welfare where does it really go

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
U

user 6493

Awesome Friend
VIP Supporter
Neighbor
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
6,495
Why should the government dole out any money to the poor? Where in the constitution does it say the federal government is obligated to had out any free money to the poor?
 
Urbanprep said:
Why should the government dole out any money to the poor? Where in the constitution does it say the federal government is obligated to had out any free money to the poor?
Click to expand...


it is not the point ,the point is the states are using the funds in ways not intended,,,,,from what I read the feds could slash the budget by 90% ,,,,,I can live with people getting some help but not with the states pissing money away just because they have it
 
Last edited:
both the feds and state government have a tendency to waste money,,,spending in ways never intended,,

each state gets money for highways each year....what if it came to light that the 90% of the money intended for road repair was shifted to something else how would that sit with you
 
the hell with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,, this is just another way money intended for one thing is pissed away of crap not needed,,,,,Government at the Federal level and State level are real good at spending what does not belong to them
 
grayghost668 said:
the hell with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,, this is just another way money intended for one thing is pissed away of crap not needed,,,,,Government at the Federal level and State level are real good at spending what does not belong to them
Click to expand...

AND that was the whole point of my post. The government spends on items it was never intended to pay for. Then you add in the waste, mis-direction of funds, the piss poor management and no repercussions. The taxes continue to climb and nothing improves but the balance sheets of each politician.
 
GG, I think you are making a great point that gov't is horribly inefficient and shouldn't be involved in things like welfare. Massive waste and misdirecting of tax money. "Caring for the needy" was far more efficient when it was done outside gov't. You will not find a single shred of evidence to support that gov't is a better way to do this overall.
 
TexasFreedom said:
GG, I think you are making a great point that gov't is horribly inefficient and shouldn't be involved in things like welfare. Massive waste and misdirecting of tax money. "Caring for the needy" was far more efficient when it was done outside gov't. You will not find a single shred of evidence to support that gov't is a better way to do this overall.
Click to expand...

that is not what I said,,,,,don't twist my post to suit your needs,,,

there are far to many that believe that the poor can sink or swim on their own

with that said just how would it be better in public hands
 
GG,

A few notes. I think we do agree that gov't programs are run very inefficiently and often are ineffective. Overhead costs, scams, nobody taking care of business... I'd wager only 1/3rd of taxes, at most 1/2 of taxes set aside for welfare end up helping people who really need it. You can adjust that number up or down, but I think that's the real range.

Yes, there are plenty of people who donate nothing to help the needy. That's ok, we do not need 100% participation. We didn't have it 100 years ago, we don't need it now. When you said 'public hands', I assume you mean non-gov't operation of charity?

If so, there are lots of ways. First, charities have very little overhead compared to gov't programs. People who work/volunteer with charities really care, and will mind the store. That will maximize the benefit to people who really need it and block out many who are just scamming. Not perfect, but far better than gov't programs. Charities rarely give out cash, and instead provide food and clothing and shelter to those in need. Again, this filters out huge deficiencies in gov't programs where people 'buy' (with taxpayer money) all kinds of things. Or how many people sell their food stamp money (yes, this is a $1billion scam if not more annually).

Look back. There was almost zero welfare during the great depression, yet hardly anybody starved. Hungry? Yup, and lots. But people helped one another and as a nation we got through it. An example, after church we had lunch with a couple that regularly donate to help the elderly/needy with their utility bill. They don't advertise it, they know someone at the utility company and that person pings them when there is a charity case where someone is about to get their utilities turned off due to non-payment. They give the money to bring that person up-to-date. No fan-fare, no scams, no gov't involvement. Simply good people blessing others at the local level.
 
TexasFreedom said:
GG,

A few notes. I think we do agree that gov't programs are run very inefficiently and often are ineffective. Overhead costs, scams, nobody taking care of business... I'd wager only 1/3rd of taxes, at most 1/2 of taxes set aside for welfare end up helping people who really need it. You can adjust that number up or down, but I think that's the real range.

Yes, there are plenty of people who donate nothing to help the needy. That's ok, we do not need 100% participation. We didn't have it 100 years ago, we don't need it now. When you said 'public hands', I assume you mean non-gov't operation of charity?

If so, there are lots of ways. First, charities have very little overhead compared to gov't programs. People who work/volunteer with charities really care, and will mind the store. That will maximize the benefit to people who really need it and block out many who are just scamming. Not perfect, but far better than gov't programs. Charities rarely give out cash, and instead provide food and clothing and shelter to those in need. Again, this filters out huge deficiencies in gov't programs where people 'buy' (with taxpayer money) all kinds of things. Or how many people sell their food stamp money (yes, this is a $1billion scam if not more annually).

Look back. There was almost zero welfare during the great depression, yet hardly anybody starved. Hungry? Yup, and lots. But people helped one another and as a nation we got through it. An example, after church we had lunch with a couple that regularly donate to help the elderly/needy with their utility bill. They don't advertise it, they know someone at the utility company and that person pings them when there is a charity case where someone is about to get their utilities turned off due to non-payment. They give the money to bring that person up-to-date. No fan-fare, no scams, no gov't involvement. Simply good people blessing others at the local level.
Click to expand...


it was a different world then,,,,to many people now care only about their own self,,,they are worried someone might spend a dollar that belongs to them,,,,,,,

damned few would come off a dollar no matter what it was for ,,,from road repair to defending the USA,,,,,let someone else do it

you need look no further than this forum


prove me wrong
 
grayghost668 said:
damned few would come off a dollar no matter what it was for...prove me wrong
Click to expand...
GG,

I thought I just did. Isn't that the motto of the marines, 'the few, the proud, the marines'? It doesn't take the majority, but enough.

And I think you have a great idea, let's look at this forum. For our fellows, what percentage of your income do you give away? Whether church, charities, direct-to-the-individual?

I'll start off. 10-15%. I don't tally it (and the gov't has no business knowing). But this is the right range.
 
GG, what amount have YOU donated to charity? I have donated both time and money to feed a hungry person. I have paid the grocery bill for a broke mother trying to buying baby supplies. That does not make me a martyr or a great guy, but it did allow ME to decide how and to whom my money went. That is the real difference. The 'Free Lunch" crowd demand that everybody pay for their "Free Lunch", except of course themselves. NEWS FLASH --- the world does not owe anybody a 'Free Lunch".
 
I have never added it up but around 10%,,,,,,, and I have had one who I have cost me 40k while trying to get him back on his feet that one was about 13 tears ago,,he was more interested in being high than getting his life back on track,,I am not as generous as I once was
 
GG, But that is the whole point, it was YOUR choice to help that person out and your choice when to stop helping out. That is why we need the government to get out of the Charity business. The government is only interested in buying votes and maintaining their jobs. So the waste never stops and the expenses will continue to grow. Welfare is silk wrapped chains designed to imprison entire generations.
 
A girl I once worked with started working with the local Social Services after being laid off. (Textile jobs were sent offshored). She didn't last long in the Social Services jobs. She could only take so much of the "Welfare Queens (or Kings)" coming in and DEMANDING "where is my money". They didn't take too kindly when she pointed out, it was the taxpayers money. Personally, I don't think I would have lasted as long as she did.
 
the whole point of this thread was to point out how much is wasted by the states,and it looks to me like 90% or more is being pissed away,,,,I don't know how much is in the Federal Budget for welfare but when less that $.10 cents out of every dollar is all that reaches the people something needs to be done about it,,,,,,ending the program is not the answer
 
Ending the program is th only answer when the government is involved.
 
GG, I agree that 'ending' the program isn't the right choice. But what UP & I are saying is that we need to change WHO manages the program. We're saying to fire the gov't, and let the individual/charities take over.

Otherwise, you're agreeing that gov't is incompetently running this yet you want them to keep running it? At what point do you realize that's insanity?

UP said it really well here:
Urbanprep said:
GG, But that is the whole point, it was YOUR choice to help that person out and your choice when to stop helping out. That is why we need the government to get out of the Charity business. The government is only interested in buying votes and maintaining their jobs. So the waste never stops and the expenses will continue to grow. Welfare is silk wrapped chains designed to imprison entire generations.
Click to expand...
 
no one cares about the poor,,,,,lock them in the basement we don't have to look at them there and eventually they will die


yeah public hands

the public is just as corrupt as the Federal level
 
GG,
You really crack me up. I tell you, "GG, be positive!" And you respond, "I am positive, I'm positive that gov't is corrupt/evil AND private/individual is corrupt/evil!"

Um...ok. So yes, you can identify imperfections/problems anywhere. But I go back to my previous point, what is worse for all: the providers and the recipients? I believe the undeniable answer is gov't administered welfare.

You make the point that people won't give. I ask how do you know that? 100 years ago it was more than sufficient. Yes, people are less generous today than 100 year ago, but how much of that is due to excessive gov't stealing? And how will we know if it's sufficient without trying it? BTW, I think there is less true 'need' today than 100 years ago. We don't have anywhere near the deaths from wars & disease compared to back then, leaving countless widows/children without a provider.
 
TexasFreedom said:
GG,
You really crack me up. I tell you, "GG, be positive!" And you respond, "I am positive, I'm positive that gov't is corrupt/evil AND private/individual is corrupt/evil!"

Um...ok. So yes, you can identify imperfections/problems anywhere. But I go back to my previous point, what is worse for all: the providers and the recipients? I believe the undeniable answer is gov't administered welfare.

You make the point that people won't give. I ask how do you know that? 100 years ago it was more than sufficient. Yes, people are less generous today than 100 year ago, but how much of that is due to excessive gov't stealing? And how will we know if it's sufficient without trying it? BTW, I think there is less true 'need' today than 100 years ago. We don't have anywhere near the deaths from wars & disease compared to back then, leaving countless widows/children without a provider.
Click to expand...


I crack you up,,,that is funny ,I can say the same about you,,,,,

your undying belief that people are good and will help the less fortunate ,,,,,do you not watch the news,,,humans are such wonderful creatures,,,they rape and murder they cheat on their wives or husbands theft is a problem drug addiction is rampant and the states are legalizing marijuana ,,,,the list of human faults is unending,,,we here prep for the worse and talk about how bad it will be and you still believe that people are good and will help the poor,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what are you smoking ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
what I know about people is we are mostly concerned in our own well being,,,the vast majority will lie to you cheat you and use you anytime they get the chance,,,,,,,, I have no faith in others I have found people to be undependable ,,,
 
GG I see a lot of finger pointed, complaining but not a single solution. Government wasted full. Civilian to self centered and not caring. SO what is you solution are you just content to complain.
 
Urbanprep said:
GG I see a lot of finger pointed, complaining but not a single solution. Government wasted full. Civilian to self centered and not caring. SO what is you solution are you just content to complain.
Click to expand...

the money is pissed away on the state level,if I ran the show ,I would look at each states budget ,,,,if a state was only using 10% of their funds for the people I would slash their budget by 90%,,,the Feds should not be paying for any pet programs


why don't you tell me what we can do,,,,,,the feds control all the money,,,,just what the hell do you think we can do,,,,,,you guys all bitch because you think no one should get welfare ,,,my money no one deserves it but me,,,if that is not complaining I don't know what the hell is,,,


so come on you put me on the spot,,,,,now without doing away with it,,,,BECAUSE IT IS NEVER GOING AWAY,,,,,,what would you do
 
this came to me me while in the shower,,,,,,,I hear a lot of you complaining about welfare,after finding the above story it has left me ticked off,,,,,,,,so you guys all shout let the local charity's take care of it,,,,now lets pretend that all of you here are donating 10% to charity,,lol,,,,lets all look at welfare as a charity and the money is collected by the FEDS and doled out how they see fit,,,,,,well I don't know about the rest of you but that means at least for me if you look at welfare as a charity my tax bill was only about 8%,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so in the end I gave my 10% to charity and paid damned little in taxes

there is no reason to make donations anywhere else,,,,,that is one way to look at it without getting ulcers
 
GG,
So let me see if I get this right. You say gov't is corrupt, that people are greedy/corrupt, but YOU would run this right if you were in charge?
Oh, isn't that what every dictator in history has said?

grayghost668 said:
my money no one deserves it but me
Click to expand...
And BTW, you quote us completely wrong. You start right, it is my money, no arguing over that. And true, nobody 'deserves it' but the one who earned it (me).

What you are completely missing is that I'm (and many others) are willing to give to programs/people that I agree with. Nope, I'm not going to give to abortion clinics. My money, my choice where it goes. That is the problem with your idea that just give it in taxes. The other problem is that 50%+ of the money in 'taxes' does not go to those who need it, but feed the giant ugly gov't overhead.

Also, your tax number is way off, even for the most poor. Last time I added up all my various taxes, it was closer to 50%. Yes, I pay a higher federal income tax than you. But add SS, sales tax, state tax, property tax, my business taxes, etc: it all adds up to a whole lot more. And yet I still give 10% beyond that to various charities.
 
TF ,,,you do like to twist words ,,,,,signs of a weak man


I don't want to run it,in fact everyone can do what they feel like as long as it doesn't spill over on my property ,,

I bought this place because it is isolated,,I prefer it that way,,a good neighbor is one who waves as they drive by

,,,as for taxes,,,I don't think it is possible to add up everything we pay in taxes ,there is a tax on just about everything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top