"Handouts"

[H&R12G]

I haven't been a member very long. I do try to read every post that peaks my interest or I might have an input on. Well, I've noticed the words "Government handout(s)" thrown around in a negative way. I'm assuming these handouts you guys are talking about are wel-fare, SS, medicare, medicade, etc. Well, I was wondering when these are put in a negative matter are you guys putting down all people on these "handouts" or the people that abuse the "handouts?" I'm just trying to get a perspective on it from your guys' view. I might be wrong in assuming when the words are put they are put in a negative matter. But, the way they are usually typed seem negative to me. So, do you guys disagree with everyone getting these "handouts" or the people who abuse the "handouts?"

 

[dross]

You'll find both opinions here. Personally, I think all such handouts are bad by nature, and are abuse by definition.

When you take my money by force and give it to someone else against my will, I am being abused by definition, so handouts are inherently abusive.

That said, as such handouts are a reality, I begrudge no one from taking advantage of them, and I will myself. I consider any government benefits I take to be recovery of stolen goods.

 

[Eddie]

A frequent topic of my posts is that I feel it is wrong for a politician to run for office using promises of increased benefits. I think that this creates a system wherein a majority of the voters use the government to rob from other citizens and then donate to themselves. I believe that caring for the poor is properly done on a local level by either private organizations or local officers like Township Trustees. I think that the Federal Government needs to stay out of the charity business.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

A frequent topic of my posts is that I feel it is wrong for a politician to run for office using promises of increased benefits. I think that this creates a system wherein a majority of the voters use the government to rob from other citizens and then donate to themselves. I believe that caring for the poor is properly done on a local level by either private organizations or local officers like Township Trustees. I think that the Federal Government needs to stay out of the charity business.

We certainly shouldn't create a situation whereby increasing the numbers of "the poor" justifies the increase of a bureaucratic budget or an increase in paid staffing.

 

[dross]

We certainly shouldn't create a situation whereby increasing the numbers of "the poor" justifies the increase of a bureaucratic budget or an increase in paid staffing.

That, however, is what we've attempted to do politically. By removing the bottom 50% completely from income tax liability, we've created just such a situation. The only thing saving us is that the bottom 50% doesn't vote in great numbers. If policy keeps chipping away at that, goldenegglaying geese will become the buffet special.

 

[H&R12G]

Ok. Because I needed to know if I was welcome to be on this site. My mom is on just about every "Handout" you could think of. She's blind, sick, has seizures, and constantly in and out of the hospital for blood transfusions. It's a combination of Toxosplasmosis and something else. I can't remember the other disease. But, she cannot work with these medical issues. SO, I must ask. Is it ok in your opinion for her to get these benifits?

 

[Eddie]

IMO: OK for her to receive the benifit, like Dross said, recovering stolen goods. Is it ok for a politician on the federal level to run on a platform of offering free cars to the poor if elected? I say no, but if by chance they do get elected and they start handing out cars, then I might as well take one if I qualify.

 

[jbombelli]

I could provide for myself, my retirement and my family's needs and future much better if I wasn't paying for everybody else's needs, retirements, and medical care.

 

[OneBadV8]

Ok. Because I needed to know if I was welcome to be on this site. My mom is on just about every "Handout" you could think of. She's blind, sick, has seizures, and constantly in and out of the hospital for blood transfusions. It's a combination of Toxosplasmosis and something else. I can't remember the other disease. But, she cannot work with these medical issues. SO, I must ask. Is it ok in your opinion for her to get these benifits?

Everyone is welcome.

Forced Charity isn't something the Fed Gov't should be doing. I feel bad for your mom's situation. There are charities and even hospitals that would wave and forgive bills. These things are usually better done locally and in private organizations like a charity or non-profit.

Nobody likes being forced to pay for someone else's bills. That being said, a lot of people would donate money to help people out. I don't think the government should force me to help pay for my neighbor's broken leg/arm or whatever if I didn't want to.

I do think in your situation charity is obviously needed. If the Gov't is giving it out, she should be getting it. And if the Gov't wasn't giving it out, I'm sure others in the community as well as friends and family would step up and help out. I would hope so anyway.

 

[H&R12G]

IMO: OK for her to receive the benifit, like Dross said, recovering stolen goods. Is it ok for a politician on the federal level to run on a platform of offering free cars to the poor if elected? I say no, but if by chance they do get elected and they start handing out cars, then I might as well take one if I qualify.

Now handing out cars I do not agree with. There are organizations that will take you to your destinations. My mom dated a guy who was also blind. He paid for his rides on the bus to his job at BOSMA. There are things I do not belive the gov. needs to hand out. Cars are one of those.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Now handing out cars I do not agree with. There are organizations that will take you to your destinations. My mom dated a guy who was also blind. He paid for his rides on the bus to his job at BOSMA. There are things I do not belive the gov. needs to hand out. Cars are one of those.

Especially to blind drivers....

 

[jeremy]

You'll find both opinions here. Personally, I think all such handouts are bad by nature, and are abuse by definition.

When you take my money by force and give it to someone else against my will, I am being abused by definition, so handouts are inherently abusive.

That said, as such handouts are a reality, I begrudge no one from taking advantage of them, and I will myself. I consider any government benefits I take to be recovery of stolen goods.

Well Said!
This is closest to the correct answer in my opinion...

However, I am not a believer in Handouts. Being Neighborly, yes. living off everyone else when you can do for yourself, no. I was always told a Man lives by his Pride, and dies by his Pride...
But then again I have also been told I am a Cold Hearted Callous Baby-killing SOB too...

In the situation of your Mother that is not really a handout in my Opinion.

 

[88GT]

You'll find both opinions here. Personally, I think all such handouts are bad by nature, and are abuse by definition.

When you take my money by force and give it to someone else against my will, I am being [strike]abused[/strike] enslaved by definition, so handouts are inherently abusive.

That said, as such handouts are a reality, I begrudge no one from taking advantage of them, and I will myself. I consider any government benefits I take to be recovery of stolen goods.

I happen to think of them the same way.

Ok. Because I needed to know if I was welcome to be on this site. My mom is on just about every "Handout" you could think of. She's blind, sick, has seizures, and constantly in and out of the hospital for blood transfusions. It's a combination of Toxosplasmosis and something else. I can't remember the other disease. But, she cannot work with these medical issues. SO, I must ask. Is it ok in your opinion for her to get these benifits?

In a perfect world? No. Absolutely not. Do you actually support the idea of walking to your neighbor's front door, placing a gun to his temple, and telling him that if he fails to part with a goodly portion of his earnings, he'll suffer the consequences? I didn't think so. Why is what your mom is doing any different except she's simply lining up to receive what the federal/state governments have stolen from her neighbor's. She didn't actually paw the firearm, but she's receiving stolen property.

In our current world, assuming she's paid into the system somewhat, and knowing that there's no getting rid of it without the unmentionable happening in some form or another, I don't mind so much that those who are truly incapable of providing a bare minimum of sustenance receive something. (Now if she has ANYTHING above and beyond a bare minimum that wasn't provided by private funds from friends or family, all bets are off. I can't stand the idea of people living in subsidized housing, eating off of food stamps, and getting paid by the government to smoke, drink, and ride around on their 20" chrome-plated spinners attached to the Escalade Freak-Parade. I've seen it too many times on the east side of Indy. And it disgusts me. )

I could provide for myself, my retirement and my family's needs and future much better if I wasn't paying for everybody else's needs, retirements, and medical care.

I tried to rep ya for that one, but apparently I've been stingy lately. I'm also convinced that overall charitable giving would increase at least two-fold if the income tax were abolished and people were free to use their money as they saw fit. I don't think we'd know what to do with the prosperity that would befall us. And I think most of us would be more than willing to help out a lot more than we currently do because of it.

 

[christman]

I agree with the general consenus here....I don't want to pay for your mother to be honest...However, in our current state of affairs..I am forced to. (Not asked, forced...)

However, on the flip side...If these things are the law of the land, than I agree that anyone that can....apply for them as it is a way of retrieving stolen goods. I know I will if I ever am able to qualify for something.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

I agree with the general consenus here....I don't want to pay for your mother to be honest...However, in our current state of affairs..I am forced to. (Not asked, forced...)

However, on the flip side...If these things are the law of the land, than I agree that anyone that can....apply for them as it is a way of retrieving stolen goods. I know I will if I ever am able to qualify for something.

I'll sure apply to take back my stolen money if I qualify for something that pays it out.

 

[H&R12G]

Everyone is welcome.

Forced Charity isn't something the Fed Gov't should be doing. I feel bad for your mom's situation. There are charities and even hospitals that would wave and forgive bills. These things are usually better done locally and in private organizations like a charity or non-profit.

Nobody likes being forced to pay for someone else's bills. That being said, a lot of people would donate money to help people out. I don't think the government should force me to help pay for my neighbor's broken leg/arm or whatever if I didn't want to.

I do think in your situation charity is obviously needed. If the Gov't is giving it out, she should be getting it. And if the Gov't wasn't giving it out, I'm sure others in the community as well as friends and family would step up and help out. I would hope so anyway.

I do see your side of it too. Mainly because when my friend was a bagger at kroger in high school there was a guy and woman who had $600 in food stamps. No kids. My mom got less with us 3 kids and herself. With his $600 foodstamps he drove a later 2000 model Chrysler 300 and always parked in the handicapped spot, without the pass. I hate that crap because it gives the people who actually need the benefits a bad image. We all look like worthless lazy people when people abuse the system. And the best part is when people do give you a helping hand they will sometimes treat you like garbage. The trustee is a prime example. It doesn't matter if youre white, black, brown, yellow, or purple you are a meth-head and don't deserve any help. Because from what I've heard the majority the trustee and HUD deal with mostly the dredges of society like drug addicts adn former convicts and people like that. Not all of us are that way though. I feel people in the situation similar to my situation are treated like gun owners. One man uses a hand gun in a crime, all gun owners are criminals. And don't ever think the forced charity isn't appreciated. I do appreciate all the people who pay taxes to help support my family.

 

[Fletch]

Ask me for my money or my help, and there's a very good chance you'll get it. Some have even gotten it without having to ask.

Demand my money or my help, and all you are is an enemy.

 

[dross]

I'll sure apply to take back my stolen money if I qualify for something that pays it out.

A little over a year ago, I was about a week away from giving notice so as to move back to Colorado from Indiana. In a surprise move, my employer (who has since closed their doors) laid off about half of their employees, myself included. Ah, serendipity, how sweet you are. If I had collected two years of unemployment I'd of just about gotten back the taxes my wife and I paid the year before. I cashed those checks with a light and joyful heart.

 

[88GT]

A little over a year ago, I was about a week away from giving notice so as to move back to Colorado from Indiana. In a surprise move, my employer (who has since closed their doors) laid off about half of their employees, myself included. Ah, serendipity, how sweet you are. If I had collected two years of unemployment I'd of just about gotten back the taxes my wife and I paid the year before. I cashed those checks with a light and joyful heart.

I'm gonna hijack a bit here, but it illustrates the utter fallacy of the "spread the wealth" retirement planning (aka Social Security).

I once discussed with another gal the realities of taking on debt, good debt, bad, debt, etc. and so forth. I said I would never take on debt for a car purchase, in the first place I never buy new, and in the second, the gap between what I paid and the car's value loss is increased due to the interest on the debt. She made the retort that some people can't save up enough money to buy a car with cash. It would take her 40 years to save up enough to buy a new car. I had to remind her that the average car loan life is but 5 years, and even that includes interest on top of principal. So by paying herself a car payment each month, she would easily save up enough. And probably for a far better car then she thought.

Keeping that mentality in mind, the notion that people can't save for themselves and that the federal government must intervene is the justification for our "spread the wealth" enslavement. But the numbers simply don't add up. If every one of us plopped our "paid to social security programs" withholdings into a simple savings account, at the end of our working life, most of us would have amassed far more than we are ever going to be repaid "by the government." Couple that with the ability to increase that amount via investments or even a simple interest-bearing account, how is it that people are so easily duped into thinking that planning for retirement is so darn hard?

Just some anomalies of the libtard way of thinking that I've chewed on in my few quiet moments.

 

[H&R12G]

I've seen the word "Enslaved" a couple of times in this thread. How are you being enslaved?