chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
in the situiation as it was in NC, no...but in certain "'welfare" situations, in my opinion, yes...
How free are we?
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
in the situiation as it was in NC, no...but in certain "'welfare" situations, in my opinion, yes...
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
EL wrote:
Whats to be confused about?? When a farmer is forced to provide his crops free of charge to someone that had no hand in there production, or when a Dr is forced toprovide his expertise, services, and product for free..they are being "enslaved to those they are being forced to provide for...."In the case of adults, that's slavery"
Last edited:
piattteam
Active Expediter
Our country was formed on the premise- if you don't work, you don't eat. Agree with above post, churches and private organizations are supposed to help the needy- if somebody wants to donate, let them. If, like me, somebody doesn't want to help lazy people, they (I) should not be forced to. I have no problem helping somebody who absolutely, positively cannot help themselves. If someone is too lazy to work, or too stupid with their money (must have their toys), I don't care if they lose their house and have fitful, hungry sleeps in gutters!
Our PROVINCES elected for medical care....not the federal government....
Like many, you seem to be assuming that large numbers of people choose not to work. You ignore the ones who don't work because they're too young, too old, too handicapped by physical and/or mental disabilities. Women with children, but no child care available, people with no transportation [public or private] to get them to the jobs - the list is long. The problems are real, and real complicated, and really difficult to solve - it's so much easier to assume that they're just lazy. Admitting they're not means a lot of hard work in finding solutions, and we just don't want to go there, do we? So who's lazy in America today?
PS The judgemental attitude towards spending money on 'frivolous' things is quite popular in some circles, but the actual factual evidence is otherwise. Credit card debt is increasingly incurred to cover basic living expenses and unanticipated repairs, [after all other sources are exhausted] and bankruptcy is frequently a result of catastrophic medical expenses - but again, it's just easier to assume folks are lazy & reckless than to face problems that don't have easy solutions.
Another thing: even if the presumption of recklessness were correct, I find it interesting that so many companies & corporations also fail and file for bankruptcy, [and get taxpayer financed bail outs], and even though they could afford to pay for the best help money can buy, no one seems to fault them for it. With every advantage imaginable, they get a free pass for failure, while individuals get vilified for needing help....
Lastly: every one who advocates the 'every man for himself' philosophy is a man [or woman] who is blessed with the ability to provide for himself - but that doesn't work for those not equally blessed. Nor does 'charity', or we wouldn't have the problems we face today.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Cheri wrote:
Ah but you are assuming that no advocating "every man for himself" as you put it, has never been in a position of needing help....i can attest to 3 individuals in this thread alone that you would be wrong about..they have need help, but never took "government assistance"..including myself....that doesn't make them better then anyone, they just chose to take respnsiblility for their own situations...
Ah but you are assuming that no advocating "every man for himself" as you put it, has never been in a position of needing help....i can attest to 3 individuals in this thread alone that you would be wrong about..they have need help, but never took "government assistance"..including myself....that doesn't make them better then anyone, they just chose to take respnsiblility for their own situations...
And Love's Truck Stops are now accepting "Food Stamps"....how crazy is that?....gee whiz
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
And that changed things, how? If someone is compelled to provide for someone else not his minor child, he has been enslaved.
Enslaved means against ones will....the people wanted it....big difference...
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
and yet businesses will jump thru tax loopholes knowing they will be closed....taking money, because the IRS made an error......
welfare you could apply almost the same logic....the Feds created it in error of the constitution, but until it is changed they are grabbing it....
welfare you could apply almost the same logic....the Feds created it in error of the constitution, but until it is changed they are grabbing it....
I'm not wrong, and for some, taking responsibility isn't a matter of choice: cancer, schizophrenia, and other catastrophes don't care what choices you make. Neither do the fathers who won't support their kids, leaving the mother to do it all.
My point was that you hear the 'every man for himself' philosophy espoused solely by those who are blessed with the ability to earn their own living, but not to empathize with those who can't. I call that self serving, and no help in solving the problems society faces in America today.
Don't get me wrong here..I am NOT a big fan of welfare.....when it is needed...REALLY needed...iam NOT in favour of welfare as a way to make a permanent living, that is wrong...
I agree, but when one has fallen, society should help. It is the right thing to do.
I think there is a real problem in this country when we define "poor". The standard here is much different. There are all kinds of jobs currently available that they don't want to do. Every excuse imaginable from "I don't work for 10.00 per hour, I'm not working those hours, to I don't work outside" and the list goes on. You have a whole industry of illegals here fulfilling many of those jobs.
Same deal with people that owe 100k in student loans and majored in basket weaving, to people that have 500 a month car payment or houses that they financed and never could afford.
Can't blame the banks because they were too stupid to read a contract. Just can't excuse that kind of stuff.
Many of the so called poor here have cars, houses, big screens, high dollar shoes, computers you name it. These people have no clue what "poor" really is. I think they should take a hard look at other countries including some of the third world countries, and then maybe they might have a clue of what "poor" really is.
I don't think anyone has a problem with welfare or unemployment for a short period of time. This madness of throwing money at it year after year is a total waste. We currently spend a trillion dollars a year towards the poor and yep.....nothing has changed. So why do it?
And I am not talking about people that are incapacitated in some way, or really can't work. That number is a extremely small.
The elderly that are poor is a different situation. They should get the amount they contributed into social security even though many don't. If you are going to give money away, that is where it should be spent.
Same deal with people that owe 100k in student loans and majored in basket weaving, to people that have 500 a month car payment or houses that they financed and never could afford.
Can't blame the banks because they were too stupid to read a contract. Just can't excuse that kind of stuff.
Many of the so called poor here have cars, houses, big screens, high dollar shoes, computers you name it. These people have no clue what "poor" really is. I think they should take a hard look at other countries including some of the third world countries, and then maybe they might have a clue of what "poor" really is.
I don't think anyone has a problem with welfare or unemployment for a short period of time. This madness of throwing money at it year after year is a total waste. We currently spend a trillion dollars a year towards the poor and yep.....nothing has changed. So why do it?
And I am not talking about people that are incapacitated in some way, or really can't work. That number is a extremely small.
The elderly that are poor is a different situation. They should get the amount they contributed into social security even though many don't. If you are going to give money away, that is where it should be spent.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Prior to the founding of the 13 colonies as we knew them, in the early days of the pilgrims, the settlements actually had socialist systems of which English Lady and OVM would be proud.
No one went without clothing, no one lacked a roof over their head, and no one went hungry. Well, any more than anyone else, because they were all cold and hungry and deprived. Why? Because socialism doesn't work, and neither does any individual for long, to any productive degree.
The system they had meant that any settlement member took out of the settlement stores anything they needed. Just as consumers want the most return for their buck, it was natural, human nature for settlement members to want the most out of the stores for the least labor, and that doesn't work. The colony suffered deprivation the first winter, extreme hardship the second, and there were very few left the 3rd winter.
That's when William Penn recognized that socialism wasn't working, and tied one's take to one's labor. No longer was anyone responsible for providing for amount other than their family, everybody could plant their own crops and raise their own livestock and keep their own produce, and it was only then that the settlement's fortunes turned around. They were stiffly concerned that there wouldn't be anyone left after the 3rd winter, but only after they adopted capitalism and private property was it clear they would survive.
And that lasted until the Demon-crats turned socialist and opposed private property and self-ownership.
And now, socialists of all strips can say along with OVM and English Lady:
Last edited:
I am glad you posted this. I was driving and could not and also would have not been as spelled out. I think it is a great example.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums
Prior to the founding of the 13 colonies as we knew them, in the early days of the pilgrims, the settlements actually had socialist systems of which English Lady and OVM would be proud.
No one went without clothing, no one lacked a roof over their head, and no one went hungry. Well, any more than anyone else, because they were all cold and hungry and deprived. Why? Because socialism doesn't work, and neither does any individual for long, to any productive degree.
The system they had meant that any settlement member took out of the settlement stores anything they needed. Just as consumers want the most return for their buck, it was natural, human nature for settlement members to want the most out of the stores for the least labor, and that doesn't work. The colony suffered deprivation the first winter, extreme hardship the second, and there were very few left the 3rd winter.
That's when William Penn recognized that socialism wasn't working, and tied one's take to one's labor. No longer was anyone responsible for providing for amount other than their family, everybody could plant their own crops and raise their own livestock and keep their own produce, and it was only then that the settlement's fortunes turned around. They were stiffly concerned that there wouldn't be anyone left after the 3rd winter, but only after they adopted capitalism and private property was it clear they would survive.
And that lasted until the Demon-crats turned socialist and opposed private property and self-ownership.
And now, socialists of all strips can say along with OVM and English Lady:
You are incorrect...speaking for myself.....I think the solution at the end what W Penn did was the most sensible...
BTW...not to fear...can't speak for EL, BUT I can not collect welfare here, at least till I am a citizen...My sponsor has to take care of me, if the situation arises...and knowing her hubby...I'd probably disappear "somewhere" in SD.....LOL