention to this; but there’s no escaping the reality of the unequal, often one-sided conflict that has gone on in our country since (at least) the dawn of the industrial era. Relabelling this conflict with a perjorative phrase like “class warfare” does nothing to alter that reality.
Would that this were so! But it’s not. Taking just one salient example, in 2011 the official “poverty threshold” set by the U.S. government is $22,350. The actual value varies somewhat from year to year, but in general 13-17% of Americans live in poverty, while around the same number (more in the case of children!) experience significant “food insecurity” during any given year. This is disgraceful, but it gets worse. Poverty breaks down along racial lines: while 8.6% of the poor are white, 23.2% are hispanic, and 24.7% are African Americans.
The dichotomy between rich and poor is even more dramatic. A recent well-publicized study shows that the richest 407 families in America control as much wealth as the entire bottom half of the country. This is bizarre and dysfunctional.
Pretend, if you like, that we’re one big, happy, egalitarian nation; but nothing could further from the truth!
And is the “experiment”, as you call it, a success? That depends on which end of the spectrum of privilege and good fortune you inhabit. Studies of social mobility have demonstrated that the U.S. has not only one of the most widely stratified societies among industrialized nations, it also offers among the least upward mobility.
A new report by Pew’s Economic Mobility Project broke individuals up into five income brackets or quintiles and found that of those in the lowest bracket, half were still likely to be there 10 years later. Another part of the study shows that Americans’ hopes for personal economic advancement continue to sag.
And that brings us to your last statement:
This is just fanciful nonsense! For every capable person who parlays her abilities into success and riches, there are scores, hundreds more of comparable ability who never get that chance. This is what I call a social inequity and it doesn’t really matter whether it derives from luck or anything else. I say, we’d all be better off without it.
The typical conservative response to comments like mine is to resort to a reductio ad adsurdem, claiming that I’m a “Marxist” or some other political extremist. Let’s not get into the absurdity of calling me a Marxist, when I never mention things like “dialectic materialism” or the proletarian revolt or the withering away of the state … or any other staple of Marxist philosophy. Am I an extremist? Not at all. I want more balance in society. If anyone’s an extremist it’s the laissez faire capitalist, like Grover Norquist, who wants to eliminate oversight, checks and balances, etc.
I’m reminded of the situation in professional baseball culminating in the “Steinbrenner era”, when the New York Yankees held a near lock on the World Series, sealing their 27th title in 2009. Did they break the rules to do this? Not really. They just used their fame, money, and influence to repeatedly field a nearly unbeatable team. Was this fair? It depended, I guess, on whether you were a Yankees fan or not. Was it good for baseball? The concensus among sportswriters at the time was that it was not. *
* I’m no baseball fan! I hardly know anything about the sport, so I’m taking a chance with this analogy; but I remember the hullaballoo about the Yankees’ domination of baseball and the speculation about what could be done to “save the sport.” That seems to parallel our predicament: how do we modify our free enterprise system to achieve more balance and general prosperity without screwing it up entirely?
@ AJ Hill
Braavosi! You a Song of Ice and Fire fan?
Through no fault of their own? I have no doubt that there are some in our society that fall into this category, but I would have to say it must be a small percentage. If you eliminate those with diabilities, it would have to be an even samller percentage. If not, I would like to be enlightened.
As to those that really need help, I don’t know that there are conservatives out there that would deny that. The difference of opinion comes when we as a nation try to find a way to help. Liberals believe all power derives from the federal government, conservatives do not. The federal government has proven beyond all doubt that it cannot fix this problem. Take this little unintended (or intended) consequence of the stimulus bill. Illegal Workers Used Tax Credit to Pocket $4.2 Billion
I also found this, which sums up the current situation in our country perfectly:
AQUA, HI,
that is so well put, and very true, exactly another card of divide played by
the crumbling DEMOCRATS, all those cards so many of them enough to make a set of game
to play any solitaire or poker,
bye
@Aqua: Somehow the meme has proliferated on the right that a large part of the U.S. economy is now devoted to supporting free-loaders, who sit around in their air-conditioned double-wides, watching their big screen TV’s, and sipping beer (or wine coolers?) while they wait for the next government check to arrive. (As a matter of delicacy I leave out the amount of time they spend in their expensive “Sleep Number” beds, working to produce new meal tickets and future free-loaders.)
I find this concept so incredibly, thoughtlessly, breathtakingly absurd that it’s hard even to take it seriously for a moment, but I’ll try. I picked three categories of people who, through “no fault of their own” might need public assisatnce and tried to find recent, authoritative figures for them.
Number of unemployed due to job loss – @ 14.0 million (Bureau of Labor Statistics – August, 2011)
Adult family members, working with incomes below 100% of poverty – @ 26.5 million (U.S. Census Bureau – March 2011)
Adults reporting at least one of the six types of disability surveyed by the American Community Survey – @ 36.1 million (U.S. Census Bureau)
Altogether, that’s about 76.6 million people who can be described reasonably as needing assistance due to circumstances beyond their control. I’m sure it’s just a rough, ballpark figure, but it gives, I think, an estimate of scale.
Now, can you estimate for me how many genuine freeloaders there are in the country who are being supported significantly and unjustifiably at public expense? Please be specific, if you can. I’d really like to know who these people are and how they manage to squeeze money (How much, by the way?) out of the government so successfully.
AJ Hill, you say, somehow the meme has proliferated on the right ,
what are you trying to pin on the right? it’s well known that there is abuse of the system,
look at the POST ABOVE, and it has noting to do with the right , but only the left which let it happen,
the whole system is abuse and lot’s of money could be retrieve from looking closely and look in FLORIDA ,
THEY ARE TRYING TO CHECK IT FOR DRUGS ARE BEING BOUGHT WITH WELFARE MONEY,
don’t pretend to be naive and try to pin that on the right,
remember the one in charge are the DEMOCRATS, and there should be more supervision on those abusing it,
AMERICAN ARE PAYING ENOUGH FOR IT
@AJ Hill: You said, emphasis mine:
You see, you cannot seem to fathom the difference between “collective” responsibility and individual responsibility. The collective is where you tread across the line between what our Founders envisioned and what the Statist sees. A free people remain free only as long as they are not compelled to help one another. Ours is the most giving nation on the face of the planet. – Source
No, what I was referring to was your attempt to keep the poor, poor and put folks in this class or that one. Because you have more money than I do, does not put you in a different “class.” This isn’t India and we don’t live under the Caste System.
As for good old Warren, well he is “arousing the ire” of Conservatives because he is two faced and doesn’t even try to hide it. He stokes the fires of class warfare and then profits from it. Pay attention AJ to those you accuse of being mad and what they are actually mad about.
You go on ad nauseum about this “inequity,” tell me why must the “collective” address this? Why is it that when you, I, and millions of others all have the same chance to better themselves it is somehow wrong when there are those who wish to remain where they are in life? I mean they are the ones that are putting less in and getting less out, yet we need to address this “inequity?”
Do not confuse this with what is referred to as a social safety net. I am in whole-hearted agreement that we need something to help those who truly cannot help themselves. Now whether that comes from the private sector or the public sector is a discussion to be had at a different time.
Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why there are more poor minorities than there are poor whites? I mean really, have you ever stopped and wondered what policies and programs led us to this point in our country’s history?
In the 90s with a GOP led Congress, President Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to the table to sign, (after three bills) welfare reform. It ended up enabling 60% of the folks on welfare to stand on their own two feet. The Dems discovered and evidently quickly forgot that when you give the poor some self respect, they are better able to take care of themselves.
Fast forward to 2009:
So it would seem that class warfare isn’t such an extreme phrase after all, AJ. Clinton who was led by the GOP, reforms welfare and we see not only an improvement in the economy, but we see poor people all over the country getting jobs and taking care of themselves. Now Obama comes along and undoes all of that good work which was done during the Clinton years and what do we see?
You then said:
Again, you cite no sources; and please don’t fall back on the tired old, “I’m not doing your homework for you, it is easily found on the web.” When I cite facts, I cite the source that I get those facts from, this leaves out any wiggle room later on and forces me to stand by my statements.
BTW, I am not the only one to call America a great experiment…
Alexis de Tocqueville coined that phrase in his book Democracy in America. Maybe you ought to read his works. You can find them online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ Just type, “Democracy in America” in the title field and you will find both volumes. Just reading the beginning of volume one, gives you a better understanding of what the Great American Experiment is all about. It might also help you realize that the government is not the solution to all of society’s woes.
Nonsense, huh? Then why did Clinton’s and the GOP’s reforms lead millions and millions of Americans to get off welfare and on their own two feet?
Fanciful nonsense, indeed. Shame on you for clouding the issue. You know as well as I do that there are millions of people that can indeed do for themselves and yet choose the easy way out by taking welfare of one form or another.
Finally you said:
Well, I think you meant reductio ad absurdem; and no, I do not think you are a Marxist, for I do not have enough information about you to come to that conclusion. I do however think, that by reading your statements on just this thread you are a Statist.
You think that the answer to every problem lies with a large, centrally planned government. I do not feel that way.
But I do want to thank you for at least leaving your venom out of these exchanges that we have shared. I do not know you, therefore I have nothing invested emotionally in what you say. I am only offering my point of view backed up by solid facts.
AJ Hill
No doubt, there are people out of work. According to CNN Money:
I won’t dispute the fact that many of these people are dependent on the government through no fault of their own. Note, I said many. Here’s what the statistics don’t tell you. I work in telecomm and so far, knock on wood, we have recovered rather well since the initial economic bust. We have even hired people and continue to look for qualified candidates. We even have an apprentice program and notified the department of labor. They sent some people over, seven to be exact. Of the seven that showed up, exactly zero wanted to enter the program or even fill out an application. All they wanted was for us to sign a form saying they showed up about the job. 0 for 7. Do I believe this is indicative of the unemployed as a whole? No, but it is pretty damning anecdotal evidence. The sample is small and all I have is my experience, but it is my experience and therefore influences my perception.
Tough one, no doubt there are many among us that require help because of disabilities. However, according to a CBS report, 10% of long-term disability claims are fraudulent.
Is this indicative of disability programs as a whole? Again, no, but the perception is there. And many people, myself included, believe if the government believes 10% of the cases are fraudulent, it is most likely double that. This is based on my experience.
I know this one will be touchy, so I’ll get the worse part out of the way first. I can find cases to be made for just about every cause of poverty known to man, but suffice it to say they come from partisan sources. Liberal sources cite globalization and social injustice. Conservative sources cite moral choices. I’ll spare you the websites, but I’ll meet on your side of the middle. I have no doubt that many live in poverty because a factory was moved to Mexico or a call center was moved to India, and so on. I’ll even go as far as to say that number is close to 50%. Personally, I reject the idea of social injustice in America today. But for the sake of argument, I’ll give you 20% and I think that is more than fair. That leaves 30%. These are people that have made bad choices and the families that have to live with those choices. Drug and alcohol abuse is probably one of the most dominant factors in poverty, but I can’t find a source that spells that out. Most just cite the high use of substance abuse amont the poor. Even so, I’ll leave this as 20%, even though I believe it is much, much, much higher. That leaves 10%. I’ll throw gambling addiction, sloth, and poor choices in here. I have no sources. It seems there are no census statistics as to why people are poor.
Aqua, the longer they stay out of work the more depress they become and when
you are depress the brain is debriefing the knowledge of the work they where use to as a discipline, and to stop cold is like dying to a life they where taken for granted, it is very difficult to go hunting for jobs because the heart is not there, the will is there but not sustain by incentives that should be implement by their loved one, in other words they need help to bring them back from the descent their brain is trying to cope with that nothing activitys compare to the strees of competing and all that goes with it,
NOW add to that the jobs are very few and very much demanding higher level from the job seeker,
because the busyness has more choice to dig in, and ADD UP THE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS ON NOT HELPING THE BUSYNESS AND THE RECOVERY OF THE ECONOMY,
that is the last and bigger punch to distress an unemployed person, he has time free now to watch the depressing news as oppose to when he was working, and coming back tired and not really interesting to watch the news, that is another point very important, unless that person has solid
CONSERVATIVES FAITH IN HIS OWN SELF PRIDE AND HOPE OF CONQUERING HIS DOWN WHEN THEY COME AND NOT BE CRUSH, LIKE THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING HARD TO MAKE THEM DIMINISH THE PEOPLE’S PRIDE AND CREATIVITY, TO PREVAIL IN TIMES OF LOW S, THE unemployed CONSERVATIVE WILL RAISE THEIR HEAD TO SAY, NO, I WILL GET ANOTHER JOB, JUST YOU WATCH ME.
@Aqua: @Aqua: Thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly. This is the conservative/ libertarian meme in its most risible form: fact free, rife with speculation, assumption, confabulation. For example, you state that “drug and alcohol abuse is probably one of the most dominant factors in poverty.” Says who? You? Any facts, statistics, studies to back up your claim? No! Any hint of a distinction between addictive disorders as a cause or an effect of poverty? No, I suspect the idea has never occurred to you. But your completely gratuitous assumptions enable you to blaim the vicims and thereby excuse yourself from responsibility. How convenient! You refer repeatedly to “bad choices” as a kind of blanket indictment implying that the poor deserve the horrible lives they lead. You pass blithely over the fact that the statistic I quote is for the working poor. Have you ever wondered why anyone would voluntarily work full time (usually at a truely lousy job) for wages that low? And what kind of person decides to pay such disgracefully low wages? I’ll bet you think that anyone can lift himself out of poverty, if he just buckles down and applies himself. Here’s a hint. Read Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, Nickle and Dimed about the experiences of a smart, literate, successful woman, who put herself in the position of a working poor person and then for a year tried to work her way out of it. You might learn a thing or two, might even decide to abandon some of your smug assumptions. There are people living on the street right now, people with advanced educational backgrounds, who worked in six figure income brackets, before theyh fell though the cracks in our collapsing economy and discovered that climbing back out is not simply a matter of hard work and personal virtue. Someone mentioned my anger on this site. Well, if it shows, it’s because of this kind of “thinking”.
@ AJ Hill
What can I say AJ, you’re right. The plight of the poor is all my fault. I can’t imagine why anyone would stay in a low wage job. Of course I have a brother that spent four years in the Navy learning hydraulic systems. He’s a bar tender now for the Hard Rock Cafe. Doesn’t make a lot of money. He could have found a better job and a career path, but he likes him some Mary J. So he makes sure he works in jobs that don’t drug test.
OK, provide the statistics that show why these people are working poor. You say I excuse myself from responsibility? So the fact that there are poor people is my fault? I’m responsible for their situation? I grew up in a trailer park, and I’m not talking about some luxurious double-wide either. I paid attention in school, joined the military and busted my a$$ every single day of my life to get where I’m at. I don’t do drugs, and I don’t abuse alcohol. I like a cold beer every now and then, but if I had to choose between a six pack and paying my bills, I’d pay my bills.
You provide some statistics from the census that show numbers of people requiring help. I’ll turn the tables, provide some statistics and be specific as to why I should be responsible for each and every one.
Reread what I posted and take special note of the percentage I believe fall into that category.
You’re angry? So what. You’re not the only one. I’m tired of you and every other sanctimonious liberal blaming me and people like me for the plight of every poor person in the country.
I heard Maxine Waters bemoaning the loss of factory jobs in America and saying how much we need those jobs back. WHO IN THE FLYING FRACK DO YOU THINK PUSHED THOSE JOBS OVERSEAS!
Over regulation, over taxation, union thuggery, and she wants to know why they left? Really? And now she is going to hurt them with taxes for having jobs overseas? Go ahead. Liberals believe corporations just need to roll over and take losses so congress can go home and tell everyone how tough they are. They aren’t, they just move the whole corporation off shore. Then libs will just scratch their heads and wonder what went wrong.
So take a look in the mirror and look who else is responsible for the plight of the poor. Just because you think you care more than I do doesn’t let you off the hook. You think government can help and all they do is cause more problems.
AJ Hill,
you don’t need any thinking to show your ANGER, it is within you no matter how you try to hide it,
the first time you put your anger here, was for a stupidity, and boy you really went at the AUTHOR,
it shows that you are no different from the others libs who come here,
you all are constantly angry at anything smarter than you all, AND your line of defense doesn’t work here,
keep it for your party the one that is working the race card and the divide among all CLASS and colors
and rich and poor, and smart and stupid, and sicks and doctor, and so on and so on,
your hate card is so evident here, that you are a laughable object from the CONSERVATIVES
HINTING ON YOU, POLITE WITH SELF RESTRAINT, TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE NUANCE IN THEIR POSTS AND COMMENTS,
and you haven’t GET IT YET.
KEEP YOUR ANGER WITH YOUR OWN SIDE,
@AJ Hill: By the way, if I didn’t make it clear in my last post (and I probably didn’t) my anger and contempt for right wing meme isn’t directed at you personally. If anything I think you’re a victim or a potential victim of it. We all are, because it damages the complex, often delicate web of mutual regard and support that forms the basis of a humane society. I didn’t overlook your attempts to be even handed, but they were so weighted with qualifications and assumptions that it was hard to take them seriously. So a CBS television report estimated that 10% of disability applications are fraudulent. You decided, based on your personal experience, that the figure is probably 20% Why not higher? If everyone can insert tsome kind of personal caveat into public policy, who gets helped in the end? Finally, so what if the CBS report is correct? If the fraudulent applications could be detected, fine. Nobody would have a problem with filtering them out. But what if they can’t be detected reliably? Do you know that more than half of all applications for Social Security disability are denied? It’s not as if people can just walk in and put out their hands to get disability benefits, but separating the whesat from the chaff isn’t so simple. In fact, is a 10% error rate really bad? How many genuinely needy or disabled people would you deny assisance in order to rule out that 10%? This kind of reasonable discussion doesn’t bother me at all; but a blanket condemnation of assistance programs based on some phony division of society into”takers” and “makers” makes me mad, I can’t deny it..
@ AJ Hill
OK, for the record, it’s not a meme for me. On the other side is the left wing meme that Americans need to shut up and pony up what we’re told withouth question. But at least we can have an intelligent debate as to how we think things can be fixed if we drop the memes.
When it comes to benefits and fraud, the problem I have is with the federal government. We all have exactly one representative and two senators in Washington. That is all we have between us and the full power of the federal government. Federal laws are written in such a way as to preclude the use of common sense.
I have a friend whose kid was in a car accident and is now disabled. He was denied SS benefits because he has never had a job and hasn’t paid into the system. Applying at the same time and receiving benefits was a “lady” that was laid off because she threatened to kill her boss. The law is the law and the law is an ass.
I believe these things should be handled at a more local level. The federal governemnt is too big, and these things should be taken care of at the State level. As a matter of fact, I believe our most important elections should be our State level elections. Washington should not make that much difference in our lives.
As to how much fraud I’m willing to deal with, that really isn’t the issue for me. When my wife worked for DFCS she worked for the State, but the directives came down from the feds. They were told they could only investigate certain things. I don’t believe this is right. Someone that is receiving benefits that does not need them is stealing from people that truly do need them.
@AJ Hill: You said, in blaming quite a lot of what is wrong with today’s society on the, (your words) “right wing meme,” emphasis mine:
It is odd that you say this, AJ. If you know anything of your American history, you would know that the Founding Fathers believed in the civil society. And much like the Founders, we Conservatives recognize in society a “harmony of interests,” which Adam Smith wrote about so long ago.
This is best characterized as the moral order or civil society, you made reference to the humane society so it seems that you, too recognize this. This begs the question, what is the civil society?
Well in the civil society, the individual is much more than a statistic, or a faceless number. Instead he is unique, a spiritual being possessing a conscience, a soul. This individual is free to pursue his own happiness, to find his own potential. He has a duty to respect the same rights that others in the society also possess. As Mark Levin puts it in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, “For the Conservative, the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement.”
The modern liberal, or statist believes that there is a supremacy of the state, and that all the answers to life’s ills lie in an all powerful central government.
The Founders knew that the greatest threat, one which we face today, is that all powerful central government where the few dictate to the many, all in the name of knowing what is best for them.
So with all this being said, I posit this to you. This right wing meme you warn us about is in actuality the very fabric of our civil society.
@Aqua: I really want to move on, but I should probably say this: I don’t disagree with you at all about fraud and dishonesty, especially in public assistance. It hurts us all and shouldn’t be tolerated. But I just can’t go along with policy based on personal anecdote. (I imagine you wouldn’t like it applied to you either! Would you?)
Your example of a “left wing meme” is a bit backwards, since few, if any liberals believe what you say. You’ve actually expressed another right wing meme by describing what conservatives mistakenly believe about liberals. You might try the liberal conceit that most people are basically honest. That;s rfeeprrrr
@anticsrocks: No, liberals do not, as a rule, believe in or subscribe to an “all powerful state”. That’s actually a right wing invention, which they ascribe to liberals, which makes it another example of a right wing meme. You need to review the meaning of the term!
@AJ Hill: You said:
That is all you got out of what I wrote?
Sad.
Truly.
But you did not evidently read my words, for I said – emphasis mine:
Tell me, when you said this, were you not turning to the government?
Or here? I mean how is your wishing for another FDR or avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders supposed to be construed as anything other than a wont for more government?
And here you yearn for a very powerful government again:
I would say that you do turn to government for answers, therefore my assertion that you are a Statist is pretty much spot on. Whereas I, and other Conservatives turn to the individual to better oneself, you and other Statists turn to the government to ensure against inequity.
We are all CREATED equal, AJ. We are not all GUARANTEED equal outcomes.
Big difference.
@anticsrocks: The problem is that you’re careless with words and their meanings; and your eagerness to make political points leads you to distort and confabulate what I and others have said. For instance where have I said anywhere that I “yearn” for an “all powerful” central government or that such an institution would offer “all the answers to life’s ills.”
In fact, I’ll make this easier for you.: can you quote any prominent liberal anywhere at any time who has used those words or their direct equivalents to express his or her political ideals?
If you cannot fashion a compelling argument using the things I actually say, then don’t quote me at all.
@AJ Hill: I re-read anticsrocks’ last comment then yours here, again.
By using the term, “confabulate,” you accuse anticsrocks of a mental disorder arising from brain damage.
Did you do that intentionally?
AJ Hill, you don’t see it, but we do, see anticsrocks is always a step ahead of you,
even if you don’t say something you or the liberals mean it,
they just have to tell the TEA PARTY to go to hell and it mean the same intent, see? central government in hell
, and anticsrocks can read behind the words, that is a gift you don’t
have,
so the solution is to watch what you’re typing.
@Nan G: From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Definition of CONFABULATE
intransitive verb
1: to talk informally : chat
2: to hold a discussion : confer
3: to fill in gaps in memory by fabrication
— con·fab·u·la·tion \kən-ˌfa-byə-ˈlā-shən\ noun
— con·fab·u·la·tor \kən-ˈfa-byə-ˌlā-tər\ noun
— con·fab·u·la·to·ry \-lə-ˌtȯr-ē\ adjective
For Heaven’s sake, if your vocabulary is inadequate, then learn to do more than plug the word into a search engine and seize upon the first definition that makes you think you can score some kind of rhetorical coup! You’ll be less likely to make this kind of sophomoric mistake.
@AJ Hill: You said:
Is that so?
You asked:
How did I get that idea? Oh I don’t know. Maybe when you said this:
Or maybe when you yearned for FDR (the penultimate big government president) or Bernie Sanders (a self-avowed socialist):
Gee how could I ever get the idea that you turn to the government to solve all the woes of society? I guess that is just me not being able to fashion a compelling argument.
Now before I go, tell me AJ. Did I quote you correctly? I only ask because you accused me of quoting your incorrectly when you said:
You tell me, how’d I do?
It looks to me less like I cannot fashion a compelling argument and more like you are running out of credible replies…
@AJ Hill: BTW, since you are so quick to insult Nan when she asked a perfectly reasonable question and you seem to like definitions, let me throw one or two at you.
Your comment #122 basically called me wrong in labeling you a big government socialist, or as I put it a statist.
From Dictionary.com:
Socialist –
so·cial·ist
[soh-shuh-list] noun
1.
an advocate or supporter of socialism.
Socialism –
socialism
- 4 dictionary results
so·cial·ism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Hmmm, look familiar? LOL
During our discussion here on this thread, I thanked you for dropping the vitriol, and just when I think that one can have an intelligent, cogent debate, you go and insult Nan G.
Is your self esteem that flaccid that you have to strike out at the least little provocation?
You owe her an apology.