TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:Secondly, the problem with poor people in the system isn't the dying poor. It's the poor who use the ER as their personal physician, clogging up the system and needlessly burning up massive amounts of resources, each of whom HAS to be seen just for the ER staff to CYA and document that the patient is not dying but only has a common cold. For every dying gunshot poor patient an ER sees, that same ER will see hundreds of poor people with nothing more than the common cold. I don't know about you, but when I have a cold, I don't go to the doctor. A cold is a cold is a cold. It will go away in 7-8 days, pretty much no matter what you do, and you have to just deal with it. I don't go to the doctor for a cold because if I do, it takes about $140 out of my pocket for the visit. Poor people don't have to pay for those visits to the ER for their common cold, and so they go, even though it isn't medically necessary, and even though it is a boat anchor on the public healthcare system. It's free (to them), so why not go? "Spend more" is nothing more than a recipe for more of the same.

And of course, that's why insurance plans have co-payments and deductibles, which don't apply to the poor. And they also have the time to go spend a few hours in an emergency room when they get a cold. I've made several emergency room trips with elderly parents and while there I've never seen anyone walk in who really needed emergency treatment.

cb1000rider wrote:So reading between the constitutional lecture lines, you seem to be saying that you think welfare is a job for the state.. And again, I'm looking for solutions, so I completely accept that as a reasonable solution. I can't say that it will solve the problem, as it only passes the burden of spending from federal taxes to state taxes (or property tax here in TX)... That assumes everything stays the same.

I'm saying the whole concept of welfare as implemented in the US and Europe is fundamentally wrong on a moral level and fundamentally flawed on a practical level, but yes, it's a job for the states, and possibly, even localities --like counties or large cities. Being on welfare shouldn't be "comfortable" it should be unpleasant, so that people want to get off of it. And it should be impossible to be on it beyond a certain period of time --which I suggest would need to be flexible and determined based on prevailing economic conditions. Ideally, it should be based on a charity model, and not run by the government. But if it's paid for by tax dollars it should come with other conditions, such as not being able to vote while receiving it, requirements to work, group housing, etc --essentially military like conditions without the combat.

cb1000rider wrote:I do agree that states seem to have a better handle on the regional problems, certainly better than the federal government... So I certainly like that aspect.

This is important for several reasons. Among them: the lower the governmental level the more influence taxpayers are likely to have in shaping the program; as you suggest, regional differences can be accounted for; and different implementations will help determine what works best and what doesn't work; and states that are too generous will find themselves home to a larger number of welfare recipients, which if not somewhat self-correcting will at least save the other states some money.

cb1000rider wrote:In regard to the constitutional lecture. You guys can do that all day long, but the reality is that we pay taxes (too many) and currently pay into a system that takes from those who make money and at some level redistributes it. I see nothing in the constitution that "allows" for that, but we're not going to get the "reset" that you guys keep talking about any time soon, so why not work within the bounds of what we can change?

There is a difference between a tax system that takes money from people to fund Constitutionally allowed government functions, such as national defense, and which results in some people getting money for performing those functions, and a transfer payment from someone productive to someone unproductive. As I alluded to earlier, as a practical matter I'm not all that concerned about the welfare system per se because it is eventually going to collapse under its own weight. My concern is how the moral decay it has helped foster has contributed to our moral degeneracy as a nation. Tuning the welfare system isn't going to change that and turn around will take generations and the collectivists control the educational system from bottom to top, and they control the media, except at the moment, for the intenet. I therefore don't believe we're going to get a reset unless some catastrophic event occurs, such as an economic collapse, so to me, fiddling with the welfare system is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

cb1000rider wrote:Someone pointed out that we all receive some form of assistance. It could be as simply as federal funds for our roads here in Texas, but we all receive something.

Sounds like you've been reading too many Obama speeches, or you really took his "you didn't build that" rhetoric to heart. Where do Federal funds come from exactly? Contrary to what liberals seem to think, they come from the pockets of the productive; they're not conjured out of thin air, or the progeny of government employees. I'm paying an enormous amount of taxes. I'm not receiving anything, I'm paying for it.

cb1000rider wrote:I think many are proponents of ending all forms of Federal assistance,

I'm a proponent of the Constitutional Republic created by our Founders; and that means I'm a proponent of following the highest law of the land, which does not grant the Feds any power to grant most of their so called assistance.

cb1000rider wrote: How many could pay for their retirement out of pocket on savings alone? No social security. No medicaid. No medicare. How many could afford to self pay for private insurance at retirement age? I know many will blame Obama for current costs, so take the cost of healthcare under Bush and it's projected growth rate. For me, I can comfortably self-retire on something like $3M at 65. That takes care of stock market crashes, the off chance that I live until 90, and insolvent social security. That amount of money keeps me in a middle class lifestyle. I probably won't hit $3M... Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Retire on $500k without any form of assistance in our current economy and I hope you're really healthy, don't live that long, or make great investment choices... If you think you don't have to worry about it, you're not looking around.

In other words, you're in favor of a Ponzi scheme that robs one generation in order to fund a middle class lifestyle for another generation that chose not to save for retirement. All Ponzi schemes eventually end in disaster for those who haven't already cleared their loot from it. The government can't conjure money out of thin air (not for long anyway)....it can only come from what productive people produce and save. The current Ponzi scheme is already on the road to collapse. You can't take out more than you put in (the case for virtually all current retirees) except by finding enough suckers to add money to the pot. If the wreck of a government we have can invest your money and pay you a retirement out of those funds, so can you. What you're really advocating is that you should get more out than what you put in, paid for by someone else: IOW, wealth redistribution.

No one has a right to a middle class life style. Everyone has the right to own what they produce and live accordingly. No, you can't save a lot of money when you go out to dinner every night, buy lunch everyday, go to the movies, buy big screen TVs, drive nice new cars, have a boat, RV, and jet skis, and finance homes you can't really afford. How is that MY problem? That's a choice people make and then whine about when they have to face the music of unemployment or retirement and have taken zero responsibility for their own lives. My son has only been able to get work part time, through no fault of his own, and he's married with wife not working, yet he manages to save money. He doesn't have a new car --I help him keep his car running. He and his wife don't go out to dinner at restaurants, or to the movies. OTOH, he hasn't borrowed any money either, because he understands that debt is a trap. He isn't living a middle class lifestyle because he can't afford it and takes responsibility for himself and his wife.

And yes, I fully expect to pay for my retirement out of my own savings, as I don't expect to have any other choice. Furthermore, how did it become a right to retire at 65, or younger? I don't expect to be able to just live a life of leisure once I hit some magic age. In any case, there are about to be a whole lot of people who are going to find out what it's like to have to take care of themselves.

cb1000rider wrote: without some change no one but the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare without assistance.

That's true, but there are other remedies than socialism or Obamacare. Some of them are going to show up on their own.

cb1000rider wrote: I should say we weren't a Socialist country.

Agreed.

cb1000rider wrote:I saw one posting indicating that we don't have any sort of constitutional based responsibility to care for them. And I agree from the legal point of view, nothing in the constitution requires that... But making that comparison is a bit like looking for a pineapple in an vegetable garden. Therefore we let them survive on public good will, economic outreach from religious organizations, and private funding. Sounds good - can we count on it in all economic conditions?

You seem to be confused about what the Constitution says and what it means. The Constitution is a charter for limited government. It defines what the Federal government is ALLOWED to do, and all those functions not specifically enumerated come under the sole power of the individual States. The Constitution DOES NOT ALLOW the Federal Government to provide welfare. Now granted, a liberal activist president (FDR) in collusion with a corrupt and dishonest Congress and a activist Supreme Court have deliberately re-interpreted the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, but its clear meaning is quite obvious and simple. That said, if the government actually followed the Constitution, there is nothing prohibiting individual states from doling out all the welfare their residents are willing to cough up in taxes. And there are all kinds of reasons why the Founders wrote the Constitution the way they did --one of them being that the States were intended to be individual experiments for self-governance, both by individual demonstrations of what works and what doesn't, and as refuges for those citizens living in states that strayed too far in the wrong direction --another system of checks and balances.

It doesn't matter one iota what you think is good or how much money you're willing to cough up in taxes to the Feds to support the socialist notion of a guaranteed standard of living; the Federal government has no right to take my money and give it to someone else so they can enjoy someone's idea of a nice standard of living. Furthermore, no one has any right to any particular standard of living at someone else's expense. I most certainly would advocate a return to the system of the 30's and 40's. My father came out to California in the 30's without any money and without a job. He did whatever work he could find and saved his money. The medical system worked just fine --and everything was cheaper....after adjusting for inflation. Everything would be much cheaper now too if the government was out of the medical business, both in terms of inflating demand, and in terms of facilitating monopolistic practices that enable providers to charge outrageous non-market prices. The fact is NO ONE has the right to take wealth by force from someone else because they or the government say they "need" it.

There was recently an article in the media showing how prices for the same procedure vary from about $25,000 to $125,000. This is pure robbery by the medical establishment in collusion with the government. My son recently had an appendectomy. Because he is only employed part time and has no medical insurance, he was charged MORE for the procedure than if he'd had insurance --about $32,000. That price is absurd when you look at prices for procedures insurance won't pay for, like Lasik, and breast augmentation. Medical care is unaffordable because the Feds and the insurance industry have made it expensive.

No one has the right to expect me to pay for their medical treatment, emergency or otherwise. Does that make me a mean old Capitalist who wants to let poor people die at the Emergency Room door? No, I don't want people who truly need emergency care to die without it; but then, that's not what 90% of emergency room care is about anymore. I would gladly contribute money --charity-- for such people and there are many ways such costs could be borne without wealth distribution and a socialist nanny state. It would be charity....and at times charity should come with a bit of stigma attached, and at all times be received with gratitude, unlike "entitlements." However, no one has any right to live an unhealthy life, drink alcohol, get injured doing something they're not supposed to be doing, be in the country legally or illegally, etc, and be entitled to medical treatment on my dime. The situations most people find themselves in are the product of choices they make for themselves, good and bad. No one is entitled to my labor because they made bad choices. People who have children they can't pay for are not entitled to have me pay for them. When bad choices are subsidized and rewarded you get more bad choices.

Someone else in the thread, TAM I think, quoted Benjamin Franklin, about not making the poor comfortable in their poverty. The "entitlement" system and resulting mentality is fundamentally immoral --robbing Peter to pay Paul-- so disastrous consequences are inevitable. The moral degeneracy bred by a system that takes from productive people and gives to unproductive people and attempts to disguise the reality of the process by hobbling the notion of "charity" in order to cater to the "self-esteem" of the unproductive, and calling the proceeds of the theft in their behalf "entitlements," is unmeasurable, but it has pervaded the entire culture for the worst. It has resulted in generations of people who think someone else owes them a living by virtue of their mere existence. People have children they can't afford knowing that someone else will help pay for them, while people like my son and his wife, who would dearly love to have children, take responsibility for themselves and wait until their circumstances allow them to afford children. At some point people get tired of being responsible when those who are irresponsible are rewarded for their bad choices and bad behavior. A system that is fundamentally immoral cannot produce a moral outcome; and without morality we get degeneracy.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: A non-responsive answer even if true, which it isn't. You should try living in the Rio Grande Valley and keeping your eyes open --you'll see a quite different picture than the Democratic party line you're spouting here.

I'm not sure that diving through the Rio Grande Valley counts as objective data collection on welfare recipients and ownership of large TVs. If you've got some data, show me... I'm convinced by data and I'm likely to change my opinion.

I'm critical of just looking at welfare. I think that's a mistake to rail against that when we've got bigger issues. All of the disability recipients that I know have nice TVs and certainly the income and lifestyle provided are much higher.

Did you intend "diving" to be driving or living? I lived there for around 20 years. I went to high school there. I have relatives still living there. One of my relatives is a nurse in Brownsville, and she can tell you how many illegals get free treatment for just about everything, and often better treatment than working people, especially working Hispanic-Americans. Those anchor babies you referred to, we pay for them to be born here. We're also paying for educating the children of illegals, and not just anchor babies. Many live across the border and come to school in the US. Schools have doubled, tripled, and quadrupled in size to serve the children of illegals. Have you heard of "Colonias?" Another scam foisted on both illegals and the taxpayers by corrupt developers. And welfare fraud and corruption are endemic. Illegal voting is prolific.

As far as your theory that it doesn't really impact the vote for Republicans, take a look at the election map for 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... exas,_2012

The greater the Hispanic population (including illegals ....sorry, undocumented Democrats), the higher the vote for Obama --always a clear majority and as high as 90% in some counties, the same pattern seen for the majority of border counties and even adjacent counties near the border.

But I'm not really railing against welfare; it's more of a social and moral problem than a financial one; and it is not our biggest problem. In any case it would do no good to attack immorality and corruption at the bottom: the only way to defeat corruption is to strike it down at the top.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: NPR? Obama's and the Democratic party's wholly owned radio station? While it may be true in this instance, I retain my skepticism of anything that comes from NPR.

NPR receives government funding under the current administration just like it did under Republican administrations. Its just more spin calling it "wholly owned". Why not stick to the facts instead of stirring the pot?
Media outlets are never completely balanced and NPR is known for some more liberal views, that I give you.. And you should be suspicious of the source always - but what is it in that report that you don't believe? It's highly critical of the system under the current administration, although it's a problem that has been building for decades.

Did you read the article? That "liberal" media outlet is providing statistics on a problem that is eating away at our budget. If you want to harp about welfare that's fine, but it's not the top of my priority list. I'm sure I can find the same information with conservative media outlets, if that helps.

You should read what I said: "while it may be true in this instance......" Yeah, it's government funded and shouldn't be. The fact is it supports Obama and his administration. Yes, wholly owned is hyperbole --in the bag for Obama might have been better phrasing. And I used to listen to NPR regularly....I listened as it went from an irritating liberal bias to unbearable childish propaganda and all out collectivism. I also used to listen to Rush Limbaugh as he drifted from occasionally irritating sophistry to all out and childish neo-con propaganda. The fact is, there is virtually nothing readily available on the radio or television that isn't junior high school level propaganda of one kind of another (in which category I include advertising in its various forms).

cb1000rider wrote:

nightmare69 wrote: So you have no problem with some able body person who is perfectly capable of working but chooses not too and taking your hard earned money and buying booze, cigs, latest Iphone, 74in flat screen TV, or anything else that is considered a luxury? Sorry but I do have a problem with it.

Drama. Seriously guys?
I'm sure that you guys know that what you're citing above certainly isn't the norm. Presenting is as normalcy is just more bending the truth for political advantage and sensationalism. Sure, there might be a welfare recipient out there with a 74in TV and absolutely no other income, but what is it going to be? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10000?

A non-responsive answer even if true, which it isn't. You should try living in the Rio Grande Valley and keeping your eyes open --you'll see a quite different picture than the Democratic party line you're spouting here.

anygunanywhere wrote: How long have you worked for ACORN?

Anygunanywhere

I don't get it, this is a gun forum, where are all these collectivists coming from?

Tecumseh wrote:I for one am tired of the public roads. Congress should not be paying for them nor should it be paying social security, welfare, disability, for a standing army, for the FDA, for any sort of agricultural subsidies, no oil subsidies, no research for any sciences, no disaster relief, or any of that. The biggest form of welfare is going to states. http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The majority of those states are GOP controlled states. A Fox Business article citing the same states: http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is nice to see that the Obama administration got it right when they turned Texas down for FEMA relief after the fertilizer plant exploded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/us/fe ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't it?

We agree on this. You're right on most counts, as the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to do most of the things you mention. About the only Constitutional authority Congress has to do any of the things you mention is to provide for a common defense and build roads. It doesn't give them the authority for paying social security, welfare, the FDA, agricultural subsidies, oil subsides, scientific research, and maybe or maybe not, disaster relief. And yeah, not only should their be no FEMA relief, there should be no FEMA. Funny how this great country lasted so long without FEMA. But the states getting the most money stuff is a complete liberal red herring, whether it is broadcast on the less liberal Fox or the rest of the liberal media.

Tecumseh wrote: It is easy to complain about welfare recipients buying steaks or having expensive cars, phones, or TV sets but how do you know they didn't have them before they got on the welfare? And why aren't we complaining about subsidies to companies and corporations? Corporations are people and it is insane to see some "people" get billions of dollars of tax money and not complain about it but do complain when another person gets a few thousand a year to eat with. Isn't it?

If they have all those things, why should they be on welfare? No one is entitled to expensive cars, phones, TV sets, or steak dinners. If they could afford an expensive car they could afford saving money for a rainy day. Regardless of whether it costs too much or not, the system is both unfair and counterproductive. Why should anyone save money if they can just get on welfare should they be confronted by a rainy day? It is absolute and utter hooey that I should have to support people who spent their money on expensive cars and fancy TV's instead of taking care of themselves and preparing for the future. Your logic here would also justify taking food away from those who stocked up and prepared for an emergency and giving it to those who didn't. The principal is exactly the same. And why should anyone work their way up from a low paying job when they can do what they want and achieve about the same standard of living on welfare? The social consequences of welfare are far more destructive to the country than the money it costs; and on the economic side the fact is that whenever you pay for something, you get more of it, not less. Welfare has virtually destroyed the black family and will ultimately destroy low income Hispanic family life as well.

AndyC wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:If you want to rail against people that are abusing the system, you should read this: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow - fascinating read:

federal disability programs became our extremely expensive default plan. The two big disability programs, including health care for disabled workers, cost some $260 billion a year.

People at the Social Security Administration, which runs the federal disability programs, say we cannot afford this. The reserves in the disability insurance program are on track to run out in 2016, Steve Goss, the chief actuary at Social Security, told me.

Goss is confident that Congress will act to keep disability payments flowing, probably by taking money from the Social Security retirement fund. Of course, the retirement fund itself is on track to run out of money by 2035.

Goss and his colleagues have worked out a temporary fix under which the retirement and disability funds will both run out of money by 2033. He says he hopes the country will have come up with a better plan by then.

We're in really big trouble.

NPR? Obama's and the Democratic party's wholly owned radio station? While it may be true in this instance, I retain my skepticism of anything that comes from NPR.

cb1000rider wrote:Yes we are in big financial trouble. Maybe we can put it off and leave or kids with even more financial trouble...

And if you're mad about 72" TV "welfare" recipients, you're totally missing the forest because you're looking at a very small tree.

What simple steps could be taken to being to solve this problem? Take away the "lifetime" award of disability. That is, re-evaluate every X years. Right now it's a permanent free ride and it encourages those who are on it to evade taxes further, as you lose benefits if you have too much documented gainful employment. Setup rules that encourage employment rather than penalize it. Make it really tough to be on disability long term.

I do see a legitimate need for a living disability wage in extreme cases. I don't like it. I don't want to pay for it, but I admit it's there. But when I find out that 25% of the could-be-working population is taking retirement because they "can't" work, yea, that works me up..

Again... My point is largely that all of this rhetoric is ridiculous. It makes me ill.. And the people that do it to support their point of view, Democrat or Republican, just lose my support even more. If a politician (and I don't care what party) stood up and said he/she was going to balance the budget by getting people off welfare who were buying 72" TVs, I'd see right though that as a non-solution in about 2 seconds. We should be proposing solutions instead of stirring up diversity on half-baked facts...

Watch out for diversive posts. Be skeptical. Make your own decision by looking at both sides.

The point isn't that welfare is financially bankrupting the country....it isn't.....welfare and immigration are socially and culturally bankrupting the country (and the same thing is true of corporate welfare in our now thoroughly crony capitalistic country, so corruption is now pervasive and endemic). Yeah, the guys in the video look healthy and capable of working, but the system has made them permanently unemployable in all but the most menial jobs. This is a problem that is now so entrenched it cannot be solved in less than several generations. The major cities in this country, especially those in the blue states, are probably beyond salvation. The reason we have a financial problem is because we first had a moral problem. The financial problem cannot be fixed without first fixing the moral problem, and as it degenerated over decades, it will take decades to regenerate.

anygunanywhere wrote:A large percentage of welfare recipients have no intention of ever working at an honest job, stop using drugs, producing children out of wedlock, supporting their families, or performing any other part of what can be counted as responsible behavior.

A large percentage of illegals do not want to be citizens. A large percentage of those who will be granted amnesty are now or will become welfare recipients. When they are granted voting rights they will continue to vote for their money. Even if they work and start to pay taxes , few of them will ever get to the point of paying in more taxes than they consume in welafare. Remember, the lower 47% of wageearners do not pay taxes - they receive earned income credits which is in and of itself welfare.

THE ONLY MONEY THE GOVERNMENT CAN SPEND IS MONEY THEY GET FROM TAXING US.

Where is that reboot switch?

Anygunanywhere

You heard what the guy said, can't get a job because he's a criminal and been to jail. So I say, we'd all be better off keeping guys like him in jail, since we're paying for his existence either way. At least in jail he won't be able to make trouble for the rest of us.

And yes, welfare and open immigration are a national suicide pact, and it's too obvious that it is to write the existing system off as a product of ignorance or misguided altruism: destruction of the Republic is the intended outcome.