The Republican Party is Changing

[_moksha]

... the world is not divided between haves and have nots as the liberals would have you believe, but rather divded between moral and immoral people, responsible and irrepsonsible, working and welfare receiving, teen moms vs. wedded health insurance premium paying moms.

Would you characterize the old, disabled and teen moms as "useless eaters" in a surplus population?

[_ajax18]

Would you characterize the old, disabled and teen moms as "useless eaters" in a surplus population?

Well I certainy was a useless eater once and very likely will be again before I die. Would you characterize a man with his guts falling out from a hernia as unqualified for surgery because he's not a woman and not pregnant? People don't even choose to get sick. Women do choose when and how many children to have. Nobody gets to choose if they will pay for them or not. Which system looks more brutal now? It's just a matter of perspective I guess.

My case isn't even that bad. I met a Vietnam veteran with his leg cut off at the hip in war who couldn't qualify for disability. Why would you see some authorized welfare distributor as less brutal than a reality of trying to work with one leg? Do you think this man would like to give the labor he can get out of his good leg to the welfare office so they can divide up amongst the citizens of the world in a more fair manner?

Who decides who gets what in a command economy Moshka. Can you see how corrupt this has the potential for becoming? Do you see how it turned out in other countries that tried it? Can you see the problem with the way it is now? Can you see why more and more people are opting not to participate in the social contract?

Capitalism has it's problems. Socialism is much worse still.

And yes, from what little I know about it, I agree with Pres. Obama on the birth control issue. At least he's making an effort to help the problem. Welfare queens are real and are a problem, at least for those of us having our wages garnished to pay for their personal decisions.

[_Morley]

I met a Vietnam veteran with his leg cut off at the hip in war who couldn't qualify for disability.

I seriously doubt this. This would, de facto, warrant a service-connected disability award. (Please note that I'm not disputing that you were told this.)

[_moksha]

Do you think this man would like to give the labor he can get out of his good leg to the welfare office so they can divide up amongst the citizens of the world in a more fair manner?

Who decides who gets what in a command economy Moshka.

My own values would suggest that trying to be just and do good, even with failures along the way, is better than a dog-eat-dog approach to the allocation of resources.

[_ajax18]

Do you think this man would like to give the labor he can get out of his good leg to the welfare office so they can divide up amongst the citizens of the world in a more fair manner?

Who decides who gets what in a command economy Moshka.

My own values would suggest that trying to be just and do good, even with failures along the way, is better than a dog-eat-dog approach to the allocation of resources.

But could you not try to be just and do good even with failures along the way in a capitalist system? Socialism sort of takes that decision out of your hands does it not?

I'm not even trying to be just and good under socialism. I'm just forfeiting what little rights I have. Everything that anyone has or will have is distributed by a bureaucret, who didn't work for that money mind you.

[_moksha]

I'm not even trying to be just and good under socialism. I'm just forfeiting what little rights I have. Everything that anyone has or will have is distributed by a bureaucrat, who didn't work for that money mind you.

Trying to ensure that everyone is provided for, even at meager levels, seems very just. On the other hand, its opposite is where everyone looks out for only themselves and ends up with enabling the enrichment of a few at the expense of the many. Centuries of the Western Religious Tradition have promoted a values system in which we are duty bound to care for those other than ourselves and thereby become an interested party to their welfare. Capitalism turns the values of this Western Religious Tradition on its head. It introduces the antithetical concept that greed is good and must be allowed as a measure of freedom.

[_ajax18]

I see your point. I guess I'm like the wicked Nephites. I'll just sleep on my sword and though I'm wounded and not a great fighter anyway, I'll do the best I can to look out for myself. My experience has shown me that while I may be expected to look out for others, nobody will be looking out for me. That's what socialism means to me, and until some bureaucret shows me otherwise in a big way, that's what it will always mean.

[_krose]

Wow. Is the right wing still trying to push this nonsense?

No, it's more like a failure of left wing propaganda to conceal the truth that people see with their own eyes every day.

I wonder where you have been spending your time, to personally witness (with your own eyes "every day") large numbers of women intentionally having babies to get more welfare dollars.

Perhaps you could name a few of these professional welfare mothers?

[_ajax18]

I used to talk about it with other teachers in high schools when I was there. One teacher would have the kids write an essay on their life plan. This girl wrote when she planned to have her first child and how much government money she would get for her first and then her second. She had plans to go to college, maybe even marry after she had her brood. But having the government pay for her children was all a part of her life's plan. How did she know about this and why did she chose to do it this way? Because that's how her mother did it, and probably her mother before her. There's no doubt, it's culture.

Like they say, if you can't beat them, join them. I can't compete now with the way these people are able to look poor on paper and beat the system, but they've definitely found a better way of life than I have. The harder and longer I work, the more I get taxed and the more hands are in my bank account. I'm going to have to do something different. I'm working my life away right now and have nothing to show for it.

[_krose]

Sorry, but I have to call total BS on those claims. This high school third-hand gossip doesn't stand up to actual data.

Perhaps you missed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which put a time and money limit on welfare benefits and forced recipients to find jobs?

Here is a snippet from a USA Today article called "How welfare reform changed America" (emphasis added):

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Michelle Gordon was 30, a poor, single mother with four kids between 5 and 13, when the federal government decided in 1996 that parents on welfare should go to work.

Since then, Gordon's life has been "a little bit of a roller coaster." She has held about 10 jobs — at a call center, as a nurse's aide, as a janitorial supervisor, most recently at a grocery store. She lost that job on April 19, her 40th birthday. It took her two months to find another. For 25 hours a week, she cleans bathrooms and vacuums floors at a drug rehabilitation center.

[...]

The law, signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.

In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid.

So as of this 2006 article, fewer than 2 million families were getting welfare benefits. In a country of over 300 million people, that's a tiny percentage of the whole, probably less than 1%.