The beezzer Principle/Party

Originally posted by jimmiec
Since there is a war going on between the haves and have not's the good feeling you get when you help people will not be enough. The haves do not get that good feeling when money is forced from them. America is forever changed. The divide is now too great to bridge. Sure, there will be some to help those in need but generally that is lost. Government will continue doing what it does until collapse. Only then can we revive charity and common sense.

Well not necessarily, we FORCE Government to bridge those divides, with our vioce and our money or whatever we can use to our advantage.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by Ghost375

 

The reason there are entitlements in the first place is because people did NOT help out those who needed it, and the government was forced to step in and help them.

The reality of the situation is that there are entitlements because people did not do what you are suggesting.

The truth is there aren't entitlements because the government is trying to control us, or because they want us dependent on them. I don't care how many times Fox News tells you this, or how many times you tell it to yourself. It's not true. There are entitlements because people do NOT help out their neighbors. There are entitlements because corporations will pay employees the bare minimum they are required to pay them. They don't care if their employees have enough to feed their children.

This is why there are entitlements.
And what you're suggesting is exactly what people have proved they aren't capable of doing. It's a noble thought, but not realistic, I'm sorry, I wish it were otherwise.

Exactly. I think the government would LOVE it if more people helped those in need. I've heard Obama say that very thing in speeches - about it not being just up to the government to help out - that we all need to help out our neighbors.

reply to post by Ghost375


You are mistaken. Before Welfare there was help from communities, a lot of help. There were co-ops that made medical help/food/shelter/whatever you needed. Government took it over for the sole purpose of gaining a voting block. You can argue til your blue in the face but it won't change the facts. Government is not perfect at it either. They waste 75% of the monies they allocate for the poor. The system is being abused in a huge way. There is no going back.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Ghost375

 

You are mistaken. Before Welfare there was help from communities, a lot of help. There were co-ops that made medical help/food/shelter/whatever you needed. Government took it over for the sole purpose of gaining a voting block. You can argue til your blue in the face but it won't change the facts. Government is not perfect at it either. They waste 75% of the monies they allocate for the poor. The system is being abused in a huge way. There is no going back.

Hmmm. I guess you never heard of "Hoovervilles". Did you know that President Hoover felt that assistance to the poor should be relegated to the private sector? Did you see how great that worked out during the Great Depression? Then FDR came along and had to fix all that, because the private sector SUCKED at providing assistance.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Ghost375

 

You are mistaken. Before Welfare there was help from communities, a lot of help. There were co-ops that made medical help/food/shelter/whatever you needed. Government took it over for the sole purpose of gaining a voting block. You can argue til your blue in the face but it won't change the facts. Government is not perfect at it either. They waste 75% of the monies they allocate for the poor. The system is being abused in a huge way. There is no going back.

Proof of your claims? Especially the underlined parts.

The system is being abused in a huge way. There is no going back.

Studies I've read say only about 5% of people on welfare are abusing it. The other 95% use it because they actually need it. Another statement you need to back up.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

Well, during the depression, there was LOTS of suffering and poverty and starvation. Nobody helped all those people. The government then made attempts to make sure assistance would be there for Americans in the future. Nothing wrong with that - it was a sincere attempt. These programs were originally put in place to provide temporary assistance until people could get back on their feet. And for the majority, it still works that way. Are there people who take advantage of the system? Sure, but you don't think those same people won't try to take advantage of Beezzer? Sure they will. So, cut 'em off, right? What if those scum bags have little children who are innocently suffering the sins of their parents? Still want to cut them off? What do you do?

Perhaps my post got misinterpreted?

I did not say anything about cutting people off. What I said was....

Originally posted by Quadrivium
You can not fix these types of situations by throwing money at them. If the Government really wanted to help they would set up training programs and education programs. They would set up programs to lift people's self esteem and self worth.

My point being, just don't throw money at the people, lift them up and teach them as well. If you just throw money at them without helping in other ways you are making and keeping them DEPENDENT.
Quad

reply to post by GrantedBail


Some people can not be saved, period. Whatever the reason may be. Many, many people CAN be saved but are not because of people looking at a disaster and throwing up their hands at the immensity of the disaster. You can not save everyone but with triage you can actually start saving people. The problem is you must be SELECTIVE. There was a little known problem in New Mexico to help people out. It was little known to AVOID and not talked about to save the program. It required you to have a PROVEN work record, not just a couple of months at McD's. You had to go to a University to be tested to see IF YOU WERE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO LEARN. If you could pass those requirements only then would they freely pay for whatever classes or trade school YOU wished for FREE so long as it could be completed in two yrs. As one of the administrators of that program told me, the taxes turned in by those who went through the program ended up paying for there cost of education many times over.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by Quadrivium
First I would like to say, nice idea beezer. I have been saying similar things for years. WE used to help each other. Churches used to help people in need. We did not need the Government to step in and help.
We started turning the curve to government dependency in the 1930's with the "New Deal". It got worse in the 60's and 70's.


NOW....................

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by beezzer

 

I don't see any difference between the community getting together to help those in need, and the Government using tax money to help those less fortunate. The end result is the exact same thing.

That is funny, I know you're joking....................Right? Please tell me you're joking...

LOOK AROUND YOU!!!
The Government turns everything they touch to "rabbit droppings" (no offense beez).
Lets take the black families for instance. Since the 1960's the renamed "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" (AFDC) has decimated them.
70% of black families live in single parent homes now.

You can not fix these types of situations by throwing money at them. If the Government really wanted to help they would set up training programs and education programs. They would set up programs to lift people's self esteem and self worth.


They will not do this because they want people DEPENDENT on the government.
Quad

Would you like to go back to this?

Perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the homeless population during the Great Depression was an incident with marchers that became known as the Bonus Army. Assembling in Washington, D.C., in 1932 were 17,000 veterans and their families who requested bonuses promised by the federal government for their service in World War I. Read more: About the Homeless Population During the Great Depression | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

President Hoover and the Republican Congress knew that issuing the bonuses to the veterans would damage the already precarious situation in the federal budget and chose not to act. The president ordered the removal of the homeless veterans, and on July 28, the U.S. Army led by General Douglas MacArthur charged the encampment with fixed bayonets and forcibly evacuated the Bonus Army. Hundreds were injured and many were killed. Read more: About the Homeless Population During the Great Depression | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

About the Homeless Population During the Great Depression Read more: About the Homeless Population During the Great Depression | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

Surely it is the job of every charity to put itself out of business. They should be there as a last resort. NOT the first and only option.

Your first question:

Would you like to go back to this?

Do You not understand that if we follow on the same course with the social programs we are headed for the same outcome you posted?
Were these programs needed in during the depression? CERTAINLY!
The problem was that they were never scaled back was the need lessened.
Now look where we are. Social Programs are going to have to be changed, that is just a reality that many can not accept.
We can not afford them.

reply to post by beezzer


Beezzer,

Love the logic and ultimate goal.

My question is if all the checks are returned to the Govt. doesn't it make the Govt. richer? I don't think they will spread the wealth that they will then have in abundance.

The taxes will continue to rise, the Govt. will have even more money to spend on ways to subdue the population, fund more wars and people will still be facing inflation from the ruling corporations and their stranglehold on every day necessities...like food.

Everything will remain the same except now the money the Govt. steals from the people...they get to keep it all.

Am I missing something?

Peace

There are some Americans who do not want to be off government assistance. These types of people, you can't help. I've seen it first hand at work. Every man that was hired for this particular job decided that they made more money staying at home from the government, so why work when you could get more benefits sitting on the couch watching tv? I have also seen those that want to get educated and get off government assistance. I have also seen those who have plenty of income coming in and lie about everything when going for government assistance. A big clue is when they are driving up to the local DSS office in a brand new Cadillac SUV. The key is to find those who want the help to get off assistance. The rest will abuse you and still stay on government assistance or any assistance they can get their hands on.

Every person on some form of government assistance should have to be drug and alcohol tested. If they can't pass, sorry can't help. If they pass, then allow them a couple years of assistance with education opportunities. After they surpass their time on assistance, they should have to be reevaluated to see if assistance is still needed. I also think some surprise home visits should be mandatory. I think the government would be surprised at how many people are scamming the government. If they are found them scamming, they should have to pay every penny back to the taxpayers of the US.

Until the control of our currency is returned to the people through Congress things will only get worse. First thing we need to do is abolish the Federal Reserve and sue the people who have profited from it illegally for 100 years. We need to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood.

We must end the wars overseas and cease our warmongering ways.

We need to reinstate the Glass-Steagall act and break up the big banks. Then we can reject GATT, NAFTA and all the other industry-destroying treaties we have signed. Throw lobbyists out of the halls of Congress and make them responsible to the people and no one else.

We must take the arms industry and retool them to make consumer goods that help people instead of destroying lives. There can be no future for any of us without jobs of some sort.

The birthrate in 3rd world countries and among America's poor must be controlled or any efforts to change life for the better will be swept away in a human tsunami.

For those with nothing we need communal farms where people can work and make a small wage until they can become independent again. We can make education free by putting everything on line and end the "intelligence monopoly" held by institutions of higher learning.

I think you're heart is in the right place Beez and it's great to hear that you actually do something to help the needy. Our current problems are over 100 years in the making and we can't solve them overnight or even in a decade but we can make the start by going in the right direction which currently we are not.

100,000 years ago our ancestors worried about their fire going out, not finding game or if a cave bear might eat them while they slept. Humans have always faced enormous problems yet we have prevailed. Our biggest problem now is ourselves and whether or not we can control our own nature of domination and change it cooperation. Somehow the human race will survive it's current ills but the question is how many will be left to rebuild the world?

reply to post by beezzer


OK Beez... Tell me how to fix this one. FTR it is 100% true.

An acquaintance of mine, Celeste, has MS and reached the point about 4 months ago where she had to be put into hospice because she can no longer control her body. The only family she has is a 71 year old mother who is on a fixed income and lives hand to mouth. Celeste worked as a "greeter" at a local electronics store until about a year ago... until they finally fired her because her tics reached a point where they were disturbing the customers.

Social Security took nearly 5 years to approve her for benefits and for Medicaid ( Georgia will NOT provide Medicaid for anyone disabled - even though it's in violation of Federal law for them not to. The state has been fined several times for this, but is a "Tea Party" state and refuses to comply. They insist the Federal government pay it. ). The fact that Celeste was willing to try and work as much as possible, even while sick has bit her in the proverbial butt because Social Security now says "Well... you worked. So you must be capable of doing something." and has only currently approved her for a small SSI benefit and not SSD.

Celeste cannot, at this point, walk, bathe herself, feed herself, or dress herself. She has to wear diapers. She is fifty years old.

Despite what the conservative spin would have folks believe - Celeste, even in her drastically ill state is not "milking" the system. The hospice she lives at currently has taken her in - but is billing her substantially more than her SSI benefits cover - even with the Medicaid. They are deferring payment currently with the intent of suing her mother - the geriatric woman with the fixed income.

If our so called "welfare state" is providing such minimal help - and no charities have done a single thing to alleviate the burden...

What will become of Celeste in a world where nobody is compelled to help at all?

~Heff

reply to post by beezzer


First, my condolences on your avatar, that's why I don't bet. lol

Second, this can work and is to some extent already, the problem is the people need to know where they can go for help, in my experience many want help but don't want to actually put any effort in to help themselves.
The ones that are willing to put in the effort generally have no idea where to start and where to get the help that is available.

Happy 237th Birthday Marines

reply to post by Hefficide


Excuse the delay. My son is having a sleepover and my laptop was used for Madagascar 3 and Arthur Christmas.


Heff, there are specific instances where just a helping hand isn't enough. My attempt is not directed so much at your friend as it is to people that just need that little bit of help.
How many times have we all heard;
If I just had a baby sitter for that week
If I just knew that one person with contatcs
If I just had a little help.

I don't want a grand sweeping movement where we instill educational reform, set up scholarships, instill communism ( ) provide mountaiuns of money, set up huge networks.

As many have said, there will be those that don't want to leave their "box".
They are free to choose that life.

What I want to do is instill the sense that, even doing the smallest things, can make big impacts. Teaching people to read, helping people with computer skills, wood work, electronics, plumbing, giving time to watch someones kids, lending someone a suit for an interview . . . . . etc.

We can create an impact on our society if we return to the values that we have had before.

Society has abdicated responsibility to help, TO the government. We need to return to the values that enabled us to succeed so we can help those that really DO want to succeed as well.

The fewer checks that the government pays out to people that don't really want to rely on government will enable governmentto provide for those that really need it.

I wish our society could be so perfect that we had no use for government. But it is here to stay. We might as well have it work more effectively though. And we can do that by helping those that can really do without government.


I hope this answered yours and many others questions.

beez

reply to post by Hefficide


If you are really interested in helping her I have a suggestion. Swallow your pride and try and reach Romney. I think if you can reach him he will find a way to help that woman out. Ok. Now you can fine me 1k points for not being on topic.

The fictional premise of OP did pass Obama's reality on November 6, 2008. Recall the big public q&a a few days after winning. A young Black boy asked, "President Obama, we need help?" Obama, the great orartor, said nothing, eventully he motioned an aid to go see the boy.
His family unit was probably a child with no father around.
So part of the solution must be parental responsibilty.

That was last time Obama did a large public Q&A...

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
I don't see any difference between the community getting together to help those in need, and the Government using tax money to help those less fortunate. The end result is the exact same thing.

Cut out the middle man (the government) .... a lot more goes straight to the people who need it and it gets to them without the strings attached to it.

What you are saying, Beezzer, is that everyone who can needs to step up their volunteering and go back to the Pioneer spirit that settled this country?? If so .. I'm all for it. I can't go out and volunteer anymore (I used to) but I can pray for those who are and we can always donate a little more.

As far as 'returning checks goes' .. I don't think so. We aren't buying a bunch of junk and we need every penny we can get. I don't think we'll be sending money back to our employer anytime soon. AND if people send money back to the government, the government will just find something to waste it on.

other than that .. I'm with ya ..

reply to post by Hefficide

*shudder* you just described my fear .. I'm 50 just like that woman and I have a progressive autoimmune disease (Sjogrens) with neuropathy and I have sight problems (glaucoma/eye pressure). I felt for her just reading your post ...

reply to post by FlyersFan


When I say "return the checks" I mean be in a position where you don't need them anymore.

But spot on with the rest.

reply to post by beezzer


I like this idea beezzer. The best course of action would be to set a solid foundation of self-sufficient citizens, so that a 'trickle-up' effect takes place. If this happens, the government would be forced to bend to the will of the citizens; the government would then have to rely and depend on its people, rather than the other way around.

Seems logical.