Since we probably can't end the welfare state...

[Icymudpuppy]

THIS THREAD NOW CLOSED> PLEASE GO HERE
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=259721






I would like to consider proposing the following welfare reforms. Simple, but effective.

1. No check without passing a drug screening (medical MJ excepted). Most american workers have to pass drug tests for their jobs, so this shouldn't be a contention.

2. No check without taking your birth control pill. Male and Female both. They have a male pill now. No new babies until you are capable of supporting yourself. This is just good sense and should effectively eliminate the multigenerational welfare problem.

3. No suffrage while receiving assistance. YOU CAN'T VOTE if you are a drain on the public treasury. This should reduce the likelyhood of welfare state expansion, and may eventually open the path to welfare state elimination.

4. No welfare for non-citizens. Immigrants (regardless of legality) must obtain citizenship, not just a green card to get public assistance. You may think this is superfluous, but as a man with a Philippina wife who is connected with the island community here in the PNW, I can tell you that many of them are legal immigrants who really just came here for the public benefits with no intention of working. Illegals and Legals both come here for free money.

If you have additional reforms, please list them below.

The purpose of this thread is to come up with ideas for a bill to be proposed to fiscally conservative representatives at all levels of government.

[MelissaWV]

I would like to consider proposing the following welfare reforms. Simple, but effective.

1. No check without passing a drug screening (medical MJ excepted). Most american workers have to pass drug tests for their jobs, so this shouldn't be a contention.

2. No check without taking your birth control pill. Male and Female both. They have a male pill now. No new babies until you are capable of supporting yourself. This is just good sense and should effectively eliminate the multigenerational welfare problem.

3. No suffrage while receiving assistance. YOU CAN'T VOTE if you are a drain on the public treasury. This should reduce the likelyhood of welfare state expansion, and may eventually open the path to welfare state elimination.

4. No welfare for non-citizens. Immigrants (regardless of legality) must obtain citizenship, not just a green card to get public assistance. You may think this is superfluous, but as a man with a Philippina wife who is connected with the island community here in the PNW, I can tell you that many of them are legal immigrants who really just came here for the public benefits with no intention of working. Illegals and Legals both come here for free money.

There are problems with this, not the least of which is that the entire thread lacks a definition of welfare. Do you merely mean EBT, WIC, and so on... or are you including unemployment benefits?

1. You will be screening on the same level as jobs do? Which jobs? A lot of them require that you not be intoxicated. Some require that you not be on any drugs at all. My dad, upon getting any sort of illness or injury, would have to take time off work as an air traffic controller. They were even told to steer clear of anything with poppyseeds, lest they come up with a false positive. If a plane crashes, and you have *anything* in your system, you're in some deep shit. Why would medical MJ be okay, by the way, for purposes of this exercise? Is it because it's legal? If that's the case, then people would merely dose up on legal drugs. I am sure you can get the pharmaceutical industry on board with this bill ;)

2. "Taking a pill" is not the least bit feasible for a lot of folks. It is not an aspirin (and even aspirin can damage your body). Making it a requirement is silly, particularly when birth control pills are not free. Perhaps the Government will provide them, but that's another program altogether, isn't it! It's good to know that, were I to fall on hard times and go crawling to the welfare office, I'd be denied because I'm not going to take a pill that is not only superfluous for me, but could endanger my life. On top of that, some have a moral objection to birth control pills. What would be better here is to reform things so as to stop rewarding parents for having more and more and more children.

3. This is a fun one. If you keep enough people out of work or otherwise on welfare for long enough, then you've created a class that's either disenfranchised entirely or in such a bad situation that they are ineffective at rallying any opposition. TPTB are already mostly rich folks. Imagine if the poor simply couldn't vote! However, I know; you can be poor without being on assistance. Frankly, TPTB would be against this one, trumpeting the rights of all free people to vote... but in reality knowing that feeding the poor is a great way to get the poor to vote for you so they can continue to be fed. Rather than take away the vote, you simply make sure they know that the other guy wants to take away "their" benefits. Additionally, not every vote is about money (though most of them are, lately).

4. This one is something I've been talking about for some time now. If insular communities can care for non-citizens who fall on hard times, good for them. If they cannot, then there are hard decisions for those families to make. Welfare, if it's to exist, should be a benefit of citizenship only. Of course, when I say welfare, I mean all of it: public schools, foodstamps, etc..

It'd be way better if none of it existed, but as long as it's around it should be tweaked in the right direction. Just be careful that your methods and reasoning stand up to scrutiny :)

[Paulfan05]

How about people on welfare cannot be overweight, since we have such an obesity problem

[MelissaWV]

How about people on welfare cannot be overweight, since we have such an obesity problem

That would only happen, and even then only theoretically, if you operated the EBT program as the WIC one is operated. The checks would say precisely what can be purchased and in what amounts. The obesity problem, though, is not merely a product of the food. It's also a product of lack of appropriate exercise for what's being eaten. It is also, in some cases, a byproduct of certain diseases which are more prevalent now than they used to be. Sadly, the weight then leads to more diseases, and so on. It is also, in some cases, a byproduct of genetics which are more difficult to overcome.

So, basically, you will exclude those who are overweight from welfare, and they will still grow fat because the cheapest convenience foods in this country are woefully overprocessed and nutiritionally unsound, and they will wind up in the emergency room with no money to pay. Will you say "tough luck" at that point? If you do not, then you are just shifting the cost over to the side.

[Icymudpuppy]

Unemployment benefits are supposed to be insurance against layoffs and last for a limited amount of time. I don't consider them welfare until they are extended beyond the normal 6 month period (at least in my state).

WIC, Foodstamps, and other assistance programs I do consider to be welfare.

Regarding the drug tests, lets make them equivalent to those used in the military as being a good benchmark of a federal paycheck job requiring no advanced education. As far as using legal meds, that is a good point that I don't have an answer for right now.

Obviously, if you are past menopause, or otherwise medically infertile already, you wouldn't have to take the pill. The pills are much cheaper than paying for welfare babies. I consider this a cost saving adjustment.

Remember, this thread is supposed to be a brainstorming session to come up with workable reforms that would reduce the current welfare state and in the long run help put an end to the welfare state.

Don't just shoot down my proposals, come up with some of your own and post them here.

[roho76]

Give them 1 year to get off of welfare if they are physically able to work (must be signed off by (x) number of doctors). Life hurts some times. Get over it. The only solution is to ween people off of it, not keep it around with more cost to the tax payer. If there is a will there is a way and the will is there so they will find a way around your methods of prevention and will only end up costing us more in the long run. I know this because you can pass a drug test with stuff from a head shop, my kids hide their food and pretend they eat it, and as it is illegals are not supposed to get aid yet they do anyways.

[RM918]

Wow. Forced birth control and removing of voting rights just because they're on Welfare? Why not just execute them and get it over with if you're going down that road?

I'll accept no other alternative than the abolishing of the welfare state, because if we don't it'll abolish us.

[MelissaWV]

...

Obviously, if you are past menopause, or otherwise medically infertile already, you wouldn't have to take the pill. The pills are much cheaper than paying for welfare babies. I consider this a cost saving adjustment.

Remember, this thread is supposed to be a brainstorming session to come up with workable reforms that would reduce the current welfare state and in the long run help put an end to the welfare state.

Don't just shoot down my proposals, come up with some of your own and post them here.

If those are your only points where the pill would not be imposed, you don't know much about the pill. Birth control pills have risky side effects for a lot of people, and the longterm costs of forcing them down everyone's throats and bringing more of those risks to light and paying for the consequences... it's just not a very good idea. Additionally, you have no real way of knowing whether or not they are taking the pill regularly or at all, unless you are going to test for that as well. Perhaps a credit, instead, for being on demonstrable birth control methods, or a regressive benefits schedule which awards you less and less and less for each subsequent child?

Also, when I quoted you (if you'll notice) it was not a "brainstorming session." It was a proposal by you, and nothing else.

I did talk about what would be a better approach to the issue of children, and I talked about the immigrants-on-welfare part of the problem. I also have suggested that the scope needs to be narrowed on each of the points before people can really come up with much in the way of suggestions or criticisms.

The only point I really agree with you on is that welfare benefits should, if welfare is to exist, only be for citizens. It will then be up to sympathetic citizens and the non-citizen communities to bolster up non-citizens who are unable to make ends meet. I don't even mind illegals being in the country; they can charter their own schools if they want, so long as they're not burdening a public school system they haven't really paid into are making unfair demands of. If non-citizens aren't taking money out (benefits) but are putting money in (funding their own assistance programs, buying supplies, running a school), it seems like a net positive to me.

The proof of citizenship is either the citizenship papers themselves (which are easily verified) or one's birth certificate (also easily verified).

Beyond that, you obviously should have to demonstrate some proof of need. Maybe it would go better if we operated on reimbursement, but the difficulty would be in the startup. Perhaps the solution to that, then, is to have the record of purchase run through a computer that decides if you've spent foodstamp money on something unacceptable. You could be penalized for such on your next month's benefits and, if you do this often enough, you could lose your benefits altogether.

I don't care if you're tall, short, fat, skinny, black, white, on birth control, using condoms, or whatever else, so long as the aforementioned is met.

[Icymudpuppy]

Give them 1 year to get off of welfare if they are physically able to work (must be signed off by (x) number of doctors). Life hurts some times. Get over it. The only solution is to ween people off of it, not keep it around with more cost to the tax payer. If there is a will there is a way and the will is there so they will find a way around your methods of prevention and will only end up costing us more in the long run. I know this because you can pass a drug test with stuff from a head shop, my kids hide their food and pretend they eat it, and as it is illegals are not supposed to get aid yet they do anyways.

Great, so a time limit amendment for all people able to work. To file an exemption, you must have at least 3 doctors; a military doctor (who will happily approve all kinds of barely alive recruits as fit for duty), a workers comp doctor (who take great pleasure in denying benefits to injured construction workers), and a private practice doctor (who understands capitalism) all agree that you are unfit to work.

[MelissaWV]

Wow. Forced birth control and removing of voting rights just because they're on Welfare? Why not just execute them and get it over with if you're going down that road?

I'll accept no other alternative than the abolishing of the welfare state, because if we don't it'll abolish us.

Yep. That's why it's so difficult to talk about making it better. It's purely academic. Which is better: being bludgeoned by a rock, or having a safe fall on you from a high distance? I gave it my best shot anyhow :p

[Icymudpuppy]

If those are your only points where the pill would not be imposed, you don't know much about the pill. Birth control pills have risky side effects for a lot of people, and the longterm costs of forcing them down everyone's throats and bringing more of those risks to light and paying for the consequences... it's just not a very good idea. .

Well, the immediate result might be that people who are afraid to take the necessary birth control simply don't get a check.

Recipient: "I've come to get my welfare check"
Clerk: "Please take this pill."
Recipient: "I ain't takin your damn pill".
Clerk: "Very well, you may try again next week".

[VBRonPaulFan]

How about if you had a kid after you've started receiving welfare benefits you have two consequences happen to you:
- you lose your kid
- you lose your welfare benefits

I think its criminal and negligent for someone who cant support themselves to bring other children into this world that need support. That would be a pretty damn good motivation towards ending the multi-generational welfare state. It addresses the people having kids to get more welfare money, and it drops those people off of the system so they have to go out and actually support themselves.

IMO there should be a cap on how long you can get full welfare assistance. It doesn't take but so long to find a job, even if it's a shitty one. We should be a society that encourages people to work hard to get out of a crappy situation, rather than one that tells people how sorry we are for their situation and encourages it.

I really don't agree with welfare and think it should totally go away, but I realize it would have to be phased out because most of the people on it probably don't know how to care for themselves because of it.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Well, the immediate result might be that people who are afraid to take the necessary birth control simply don't get a check.

Recipient: "I've come to get my welfare check"
Clerk: "Please take this pill."
Recipient: "I ain't takin your damn pill".
Clerk: "Very well, you may try again next week".

The whole problem with your birth control pill argument is that now the government is subsidizing yet ANOTHER industry (pharma). This entire idea that the government needs to force good behavior on people is ludicrous. Just enforce consequences for your actions. When someone signs up for welfare say these are terms, do you agree? They sign yes and get benefits. They violate the terms, they LOSE the benefits.

We don't need more nanny-state bullshit. It's just more of the government 'taking care' of people. That needs to go away. People need to be responsible for themselves and their own actions.

edit: this is also why I don't really agree with mandatory drug testing or whatever. if you're found on street drugs, you lose the benefits.

[Icymudpuppy]

After a full day of various input, I'll post a followup with everyone's input and a new poll with the new options. For example... At the moment It looks like the birth control option will not be on the poll tomorrow, but two new options that address the same issue will be... A regressive lowering of benefits for additional children, and an all or nothing lose the kid or lose the benefits.

[Icymudpuppy]

this is also why I don't really agree with mandatory drug testing or whatever. if you're found on street drugs, you lose the benefits.

How will you discover if they are on street drugs or not unless you test?

[jclay2]

Sorry, the premise of this question is absurd. "Since we can't defeat them, join them and at least make it efficient." Public welfare will end (whether by choice or not). If we don't stop it soon, the ponzi nature of the system will collapse on itself. End all public welfare as fast as you can, to minimize the effects of a total collapse on our society.

[Anti Federalist]

Wow, dangerous road to go down here.

Now that the medical establishment has been socialized and we are all, under penalty of law, mandated to be part of it, every argument used in the OP could be used to apply to all of us.

Mandatory drug tests for everybody, excepting, of course, the ruling class.

[VBRonPaulFan]

How will you discover if they are on street drugs or not unless you test?

random testing, not mandatory which implies scheduled.

[Icymudpuppy]

Given the old adage about...

"Democracies only last until the voting public realizes they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury"

I'm surprised I'm not getting more support for the restriction of voting privelege. What reforms would you suggest to make politicians not pander to the welfare vote. Most of the Democratic party's "Rock the Vote" campaigns are specifically targeted toward getting more welfare sucking people to come out and vote. Indeed, Obama counted on it.

[Icymudpuppy]

random testing, not mandatory which implies scheduled.

Okay, choice of wording. I agree, random testing is good. But, it must be mandatory. If you refuse the test, you lose your benefits, and if you fail the test you lose your benefits.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Given the old adage about...

"Democracies only last until the voting public realizes they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury"

I'm surprised I'm not getting more support for the restriction of voting privelege. What reforms would you suggest to make politicians not pander to the welfare vote. Most of the Democratic party's "Rock the Vote" campaigns are specifically targeted toward getting more welfare sucking people to come out and vote. Indeed, Obama counted on it.

I just believe you need to think long and hard before you set a precedent where you can strike away a citizens voting right... slippery slope argument and all that.

[Icymudpuppy]

I just believe you need to think long and hard before you set a precedent where you can strike away a citizens voting right... slippery slope argument and all that.

Voting has never been a right. Always a privelege. Our founders based voting on being landowners. Renters, slaves, women, and persons under 21 could not vote.

Universal suffrage is not a good thing for freedom.

[Monarchist]

Universal suffrage is not a good thing for freedom.

Suffrage isn't a good thing for freedom, period.

[erowe1]

I don't accept the premise of the question.

If something can't last forever, it won't.

[MelissaWV]

Well, the immediate result might be that people who are afraid to take the necessary birth control simply don't get a check.

Recipient: "I've come to get my welfare check"
Clerk: "Please take this pill."
Recipient: "I ain't takin your damn pill".
Clerk: "Very well, you may try again next week".

I don't think you understand, or are trying to be deliberately obtuse on the subject.


Serious as well as minor side effects have been reported with the use of oral contraceptives. Serious risks, which can be life threatening, include blood clots, stroke and heart attacks, and are increased if you smoke cigarettes. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of serious cardiovascular side effects, especially if you are over 35. Women who use oral contraceptives are strongly advised not to smoke. Some women should not use the Pill, including women who have blood clots, certain cancers, a history of heart attack or stroke, as well as those who are or may be pregnant.


Bradykinin lowers blood pressure by causing blood vessel dilation. Certain enzymes are capable of breaking down bradykinin ( Angiotensin Converting Enzyme, Aminopeptidase P). Progesterone can increase the levels of Aminopeptidase P (AP-P), thereby increasing the breakdown of bradykinin, which increases the chance of developing hypertension.


Other side effects associated with low-dose COCPs are leukorrhea (increased vaginal secretions), reductions in menstrual flow, mastalgia (breast tenderness), increase in breast size, and decrease in acne. Side effects associated with older high-dose COCPs include nausea, vomiting, increases in blood pressure, and melasma (facial skin discoloration); these effects are not strongly associated with low-dose formulations. Excess estrogen, such as from birth control pills, appears to increase cholesterol levels in bile and decrease gallbladder movement, which can lead to gallstones.


Oral contraceptives may influence coagulation, increasing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, stroke and myocardial infarction (heart attack). Combined oral contraceptives are generally accepted to be contraindicated in women with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, in women who have a familial tendency to form blood clots (such as familial factor V Leiden), women with severe obesity and/or hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol level)...

You seem to have this odd idea that popping a birth control pill is harmless.

There is also a vulgar disconnect with propping up one family of drugs, while denouncing another. You must be on drugs to get welfare... just the kind of drugs we say you should be.

[Icymudpuppy]

I don't accept the premise of the question.

If something can't last forever, it won't.

I'm trying to rescue the country without a SHTF collapse. I know that there are many on here who are trying to accellerate the collapse.

[Icymudpuppy]

I don't think you understand, or are trying to be deliberately obtuse on the subject.

And, I never suggested forcing people to take them. Only that they have a choice. No Pill, No Money, or Pill and Money.

I thought pills would be nicer than surgical sterilization.

[MelissaWV]

And, I never suggested forcing people to take them. Only that they have a choice. No Pill, No Money, or Pill and Money.

I thought pills would be nicer than surgical sterilization.

Either welfare is operated on the premise of assisting those who are down on their luck, or it isn't. If it's your premise that assistance should only be handed out to those you want to harm, why not go the distance and use them for medical experiments instead of punishing them for precrime? Not being on the pill =/= unwanted pregnancies being added to welfare roles.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm trying to rescue the country without a SHTF collapse.

Marching westward on an eastbound ship...

[Icymudpuppy]

Either welfare is operated on the premise of assisting those who are down on their luck, or it isn't. If it's your premise that assistance should only be handed out to those you want to harm, why not go the distance and use them for medical experiments instead of punishing them for precrime? Not being on the pill =/= unwanted pregnancies being added to welfare roles.

Welfare is theft. Theft from me. So they are harming me. Punishment for harming me is certainly justifiable. Being out of work for a short term is what Unemployment insurance benefits are all about.

I have never been out of work for longer than 5 hours since I took my first job as a newspaper carrier at the age of 10. I have been willing to work 2 jobs for less than minimum wage well below my education level to support myself and those who depend on me. I have no respect for the mostly lazy SOBs who don't get off their asses and get a job, any job, to support themselves. I support natural selection for those people. IE: Death to the Unfit.

[MelissaWV]

Welfare is theft. Theft from me. So they are harming me. Punishment for harming me is certainly justifiable. Being out of work for a short term is what Unemployment insurance benefits are all about.

I have never been out of work for longer than 5 hours since I took my first job as a newspaper carrier at the age of 10. I have been willing to work 2 jobs for less than minimum wage well below my education level to support myself and those who depend on me. I have no respect for the mostly lazy SOBs who don't get off their asses and get a job, any job, to support themselves. I support natural selection for those people. IE: Death to the Unfit.

Yes, but you created the entire thread under the guise of making welfare less harmful since we need to have it around, since it's "too unrealistic" to get rid of it entirely. Instead, what you've decided is more realistic is to poison those who're on welfare.

[Icymudpuppy]

Yes, but you created the entire thread under the guise of making welfare less harmful since we need to have it around, since it's "too unrealistic" to get rid of it entirely. Instead, what you've decided is more realistic is to poison those who're on welfare.

No, to wean them off of it by making being on welfare very distasteful.

Ending it outright will never pass. We have to make it distasteful enough that it will become a smaller problem by the people who would take it to boycott it and find other ways to get money.

[MelissaWV]

No, to wean them off of it by making being on welfare very distasteful.

What makes you think that's more realistic, precisely, than just ridding ourselves of welfare altogether? And do you not see what a ridiculously bad precedent that sets on all your original points, which I talked about and you didn't really refute... other than to say I wasn't being constructive? :rolleyes: :p

[Icymudpuppy]

What makes you think that's more realistic, precisely, than just ridding ourselves of welfare altogether? And do you not see what a ridiculously bad precedent that sets on all your original points, which I talked about and you didn't really refute... other than to say I wasn't being constructive? :rolleyes: :p

Because the democrats would never let a complete repeal pass. But reform can pass.

I know that my reforms are still too harsh for the libs, so I'm looking for ways to make the reforms palatable enough that they could be supported. I have determined that my birth control pill idea is not feasible already by the poll results, but I will be creating another poll option regarding the take your check or take your child as one, and your regressive option.

Could you perhaps go into detail on how your regressive program would work?

[Icymudpuppy]

Marching westward on an eastbound ship...

No. Trying my best to get control of the helm so we can turn the ship around.

[MelissaWV]

Because the democrats would never let a complete repeal pass. But reform can pass.

I know that my reforms are still too harsh for the libs, so I'm looking for ways to make the reforms palatable enough that they could be supported. I have determined that my birth control pill idea is not feasible already by the poll results, but I will be creating another poll option regarding the take your check or take your child as one, and your regressive option.

Could you perhaps go into detail on how your regressive program would work?

The bad part about reforms is that you have to think like the majority, or at very least like the legislators and the media. :(

Very simply, for each additional child you have, the additional money becomes less.

If you got $5 for your first child, the second is only worth $4 and the third is worth $3 and so on, until you are just making that same teeny money (let's say a quarter) for each additional child. In other words, times get tougher with each subsequent child. If you're on welfare and you have no children, that would (to us on the forums) be worth a bonus, but what ends up happening is that you get the public telling you that you hate "the children" and are punishing them for their parents' mistakes.

As far as bonuses for being on birth control, or getting your tubes tied, I don't think the Government should get involved in the business of requiring pharmaceuticals before providing services, or proposing surgeries for dollars. I don't mind if private charities do, but they should be prepared for the massive liability they are undertaking.

* * *

Of all the programs out there, by the way, I think WIC is the least of anyone's troubles. It could be run just as well by non-Governmental agencies, but among Government programs it has far less wiggle room and chance for waste than the others. Store systems don't let you get something that's not right there on the check. We used to have a lady who would screech and complain that wine coolers were just the same as fruit juice :rolleyes: but the system would not let it be rung up as such. It also has the added benefit, then, of being child-related food rather than money the parents can spend on themselves and food they prefer.

[libertybrewcity]

I think this is a great thread. Although I don't agree with all of your proposals, I do think that welfare should not be a free pass for everyone.

In many places, if a welfare recipient has a child, they automatically get a few hundred dollars more. This is an incentive for recipients to have more children, thus perpetuating the poverty cycle.

Mandatory birth control would be a very expensive program, and not very practical because most birth control is a daily pill.

Where I am from we have lots of low income housing, but if you screw up and get in trouble in any way you are kicked out of the housing. They should have this for welfare recipients. If you are taking government money and you get in trouble, you should not be able to receive money.

I am more optimistic about eliminating the welfare state, but in the meantime government can absolutely try to be "good".

I also think that cutting off welfare at a certain time should be enacted. Let's say you receive a 400 dollar check each month. Every month the government should withhold 5 dollars from that check, so you would eventually receive nothing. As your check starts slimming down and you can't keep your "lifestyle", whatever that may be, you will be forced to think about working.

And of course, we need to end the drug war.

[Icymudpuppy]

New proposals to be added to tomorrow's poll...

Regressive child option.
Regressive time option.
All or nothing child option
Time limit cut off option.
Random drug testing as opposed to mandatory.
Contractual basis for benefits with a loss of all benefits for breach of contract.
Citizen only will remain unless clarifications are proposed.

Looking for other options to curtail welfare recipients voting for more welfare programs since a complete restriction of all voting priveleges is apparently too unpalatable.

[Anti Federalist]

Looking for other options to curtail welfare recipients voting for more welfare programs since a complete restriction of all voting priveleges is apparently too unpalatable.

I'm all for that idea.

Voting is too "permissive" as it stands right now.

If you are employed by or receiving a benefit from government you should not be allowed to vote.

I'd be in favor a mandatory voting test as well.

[Au-H2O]

I think welfare recepients should be severely limited on the type of purchases they can make. If you want free money from someone else, you better be at least cutting back to the bare essentials. You want to buy a new car or a new tv? Get off of welfare, save your own money and buy it yourself. You want a new car AND welfare checks? Tough shit.

[Imaginos]

I voted yes on all of them.
And I believe with all my heart that if you can't take care of yourself financially, then you do not have a right to have a baby.
Some people are entitled to others' hard earned money just because they have penis/vagina (?!) does not make any sense to me.

[libertybrewcity]

I'm all for that idea.

Voting is too "permissive" as it stands right now.

If you are employed by or receiving a benefit from government you should not be allowed to vote.

I'd be in favor a mandatory voting test as well.

What kind of voting test?

[erowe1]

What kind of voting test?

And who gets to decide what "knowledge" is required to pass the test? (Presumably it won't be any of us.)

[erowe1]

What counts as "welfare" in this poll?

Is getting a child tax credit welfare? Social Security Disability? Regular Social Security? Having a government job? Having a job with a private company whose main customer is the government? Having a job for a private company that survives on account of receiving a bailout?

[Working Poor]

How about people on welfare cannot be overweight, since we have such an obesity problem

First they have to stop putting additives in foods that make people fat for that to be fair.

I voted for only citizens to be eligable for welfare

[Anti Federalist]

No. Trying my best to get control of the helm so we can turn the ship around.

Trouble is, there is a whole platoon of armed guards around the wheelhouse and engine room.

(apologies to the Derb.)

[Anti Federalist]

What kind of voting test?

Ideally, something simple, a ten question multiple choice sort of thing with just a basic knowledge of the constitution and formation of government.

Things so simple that, if you don't know them, you shouldn't be allowed within a 1000 yards of a voting booth.


And who gets to decide what "knowledge" is required to pass the test? (Presumably it won't be any of us.)

Yeah, there's the fly in the ointment.

In reality it would be written by government hacks.

It would be loaded with trick questions and Keynesian economic nonsense.

[Icymudpuppy]

What counts as "welfare" in this poll?

Is getting a child tax credit welfare? Social Security Disability? Regular Social Security? Having a government job? Having a job with a private company whose main customer is the government? Having a job for a private company that survives on account of receiving a bailout?

Specifically, welfare would be any program that is purely a handout for which the recipient gives no labor or product in return. Thus, the government employee is not a welfare recipient. Neither is the employee of the highway contractor etc.

The child tax credit is a separate issue, but also should be abolished. Abolishing the income tax is another issue that won't pass straight up. It'll have to be reduced first. A flat tax would be a good start as it would reveal to the ultra-liberals just how good the current rates are for the poor and lower middle class.

Social security is supposed to be a government run retirement investment account. That it has gone totally wrong is not the fault of the people who were forced to invest into it and deserve to get their investments back with appropriate inflation adjustments.

Most pure welfare programs are not federal. They are state. WIC and a few others are federal. I'm trying to develop a reform bill that could be introduced to state legislatures and federal congress to curtail the waste that goes into welfare programs at all levels.

THIS THREAD NOW CLOSED> PLEASE GO HERE
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=259721

[erowe1]

Most pure welfare programs are not federal. They are state. WIC and a few others are federal. I'm trying to develop a reform bill that could be introduced to state legislatures and federal congress to curtail the waste that goes into welfare programs at all levels.

I think most are state run, but based on federal mandates and using both federal and state funds.

[silentshout]

The only one i voted yes on was the one that stated that only citizens should be eligible for welfare.

[OrigSEOH]

Education, would help bridge the gap of the class struggle? No?

I feel my public education K-12, has failed me. Now, I'm playing catch up. Cutting off illegals is a good idea, but not sure how that would work. There are ways around drug test and not sure how you force people to take birth control everyday. Voting restrictions? What? Us poor folks shouldn't vote ? This thread is confusing me. I'm not used to reading this stuff on here. I thought we are trying to phase out welfare with sound money?

[erowe1]

Us poor folks shouldn't vote ?

There are probably a good number of Ron Paul supporters who don't think poor people should be allowed to vote. But if it's any consolation, they don't think rich people should be allowed to vote either.

[Icymudpuppy]

MODS PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD!
THIS THREAD NOW CLOSED> PLEASE GO HERE FOR THE NEW POLL AND NEW THREAD
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=259721