myurbandream (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
myurbandream) wrote2012-02-02 07:00 pm
myurbandream) wrote2012-02-02 07:00 pm
...it'll take a lot more than wars and guns / a whole lot more than riches and muscle...
Vatti sent me this email:
>This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011
>
> PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .
>
> Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; 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 powdered milk 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 legations. Then, we'll test
> recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use
> drugs, alcohol, or smoke, 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 Gov't 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 Gov't
> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
~
Despite the horrendous political overtones and bias in there, I actually do think there are several salient points in it.
I think that food stamps should not be used for luxury food (brings to mind the news story about the guy arrested for using food stamps to buy steak and lobster, and then reselling them at a profit). I'm a bit biased about medical care - I don't think anyone's life should be casually ignored when the means to save them is available, regardless of cost. Housing is a HUGE pet peeve for me, though - if you're living on a government check in housing paid for by the government, you should not be living in a high-quality apartment - 'barracks' is right. I also don't think welfare checks should be able to buy new cars or flat screen TVs or new laptops.
The not-voting and the government-work things are questionable - that sounds to me very much like a communistic regime, in which citizens are told what job they will work and given no say in the matter and no way to change the entity that enforces the rules. However, if the welfare laborers (sounds like a euphemism for 'slave', doesn't it?) are able to get themselves a paying job to get out of the situation, then they aren't technically trapped as government slaves. On the other hand, it took me three months to find a job in my profession, so in a practical sense it would be very difficult to get out of government servitude in that way. But on the other other hand - it would be completely voluntary, right? If you don't want to do the government job anymore, then you just tell the government not to send you a check anymore, right? And if it's voluntary to begin with, then no-one can say they're being forced, so long as the government isn't the only employer out there.
Which, on a tangent, is a distinct and scary possibility - we officially have more people than either food or jobs, and we're artificially sustaining ourselves, imho. Something's gotta give.
>This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011
>
> PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .
>
> Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; 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 powdered milk 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 legations. Then, we'll test
> recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use
> drugs, alcohol, or smoke, 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 Gov't 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 Gov't
> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
~
Despite the horrendous political overtones and bias in there, I actually do think there are several salient points in it.
I think that food stamps should not be used for luxury food (brings to mind the news story about the guy arrested for using food stamps to buy steak and lobster, and then reselling them at a profit). I'm a bit biased about medical care - I don't think anyone's life should be casually ignored when the means to save them is available, regardless of cost. Housing is a HUGE pet peeve for me, though - if you're living on a government check in housing paid for by the government, you should not be living in a high-quality apartment - 'barracks' is right. I also don't think welfare checks should be able to buy new cars or flat screen TVs or new laptops.
The not-voting and the government-work things are questionable - that sounds to me very much like a communistic regime, in which citizens are told what job they will work and given no say in the matter and no way to change the entity that enforces the rules. However, if the welfare laborers (sounds like a euphemism for 'slave', doesn't it?) are able to get themselves a paying job to get out of the situation, then they aren't technically trapped as government slaves. On the other hand, it took me three months to find a job in my profession, so in a practical sense it would be very difficult to get out of government servitude in that way. But on the other other hand - it would be completely voluntary, right? If you don't want to do the government job anymore, then you just tell the government not to send you a check anymore, right? And if it's voluntary to begin with, then no-one can say they're being forced, so long as the government isn't the only employer out there.
Which, on a tangent, is a distinct and scary possibility - we officially have more people than either food or jobs, and we're artificially sustaining ourselves, imho. Something's gotta give.