I'd laugh, but I can't.

Not for us. We know the difference.
If the country continues to go down the lib path I feel sorry for you-all. As for me, I'll probably be going somewhere over the rainbow, or I'll be part of the class that needs to be taken care of, whether I want it or not.

Indeed, I am worried the circus will cover up reality...

A well written exposition. If I can add a comment: It's a contradiction in terms to claim there are those who support the welfare state. Those who receive the benefits cannot support it in a financial sense. Those who work to benefit those recipients cannot support it in a moral sense (how can these who believe in work condone the receipt of benefits for not working?). That leaves those who support it from a moral perspective and who pay the benefits. But the last is impossible because the concept is included in charity. Thus, who is left to support the welfare state? Only those who claim that the moral outweighs the financial? Yes and no, because these are two groups: those who claim it is another's moral obligation to provide for others and those who claim it is immoral to provide financial support to those who have not earned it. The latter: it is clear these would not support the welfare state. The former: it is clear duplicitousness, which is the hallmark of the statists. The crime is perpetrated when those who claim moral support outweighs and/or directs the financial then use confiscated financial assets to provide a "moral service". What "moral service"? The socialists, the communists, the statists believe financial assets should be abolished. What value is financial support to those who believe in its abolition? Would a 1920's abolitionist attempt to show drinking is wrong and that others should not drink by giving each stolen bottle to alcoholics? The carcass on which these political elements feed is the lie of altruism (achieved through coercion).

You may be right and it is too late. We'll know for sure by November '16.

Not stupid, just honest. Keep in mind all the various entitlements they had to apply for and keep current in order to get the checks. Let me tell you a true story. When I was newly married I worked at a retail store in an area frequented by "shady" types. One such was a fellow known as "Chinky." He wasn't Chinese but his eyes were slightly almond shaped. (This was way before PC). This was Detroit. He made a living by going to Canada and buying many rolls of quarters. At that time Canadian money was around 70% of American money. He would then buy many rolls of American quarters. He would then re-roll a dollar or two worth of Canadian quarters into the American rolls thus making the difference. I asked him once, "Chinky, that's a lot of work. I'll bet if you worked that hard at a legit job, you'd make even more." You know what his answer was? It was, "What? And go straight?"

That would not work. Poor people in America are poor because of their lack of a desire to be rich, not because of a lack of resources. Exactly what you are suggesting has been tried in the Soviet Union after the revolution in the 1918-20's. The ones that didn't want to work drank away their farms and joined the Communist Party to take away the farms of those that worked. Any reason for Amerika to be different?

Excellent point and it directly points to the whole producer/looter problem. politicians produce nothing that cannot go down a toilet, so they MUST use someone elses, I think this is what the vast unwashed masses have failed to grasp. They get all caught up in "he's religious" or "he's for abortion" or "he's for guns" or "he's (your special interest goes here)". They do not realize ALL of them peddle the same drug: our money. I am for a limit of 8 years Federal service, with no retirement, and pay of minimum wage. Provide an apartment building for them to live in when in office, and transportation (maybe a senate/house bus). Then we will see who wants to make America great, and who is after power and money.

Great find! Its on my FB page now.Spread the word to the unwashed masses.

Herb, I have been quietly going insane watching the idiots in oregon re-elect corrupt crinminals because they are Dumbocraps, and feed the PerPig system and welfare. Between the 2, there is almost no chance any other political philosophy will ever get a chance to correct the mess they have made. I believe the same is true in some other states as well. The ability of free money (well, free except to those who it is taken from) to buy loyalty, is one of the great "unmentionable" secrets all the politicians hold. That is why Carson and Trump are so important, the mold has to be broken before it becomes impossible, and I am not sure that time has not gone by already.

Because I am in construction and do a lot of traveling I have the opportunity to speak to many transients and the homeless. They often surprise me with the answers they provide regarding their status. Most suffer from some type of mental illness, some are alcoholics. Many have made poor choices over time that make it difficult to impossible to obtain employment or keep a job. I've asked them why they aren't on welfare. Oddly many look at it as charity and they won't take it, the most surprising answer I received was...I don't want the government in my business. Once you sign up for welfare your life isn't your own and I don't like people telling me what to do. Now when a transient hits me up for a couple bucks, I give if I have it. At least they are honest in the request and it's my choice to hand over some coin.

O.A., we are proving the principle that, in a "democracy,"
when the people can vote themselves a free ride, they will. -- j
.

Gosh, was I stupid and taught second graders for far less than 42K for years. I graded papers, worked in my classroom, and did lesson plans on the weekends.

$42K and change last I heard.
Which is why they would be fools to officially take low paying jobs. An ambitious mooch can take a part-time job and earn an additional $20K "under the counter" as it were and have plenty of time to enjoy his long -- very long weekends fishing or golf or you-name-it.

Thanks for the quote, OA. I think that I'll make it my email signature. Maybe it will make some of my Liberal acquaintances upset. Notice that I said acquaintances and not friends. I don't have Liberal friends. If I can make one Liberal unhappy every day, I have not lived in vain.

A way to permanently eliminate welfare is a Homestead Act 2.0, where each family on welfare gets a house and 40 acres to grow food on and make a living. Once they're established, the welfare ends forever. The government owns lots of land all over the country, so there's no need to buy the land and let it lie fallow.

If $40k per year is the extent of your ambition, why all the complaints about the 1%?!? These losers aren't even on the same page as the 1%, yet they demand the same level of respect. What a laugh.

We all have a choice. We can accept the devil's offer, and take the welfare, or we can eschew that offer, work hard, look "stupid," persevere, and eventually come to that place where we can live a life free of any impediment. It's the classic case of choosing "security" or freedom. No matter who offers you the devil's deal, it's your choice as to whether or not you accept it.

The worst program, in my opinion, is AFDC (aka TANF), which subsidizes those on welfare to have babies out of wedlock, and even rewards teenagers who get pregnant with the chance to move out of their parents' home when they're 16.

The kids thus produced have no role models and no real hope of a future, other than existing on welfare their whole lives like Mommy. (Or crime.) And they are 30% of all births in the US.

And this is where Obama got most of his voters. It's got to stop before we're overrun, if we aren't already!

A related article I wrote a couple years ago - http://4thestatemedia.com/?p=226

OA,
My business is also Berry Compliant. I am the only sleeping bag maker left in the country so i receive most all of the SFG orders through GSA contractors that rep me. So we are kindred spirits.
As for the moochers, when we are gone they will not have anyone left to take from, but the masses may very well take them down.
wiggy

Unfortunately I live I " DEMOCHUSETTS " # 3. The land of Warren. UGH!!!

Hello Suzanne43,
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Respectfully,
O.A.

I think that I read or heard someplace that a welfare family of four, if they take advantage of the numerous handouts our government has to offer, can take in more than $40,000 a year. No wonder these moochers are comfortable.

Indeed, strugatsky,
It does start at the top, doesn't it? One leads by example...
Respectfully,
O.A.