Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of the vast majority of our tax dollars going to social programs which are largely corrupt and unhelpful, why don't we try something that works?
I suggest building large welfare communes in key cities and making them self sufficient. Basically, people would be housed in economy apartments and assigned jobs. Those able work tend farms, maintain the property, make repairs, watch the children, care for the elderly, prepare the food, etc. They could also have schools in which people could be taught trades or other skills.
Now I know they have tried building housing projects in the past but they didn't address the issue of idol hands and minds and they were not adequately monitored. I would have cameras in every hallway and around the complex to deter crime as well as drug testing. And if people screw up, they get kicked out or other disciplinary action such as job demotion.
As incentives, people would qualify for better jobs or bigger apartments etc. They could even have a community cable TV package and use premium channels as incentive.
This would provide for people's needs and it would teach them about the importance of hard work and getting along with others. Ultimately, people would learn the skills they need to function in society and leave the commune or they could even graduate to supervisory positions such as security staff.
What is wrong with this plan?
It's been done, already.
Before national socialism (1935), it was called pauperization.
And paupers were sent to the "Poor house" or "Work House" or "Industrial School".
EXCEPTED FROM PROTECTION
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, PAUPERS, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
In support of that fact, is found in the definition of "status crimes" which
directly connect to the pre-constitutional exclusion.
"Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights
" State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and
liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)
Translation: compelled labor and restricted liberty is constitutional - when
dealing with paupers and vagabonds.
"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)
Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?
Compelled labor and restricted liberty are constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.
LOSING YOUR CHILDREN
" ... where a minor child is abandoned by the parent, to be supported by the town, such parent shall be deemed a pauper, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as a pauper, [this statute] is not in conflict with those provisions of the constitution of the United States or of the state of Connecticut which guaranty security to the person."
McCarthy v. Hinman, 35 Conn. 538 (Conn. 1869)
Translation: parent who surrenders a child to the state becomes a pauper. And parent (as well as child) becomes subject to the (Collective) State.
Did you "voluntarily" enroll your children into national socialism? At birth?
Now you know why you can't spank your children. They're no longer yours.
"STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is vagrancy. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect."
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1410
" VAGRANT - At common law, wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted on charity and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a public charge through his own laziness."
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p. 1549
"PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense."
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p. 1128
In case you were not informed, voluntary enrollment and participation in national socialism (social security) reduces one to the status of pauper.
Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.
One pauper's oath used when establishing indigent status under United States Federal law is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."
----------------------------------------
Now why would EVERYBODY who signed up with FICA / Socialist InSecurity suddenly not need to make a Pauper's Oath to be eligible for ENTITLEMENTS (relief)?
Guess what?
Every enumerated American is a "Status Criminal"!
As a "human resource" pledged as collateral on the public debt, and having no real money to alienate title, no one owns anything anymore without government's permission.
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America...
Jet, I see what you posted but I'm not sure of your point.
I did notice those statutes included the word "committed" which is a form of captivity. I would give people the option of a warm, dry place to live along with food and clothing and other basic needs in exchange for a days work. It wouldn't be anything like an old school poor house. It would be a farming community.
Instead of the vast majority of our tax dollars going to social programs which are largely corrupt and unhelpful, why don't we try something that works?
I suggest building large welfare communes in key cities and making them self sufficient. Basically, people would be housed in economy apartments and assigned jobs. Those able work tend farms, maintain the property, make repairs, watch the children, care for the elderly, prepare the food, etc. They could also have schools in which people could be taught trades or other skills.
Now I know they have tried building housing projects in the past but they didn't address the issue of idol hands and minds and they were not adequately monitored. I would have cameras in every hallway and around the complex to deter crime as well as drug testing. And if people screw up, they get kicked out or other disciplinary action such as job demotion.
As incentives, people would qualify for better jobs or bigger apartments etc. They could even have a community cable TV package and use premium channels as incentive.
This would provide for people's needs and it would teach them about the importance of hard work and getting along with others. Ultimately, people would learn the skills they need to function in society and leave the commune or they could even graduate to supervisory positions such as security staff.
What is wrong with this plan?
Yes those 2.7 trilion in highly regressive tax cuts really got national debt to explode.
Instead of the vast majority of our tax dollars going to social programs which are largely corrupt and unhelpful, why don't we try something that works?
I suggest building large welfare communes in key cities and making them self sufficient. Basically, people would be housed in economy apartments and assigned jobs. Those able work tend farms, maintain the property, make repairs, watch the children, care for the elderly, prepare the food, etc. They could also have schools in which people could be taught trades or other skills.
Now I know they have tried building housing projects in the past but they didn't address the issue of idol hands and minds and they were not adequately monitored. I would have cameras in every hallway and around the complex to deter crime as well as drug testing. And if people screw up, they get kicked out or other disciplinary action such as job demotion.
As incentives, people would qualify for better jobs or bigger apartments etc. They could even have a community cable TV package and use premium channels as incentive.
This would provide for people's needs and it would teach them about the importance of hard work and getting along with others. Ultimately, people would learn the skills they need to function in society and leave the commune or they could even graduate to supervisory positions such as security staff.
What is wrong with this plan?
I don't see anything wrong with this plan. I would also add in requiring welfare recipients to obtain a GED. You can't get any kind of job without one, except for maybe migrant farm labor.
People need to be able to support themselves to get out of poverty. I see nothing wrong with teaching them job skills. Jobs get people of poverty and not welfare. A free welfare check with no work search requirements or job skill requirements will keep the person in poverty.
Interesting you should mention this because I saw a story on the 700 Club about a couple months ago about a church that was buying old hospitals and turning them into apartments for the poor. The people that became residents of these apartments were required to be employed or looking for work. After several months, many of the people in this program were self-sufficient and even saved for their own apartment.
I don't see anything wrong with this plan. I would also add in requiring welfare recipients to obtain a GED. You can't get any kind of job without one, except for maybe migrant farm labor.
People need to be able to support themselves to get out of poverty.
With so many considering unemployment extensions a form of "welfare" as well as the more traditional forms, where do you suggest they get these jobs from?
I like the idea of working communes. Yes, it might take these folks out of the tax-paying system, but will they ever be integrated into that system anyway? Anyone ambitious enough to rise above the level of existence in the communes would surely find a way to join mainstream society.
We also need to keep reforming the current system. I'm not sure if they already do it, but if not, they should make parents on welfare responsible for making sure their kids go to school, behave and study, and graduate. If a parent fails to ensure that their child or children perform well enough to graduate with a C average or better, and also stays out of trouble, they should have any child support payments revoked for any under-performing child. It might seem cruel but I'll bet it would do wonders at improving our schools in general by reducing classroom disruptions etc. Reducing their free government hand-outs will be a powerful motivator.
Philadelphia has instituted similar strict requirements for recipients of government subsidized housing. Families must remain crime-free and be responsible owners to keep their properties. Years ago govt housing meant hell-holes of crime and danger. Now they're quite livable, almost upscale compared to what many non-recipients call home. The city even provides free landscaping.
Jet, I see what you posted but I'm not sure of your point.
I did notice those statutes included the word "committed" which is a form of captivity. I would give people the option of a warm, dry place to live along with food and clothing and other basic needs in exchange for a days work. It wouldn't be anything like an old school poor house. It would be a farming community.
This is the most terrible idea that I have ever read. Unemployment is high and the only alternative you want to give is something that seriously sounds like a jail. I also think you need a serious reality check with the amount that is given in welfare. Hardly anyone has money to buy food on welfare let alone drugs.
Instead of the vast majority of our tax dollars going to social programs which are largely corrupt and unhelpful, why don't we try something that works?
I suggest building large welfare communes in key cities and making them self sufficient. Basically, people would be housed in economy apartments and assigned jobs. Those able work tend farms, maintain the property, make repairs, watch the children, care for the elderly, prepare the food, etc. They could also have schools in which people could be taught trades or other skills.
Now I know they have tried building housing projects in the past but they didn't address the issue of idol hands and minds and they were not adequately monitored. I would have cameras in every hallway and around the complex to deter crime as well as drug testing. And if people screw up, they get kicked out or other disciplinary action such as job demotion.
As incentives, people would qualify for better jobs or bigger apartments etc. They could even have a community cable TV package and use premium channels as incentive.
This would provide for people's needs and it would teach them about the importance of hard work and getting along with others. Ultimately, people would learn the skills they need to function in society and leave the commune or they could even graduate to supervisory positions such as security staff.
What is wrong with this plan?
Too much. All we need is guaranteed jobs, but integrated into society. Create a 'business' that is self-sufficient or even profitable, but can be supported by tax dollars intermittently if necessary. It would have to be carefully planned to not disrupt the market too much. Then create a job-seeking service to help people find jobs in the private sector (these exist already) but if work isn't available, there is still a guaranteed job.
We don't need to surveil their house or test their bodily fluids. They work for their money like everyone else, and that's all they need to do. We just need to find a way to guarantee jobs so people can get the work they are looking for.
Last edited by LogicIsYourFriend; 10-29-2010 at 11:55 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
