WRONG!

First, I am NOT a Republican, TA, as you should well know.

Second, I have REPEATEDLY condemned those kinds of expenditures. You lose all credibility when you make comments like this.

We were having a decent conversation. If you're going to make digs like lumping me with the right and putting words in my mouth, though, I am done with the conversation.

That is ridiculous. You don't even recognise "lots and lots of data" as something other than "nothing". It is no wonder Draginol is growing so impatient with you.

Data counts.

What do you base your opinions on? Fairy tales?

Actually, no. If I have an issue, I'm working on it. And, uh, I've actually GIVEN you the solution, if you read it. Remove welfare entirely from federal control, and give the power to the states. Some states will have massive welfare programs, while others' programs will be virtually nonexistent. That should be their right as the state to decide.

The problem with the welfare program as it sits, TA, is the same as the problem with almost any help program. Rather than work towards its own obsolescence, people in these programs actually work to EXPAND these programs. A perfect example can be given in the area of Children's Protective Services (CPS), one of the biggest targets in my gun sights. While CPS started with a legitimate aim, they expanded their role from being that of protecting children from abuse and neglect to that of investigators, and even of DEFINING abuse and neglect. Why? Because there were more dollars available if they did so.

When they didn't get as many cases as they needed to justify the funding, they took to BEGGING the public to call them, even on the merest suspicion of abuse and neglect. As a result, lives have been ruined, jobs have been lost, all on the vengeful false allegations of a hateful neighbour or ex-spouse. The best way to get back at a parent in this country is to call CPS on them. You can sit back and watch the fireworks while they're none the wiser. Sad, really.

And the worst part is, their actions actually ENABLE the real abusers, first by filling up their caseload so that REAL cases of abuse or neglect aren't given the proper attention while they're out investigating Joe Public whose neighbor's pissed at the color of his fence; second by tainting the investigation by sending out an "investigator" who does not use proper evidence gathering techniques in their investigation, or even obtain the proper warrants for a search unless the family literally stands in the door and refuses them entry. This is a problem I have detailed many times, and I've detailed the solutions EXTENSIVELY. I may repost those articles at some time, but I won't go into them now.

So you want my solution? Here it is:

Give complete responsibility for welfare programs to the state government. Get the federal government out of it entirely, up to and including cabinet posts dedicated to that end.

At the state level, use welfare funds ONLY as a stopgap safety net. Don't put time limits on it, but don't give a minimum time either. Focus on solutions, not on temporary fixes. If a family needs relocation assistance to work, get them relocation assistance to a job once a prospective offer has been made. Help them with training programs, but do so in a way that they contribute to their own education through service.

Eliminate foodstamps entirely. Work with groups such as Second Harvest to stock food banks, and provide needy families with food, education on food preparation and nutrition, and basic toiletries. Staff these food banks with families enrolled in the program to work with assembling food packages, and families who have recently "graduated from" the program as counselors to assist families in the program, as they have the experience of having "been there. Set up an extensive mentoring program to lift these families out of the CYCLE of poverty. Enlist the help of churches, but don't make their assistance essential to the program.

Clothing banks can be set up on a similar model.

For housing, create cheap, affordable communal living spaces that provide clean, comfortable, but not luxurious accomodations. The maintenance of these facilities can be managed by transitional employees who are working their way out of the program.

Provide an extensive volunteer network and return the concept of community. Get back to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" and away from a system that divides and enables destructive behaviour. If you want to end poverty, you must see it for what it is, and eliminate the things that cause it to continue. Enabling it only makes the problem worse.

And yes, I have a plan to pay for the whole thing. But that's another article entirely!

Detailed enough for you?

But see, that's why I didn't like your stereotype. If you look on my blog, it is not a continual kvetch about programs and taxes, and when it is, I always have a solution to back it up. You have to prove your thesis that there IS a problem, though, before you can advance a reform agenda.



Yes and no, TA. Two things, though:

1. I've detailed my problems with the federal system. Rural areas get left out in the cold at the expense of urban pockets.

2. At the state level, it is much easier to police mismanagement and corruption because it happens at a lower level. Don't believe me? Try this experiment. Call your state senator. Now call your US senator. Unless you know them, I can virtually guarantee the state senator will call back first.

There is no perfect system, you are right. If things worked the way they were meant to work, churches, synagogues, and mosques would be taking care of the poor and needy and government would have no need to get involved. The government stepped in after these groups failed. SO what we need is reform within our own faiths as well...but that's another issue entirely.

if you are partly for it then we are not in disagreement here.

Why it is not redistribution? here is why:

I said that before and all societies recognize the danger of leaving problems around them without solving them. The people who remain sick and cant afford treatment or insurence cause problems for the rest of us. we leave them untreated at the risk of our own health and well being.

we pay to treat them to protect ourselves. That is why it is not redistribution. it is pure self-interest .... pure and simple.

same with school drop-outs, drugs, unemployment, hunger, homelessness.... etc. all dangers to us and we all should protect ourselves not by fences around us but by minimizing these problems.

There is no way that anyone can eliminate these problems entirely. Poors, sick, uneducated and dangerous people will always exist in any society. The trick is to keep their numbers to a safe minimum for our own self-interst.if some get frutrated with me because i expose their self-destructive tunnel vision so be it.

Of course date is useful ... but picking and choosing what the data mean is my point. Not only that, but pretending that someone is the only one who understands the issues while in fact they are looking at them from a very narrow angle is an arrogance beyound belief.

A self-admitting dont-care-about-others attitude is really not qualified to deal with any social issue that affects the lives of others. If you dont care about others how can you get involved in discussing what affects them? you disqualified yourself already ... so why are you discussing it?

I can understand complaining about paying any taxes at all from someone who doesnt care. that is their rights. but pretending that what they say is based on data or sound policy is a deciet and a way to hide behind false pretenses. That is pure dishonesty. say it as it is: I dont care and I dont like paying for anything that is not directly affecting me NOW.

I will never object to anyone saying that. It is the pretense of knowing what is the best policy that i am objecting to. If that gets them frustrated ...well... so be it.

Yes and no, TA. The biggest argument for some sort of reform in the health care industry is actually much simpler:

Because we're ALREADY paying for it.

Basically, because ER's cannot turn people away, we often find ourselves paying for the vastly inflated emergency room visit...often with an ambulance trip thrown in to boot. How? Through the bad debt writeoffs and increased rates charged to cover default.

What I am leaning towards at this point is a program that would subsidize, but not pay, health insurance premiums for qualifying families. I need a lot more research to crunch the numbers, but with the numbers I have, it actually looks doable without increasing what we're already spending. I don't want to give away my best stuff in a forum response though, so when I get the numbers together, I'll manufacture an article with more detail.

No, we're fighting raising taxes to extend these programs. And we arefighting inefficiency, TA, those are the main things.

One other problem with the federal government is that it adds another layer of bureaucracy, which increases costs, and decreases efficiency, as the number of hands the money goes through to get to the recipient increases greatly.

When I managed group homes, TA, I did some calculating. I realized that every resident of the group home was at least partly responsible for at least 8 people's jobs, at or below the county level. Add in the state and national level, and you see the problem. The lower the level at which the bureaucracy operates, the more efficient it is likely to become.

Exactly. I said that already. lets' eliminate the middle step and we can get better service at lower cost (see comment #51). But you can never get that through the heads of the socialized medicine crowd Including OUR PRESIDENT HIMSELF. He actually said that: "they can always go to the ER".

Amazing ... isnt it? as if the tooth fairy pays for the ER !!!!

and they say they know it all. !!!!!!

you must not have been reading genes posts. that is all he calls for is raising taxes.

Now you talking .... but that is not what you always write about. Please keep talking about that.... let's get it right and dont let the deciet and dishonesty divert you from that.

so your saying that gene is a no body.

when someone says no one and i really mean no one. that includes the extremes.

distort what he says.


the rich can afford to pay more in taxes. how is the distorting


and everyone with a brain knows that the rich don't pay taxes. because they pass it on to their customers.