Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is welfare free? They have certainly paid taxes at some point in their life, what's wrong with someone taking advantage of something they also contributed too?
I think it's a shame I have to pay for fat people's, smokers, and alcoholics' healthcare costs. I'm sick of paying for these terribly driving teenagers and old hags who drive up my cost of insurance, the drunks who contribute to my rate, etc.
I don't see your point at all, welfare is a form of insurance. That's how it works.
The wrong is that while we all pay, only some of us get to benefit from government assistance. Some of us just keep paying, while others keep taking.
How is welfare insurance? You're comparing supposedly increased premiums for insurance, that some of pay for and use, to something that some of us pay for and others use.
I always wonder why owning a gun when you are not a member of a militia is a constitutional right.
The Amendment doesn't state that one must be a member of a militia in order to keep & bear arms. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the RKBA is an individual right.
But just for fun, you should read the definition of the "unorganized militia" in 10 USC § 311.
Where is that implied? I don't see it. I also didn't say or imply anything about endless assistance or people choosing not to support themselves.
I don't understand what you're asking. To obtain any government assistance, you apply, it's reviewed, and you get the benefits or not. People are not forced to apply, so accepting assistance is completely voluntary.
Please don't twist my words to support your agenda. Try making an original response.
I don't have an "agenda." I had a question and you evaded it. My question: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU USE THE WORD "WELFARE"? What are these government assistance programs you think people can decide to apply for? And if they are accepted they will get ... WHAT?
Food assistance? If so, here are the statistics: Almost HALF (47%) of those covered by SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) are children. Only 17% of the people who receive SNAP payments are non-disabled, non-elderly adults. They usually only get SNAP for a limited period of time, as they are reevaluated constantly. And MANY recipients have jobs, they are just paid so poorly they qualify under Federal poverty guidelines. The remainder are the destitute elderly. The average SNAP recipient gets $133 a month, but it can be as low as $16. That money can only be spent on FOOD, not cigarettes, alcohol, soap, toilet paper, laundry detergent, or other non-food items one buys in a grocery store. SNAP is administered by the Federal Department of Agriculture. Their research shows that by changing SNAP payments from stamps to debit cards that require an ID at the check-out counter, fraud by recipients "has fallen significantly over the last two decades, from about four cents on the dollar in 1993 to about one cent in 2006-08 (most recent data available)."
Other than SNAP, what other government assistance programs exist that you would term "welfare"? Your original statement was, "People choose to go on welfare." That's a cut-and-paste. So I'm not "twisting" your words. It remains to be explained to me WHAT they are choosing. I know of nothing other than SNAP or Social Security Disability, a program which often takes YEARS to be accepted into and requires medical certification. What am I missing?
I don't have an "agenda." I had a question and you evaded it. My question: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU USE THE WORD "WELFARE"? What are these government assistance programs you think people can decide to apply for? And if they are accepted they will get ... WHAT?
Food assistance? If so, here are the statistics: Almost HALF (47%) of those covered by SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) are children. Only 17% of the people who receive SNAP payments are non-disabled, non-elderly adults. They usually only get SNAP for a limited period of time, as they are reevaluated constantly. And MANY recipients have jobs, they are just paid so poorly they qualify under Federal poverty guidelines. The remainder are the destitute elderly. The average SNAP recipient gets $133 a month, but it can be as low as $16. That money can only be spent on FOOD, not cigarettes, alcohol, soap, toilet paper, laundry detergent, or other non-food items one buys in a grocery store. SNAP is administered by the Federal Department of Agriculture. Their research shows that by changing SNAP payments from stamps to debit cards that require an ID at the check-out counter, fraud by recipients "has fallen significantly over the last two decades, from about four cents on the dollar in 1993 to about one cent in 2006-08 (most recent data available)."
Other than SNAP, what other government assistance programs exist that you would term "welfare"? Your original statement was, "People choose to go on welfare." That's a cut-and-paste. So I'm not "twisting" your words. It remains to be explained to me WHAT they are choosing. I know of nothing other than SNAP or Social Security Disability, a program which often takes YEARS to be accepted into and requires medical certification. What am I missing?
The wrong is that while we all pay, only some of us get to benefit from government assistance. Some of us just keep paying, while others keep taking.
Yep. Only some of us benefit from the social safety net: those of us who NEED it and avail themselves of it. I guess you could could say the same about many different services available to us.
Only people whose houses burn down (or have some sort of other emergency) are going to need the fire department.
Only people who have children are going to benefit from our public schools.
Only people who drive or ride in cars are going to need to use our public road system.
Only people who either commit or fall prey to some sort of crime are going to need the police department.
I haven't needed or used any of these services, but am glad to chip in for them. For one thing, the people who need them are human beings just like you and me, and I feel it's our imperative to help them. And for another, the next person in need could be me. It could also be YOU.
Ah, the joys of living in a first world country. I rather like it, don't you?
As for the OP, I don't know why the people you refer to think the way they do, but several posts in this thread prove that your observations are absolutely spot on!
The Constitution never states that welfare is a protected right. What it does guarantee is: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That's part of a collection of amendments called The Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is also part of that bill. Hence the question; how can someone get hopping ass mad about having their rights violated when one amendment is threatened yet sponsor something that tromps all over another?
Exactly. A mandatory drug test before being given access to a necessary government service (and yes, for many, the safety net is vital for survival) is the very epitome of unreasonable search and seizure. First, the government SEIZES our bodily fluids and then it SEARCHES them.
I wonder what the pro-gun but anti-welfare folks would think if drug tests were mandatory for people before receiving any assistance from their police or fire departments? Or before driving on public roads, or attending public schools?
I thought this was interesting: the drug tests in Florida revealed that the percentage of drug users among those receiving welfare was approximately half the percentage of drug users among the general population.
Yep. Only some of us benefit from the social safety net: those of us who NEED it and avail themselves of it. I guess you could could say the same about many different services available to us.
Only people whose houses burn down (or have some sort of other emergency) are going to need the fire department.
Only people who have children are going to benefit from our public schools.
Only people who drive or ride in cars are going to need to use our public road system.
Only people who either commit or fall prey to some sort of crime are going to need the police department.
I haven't needed or used any of these services, but am glad to chip in for them. For one thing, the people who need them are human beings just like you and me, and I feel it's our imperative to help them. And for another, the next person in need could be me. It could also be YOU.
Ah, the joys of living in a first world country. I rather like it, don't you? .
As for the OP, I don't know why the people you refer to think the way they do, but several posts in it. this thread prove that your observations are absolutely spot on!
I guess I need to clarify that my remarks that have negative connotations about using government assistance of any kind are intended to refer to those who abuse it. But it should also be obvious that police/fire/schools/etc are available to everyone equally. Welfare is not. It is only available to those who show a need for it and can justify it. I've never needed any financial help, but have been tight a few times. When I was, I cut back on my fun money. Money spent on drugs is wasted if you're on welfare, and should not be allowed.
BTW-taxes on gas pay for much of the roads, so drivers are paying for them directly in a large part.
Exactly. A mandatory drug test before being given access to a necessary government service (and yes, for many, the safety net is vital for survival) is the very epitome of unreasonable search and seizure. First, the government SEIZES our bodily fluids and then it SEARCHES them.
I wonder what the pro-gun but anti-welfare folks would think if drug tests were mandatory for people before receiving any assistance from their police or fire departments? Or before driving on public roads, or attending public schools?
I thought this was interesting: the drug tests in Florida revealed that the percentage of drug users among those receiving welfare was approximately half the percentage of drug users among the general population.
Have you just ignored all the posts before yours? Use of welfare services is voluntary. The government wouldn't be seizing anything, because part of the contract in using welfare is that (or should be, if it isn't obvious) drug use is not allowed. Taxpayer money shoould not be given to people who supposedly need it to live but use it for drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. It's no different than working for a company that drug tests. You want to work there, you play by their rules. You want free money from the government, play by their rules. No one is forced to take welfare.
I have no idea why you lump police and fire into the same category.
As for the percentages, if a person can pay for their drugs, it doesn't really matter what they do with their money, does it?
I always wonder why owning a gun when you are not a member of a militia is a constitutional right.
Because perhaps the founders were keenly aware of the dangers of an unbridled government?
As far as the unreasonable search, is anyone requiring them to accept welfare services? If it would really makes folks feel better, I wouldn't mind drug testing before I am allowed to buy a firearm
Exactly. A mandatory drug test before being given access to a necessary government service (and yes, for many, the safety net is vital for survival) is the very epitome of unreasonable search and seizure. First, the government SEIZES our bodily fluids and then it SEARCHES them.
I wonder what the pro-gun but anti-welfare folks would think if drug tests were mandatory for people before receiving any assistance from their police or fire departments? Or before driving on public roads, or attending public schools?
I thought this was interesting: the drug tests in Florida revealed that the percentage of drug users among those receiving welfare was approximately half the percentage of drug users among the general population.
Is there some way that these services could be diverted or used to obtain drugs? The concern seems to be that folks use the resources obtained through welfare programs to obtain drugs or other vices. To what extent that is true is another matter. I know in Memphis, I have been approached before by a guy outside of the convenience store trying to get me to buy him beer in exchange for me getting to use his EBT card. I know in TN, a huge stink was raised by some Memphis-area state legislators over the thought of prohibiting people from using their state provided welfare cash benefits at Casinos and strip clubs because "well other people can spend their money there". The key work is their money. In this case, its money coming from someone else's pocket.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
