Government dependence: What should our goal be?

[kres24GT]

Should our goal be to have less people dependent on government or more? Should our goal be to increase government dependence or decrease it?

[exarmyranger]

Should our goal be to have less people dependent on government or more? Should our goal be to increase government dependence or decrease it?less,more:ugho:increase,decrease...wait a sec.,umm...is'nt that the same question,asked two different ways?:saywhat: ex.

[Caskey_91]

I think as of now with the way our country is that we need more governmental support.

[kres24GT]

I think as of now with the way our country is that we need more governmental support.

Very very scary

[kres24GT]

less,more:ugho:increase,decrease...wait a sec.,umm...is'nt that the same question,asked two different ways?:saywhat: ex.

Should our goal be to have less people dependent on government or more? For those already on it, or soon to be, should our goal be to increase their government dependence or decrease it?





Better???

[Bill]

The old libertarian question.

The problem with classic libertarian privatization is that libertarians have never figured out how to transform government from it's roots as a tool of enslavement into the libertarian ideal of a tool of justice.

And I say that as a lifelong libertarian, registered and contributing.

See, government as we know it evolved from conquest and slavery, and before that from religious tyranny.

If you could transform government into a libertarian ideal, a servant of the people whose primary task was being the arbiter of an absolutely even handed justice and whose secondary duty was defense of the country, then the weak would no longer need governmental assistance and protection.

But the rich and powerful would kill us all before they would allow this to happen.

So what the fuck, right - just kill all government aid to the weak, give all the taxes directly to the rich and powerful, and let the weak die the death they deserve.

[kres24GT]

The old libertarian question.

The problem with classic libertarian privatization is that libertarians have never figured out how to transform government from it's roots as a tool of enslavement into the libertarian ideal of a tool of justice.

And I say that as a lifelong libertarian, registered and contributing.

See, government as we know it evolved from conquest and slavery, and before that from religious tyranny.

If you could transform government into a libertarian ideal, a servant of the people whose primary task was being the arbiter of an absolutely even handed justice and whose secondary duty was defense of the country, then the weak would no longer need governmental assistance and protection.

But the rich and powerful would kill us all before they would allow this to happen.

So what the fuck, right - just kill all government aid to the weak, give all the taxes directly to the rich and powerful, and let the weak die the death they deserve.


I think a good start would be to re-institute the long forgotten Reserve Powers Clause a.k.a. 10th amendment. Take away all the unconstitutional powers the federal government has assumed and give them to the states. This creates a free market of states competing for jobs and tax dollars. It rids us of the monopoly that is federal government control of our lives.

However, I wasn't talking about implementing my views just yet, I was merely asking a question of what our goal should be when it comes to government dependence. It seems our goal is to increase it, when the obvious answer is decrease it. The only ones who benefit from increased government dependence are the politicians. Why do we want to give them more power over us?

[Bill]

So, let's look at your use of the keyword "dependence".

Who's "dependent"? List the classes of dependent persons.

I think trying to do something massive and constitutional is likely doomed to immediate failure.

I would have started with a call for stricter oversight of expenditures and waste.

Then I would have said the first people to cull from the government handouts should be the rich, especially those fictional persons, the corporations.

[kres24GT]

So, let's look at your use of the keyword "dependence".

Who's "dependent"? List the classes of dependent persons.

I think trying to do something massive and constitutional is likely doomed to immediate failure.

I would have started with a call for stricter oversight of expenditures and waste.

Then I would have said the first people to cull from the government handouts should be the rich, especially those fictional persons, the corporations.


More oversight means more red tape, more corruptness, and overall more money and waste.

It's a general question Bill, should our goal be to be less or more dependent on government in our daily lives? You are reading too much into it.

[Bill]

General question, you say? Rhetorical and whatnot.

What's the point in asking a general question?

I think you are dissembling now - that it wasn't a general question, but a specific complaint and a call for action consistent with your previously stated aims.

If you are going to harangue the dependent classes for their dependence, follow thru.

---

I'm reminded of the republicans, who were all "states rights" and "limits on federal power" and "shrink the budget" when they were weak, then when they were in power presided gleefully over the most extreme expansion of federal powers and spending, and the most drastic attacks on states rights, in american history.

---

I agree that more oversight would be abused, but it might actually cut out some waste as well, and bring spending more into the public eye.

I think the GAO does some good stuff, it's just a very weak bureau.

[kres24GT]

If you want more specific arguments we can do those in other threads, as said before, this is merely a general question. Overall, as a country what should our aim be?

[playboydojo]

The question is slightly leading. First off, it isn't outright dependence, but part of a larger system of inter-dependence. The government is dependent on people and corporations are dependent on government guidance,restriction, subsidy. The entire economy is dependent on somebody to pick your oranges, serve your meals, and put together your car. The service sector is huge and so is agriculture. That IS our economy now.

This giant pool of unskilled labor can't just be left to low wages though--the economy is dependent on somebody being able to afford to spend, otherwise you have another crisis of overproduction on your hands--besides rampant speculation, another leading cause of the various recessions and depressions was the increasing inability of larger and larger amounts of the population to afford basic necessities. This is also the leading cause of this era's IMF riots the world over. For the economy to work, disparity MUST be kept in check to at least a most basic degree. If a minimum wage isn't going to be a LIVING wage (about $11-15 in the US, depending on where you are) then there must be a public spending subsidy like welfare. There will have to be a national health care system or the system will simply come undone.

The question is if this is dependence? Either we alter the economic system, or we allow government to balance the scales.

[Caskey_91]

Very very scary

Scary. Your the one that has said we should be stripped of all of our freedoms. In government support I mean that we just need them to supervise things like buisness and such a bit more closely, that's it.

[Bill]

The government dependencies that piss me off are stuff like subsidies, dirt cheap leases to exploit public resources, and the recent famous cases of the administration giving 70 to a hundred billions a year in contracts, legislated to be given to small businesses, to comapnies like boeing.

Farm subsidies, for instance, for growing tobacco, corn, and so forth. And I say that as a farm boy whose father used to take government money NOT to grow certain crops.

And government contracts for access to oil or harvesting timber given to politically connected companies at a thousandth of their real value.

Giving money to old people I don't mind so much - it would depress me to see them living in cardboard boxes behind the walmarts.

Giving money to poor people - well, thats a tough issue. On the one side if we don't give them money, they'll just steal it, then we have to pay 3 to 10 times as much to keep them in prisons.

On the other side, there will soon be so many poor people that it will be hard to support them all.

[Caskey_91]

Giving money to old people I don't mind so much - it would depress me to see them living in cardboard boxes behind the walmarts.

Giving money to poor people - well, thats a tough issue. On the one side if we don't give them money, they'll just steal it, then we have to pay 3 to 10 times as much to keep them in prisons.

On the other side, there will soon be so many poor people that it will be hard to support them all.

- I agree with the elderly money put it will get to the point where it will just cost too much to support that, the same with poor people. That's the reason why Social Security won't be around much longer.

But with the poor I say give them a type of saftey net to catch them with when they first become poor. But by a certain time pull it away, especially if they are not doing anything to improve their situation. It gets to a point where thay just decided to be lazy because the governemnt keeps handing them money so they become complacent.

[stefan segal]

Caskey...if you added all your assets, and subtracted all your loans and credit tomorrow...how would you stand? In the red? or in the black?

Now if black, take away 150% of your mortagage out, a twenty day no work flue, and a stolen car...now what are you...in still in the black...or are you one of of those lazy, complacent, welfare paracites, soon to be homeless and industriously sucking on the government teat?

The only excuse I can fabricate for you is that you are a young chump raised in a nest of repugs.

Stefan

[exarmyranger]

Caskey...if you added all your assets, and subtracted all your loans and credit tomorrow...how would you stand? In the red? or in the black?

Now if black, take away 150% of your mortagage out, a twenty day no work flue, and a stolen car...now what are you...in still in the black...or are you one of of those lazy, complacent, welfare paracites, soon to be homeless and industriously sucking on the government teat?

The only excuse I can fabricate for you is that you are a young chump raised in a nest of repugs.

StefanYo Stefan,I checked out Caskey's profile (just for the hell of it)Age 16,smart kid,reguardless what point of veiw.IMO...t/c ex

[kres24GT]

You people have completely warped my question. Let me explain it this way.

Government is a corrupt inefficient entity that is a necessary evil. Government rarely runs anything well. And why would they? Most of what they provide is essentially a monopoly or a practically free service (at least free to those who receive these services).

Welfare: Failure
Social Security: Will be bankrupt soon
Medicare and Medicaid: Same as Social Security
Public Education: A joke

These are just a handful of the programs government has totally fucked up. Let's say these were private sector services, would you do business with any company who provided these services in this manor? Of course not.

Saying we should be more dependent on this corrupt inefficient cluster fuck that is our huge federal government is a completely flawed belief.

Now i know many of you will blame all of these problems on the other party. That simple partisan nonsense. Both parties have had their shots at fixing how poorly our government runs its programs and have done nothing, also anyone who thinks their is a major difference between the two parties is just trying to tick themselves.

[playboydojo]

~snip~


Warped your question? I find that in open discussions, you'll learn more about what people think by seeing how they interpret/answer, rather than try to box them into a specific iteration of a very narrow understanding of the issue--this is a forum, not a poll.

And again, the popular assumption that "[g]overnment rarely runs anything well," depends on how you look at it. For example, I would first ask: "who does government ultimately serve?" And my answer to that would be "the people who get them elected and fund their campaigns and the intellectual/professional class that government bodies are actually made up of and run by. Also the huge military/industrial complex which has become a permanent fixture of US government culture".

So the government is doing a very good job of serving People Who Matter and demonizing People Who Don't. The idea that the government is run by incompetence is a very convenient myth, but a myth all the same. The system is doing exactly what it was meant to do since Madison, Hamilton and co: protect the minority of the opulent against the great beast.

The only worthwhile question that comes from this is: "How can we make the majority the People Who Matter" and the answer would probably include stripping the decision-making powers of the Washington elite and actually instituting some sort of democratic process.

[kres24GT]

Warped your question? I find that in open discussions, you'll learn more about what people think by seeing how they interpret/answer, rather than try to box them into a specific iteration of a very narrow understanding of the issue--this is a forum, not a poll.

And again, the popular assumption that "[g]overnment rarely runs anything well," depends on how you look at it. For example, I would first ask: "who does government ultimately serve?" And my answer to that would be "the people who get them elected and fund their campaigns and the intellectual/professional class that government bodies are actually made up of and run by. Also the huge military/industrial complex which has become a permanent fixture of US government culture".

So the government is doing a very good job of serving People Who Matter and demonizing People Who Don't. The idea that the government is run by incompetence is a very convenient myth, but a myth all the same. The system is doing exactly what it was meant to do since Madison, Hamilton and co: protect the minority of the opulent against the great beast.

The only worthwhile question that comes from this is: "How can we make the majority the People Who Matter" and the answer would probably include stripping the decision-making powers of the Washington elite and actually instituting some sort of democratic process.



The government is not run by incompetence, the people who run the government (the politicians) are very smart, they play the people for fools everyday. Government however is corrupt and inefficient. This really isn't debatable. Katrina is a perfect example of both.

[stefan segal]

I agree with Dojo's basic take on the situation:

"The question is if this is dependence? Either we alter the economic system, or we allow government to balance the scales."

================================================== =====

I have a problem with the top-down method of government planning and execuition.

I think gov. should arrange the platform and set the agenda...after that, I believe only those who enter theprogram should make decisions in a town meeting sort of forum.
I believe in this fashion, programs can avoid the unintended negetive effects becomming institutionalized, and remain dynamic so no internal power groups can take over.

This arrangement must be oversighted by periodic reports and sitting in as an observer and advisor capacity.

I think most of the welfare services (with the exception of handing out money and other commodities) can be more effectually run and erganomically grow with the changing needs and demands for effeciency.

I don't believe this arrangement to be a wacko-liberal-commie-pinko- idiot's rendering of the perfect society...I think it is responsive to the needs of those involved, and producing of effeciency and economy.

Stefan

[kres24GT]

All of the big government programs will be bankrupt eventually. Social Security is almost there. Medicare and Medicaid will be there soon. Welfare, same thing.

If you want to keep depending on government, be my guest, it will be the end of this country as we know it though. The more people who become dependent on them, the fewer that are supporting them. By that very fact right there we should strive for less government dependence.

Politicians are not going to reform these programs. Why? Because of political reasons. If one party tries to reform a program, the other party will attack them and say they are ending that service.

Only a no partisan effort would ever fix these problems. And that will never happen.

So yes, government is corrupt, inefficient, and run by people, while not incompetent are going to most certainly put their own power above the welfare of the citizens.

[stefan segal]

Kres...I suggested management by those who are involved with these different programs.

As far as the money to provide these programs, if we collect taxes on those who presently don't pay their share, collect lease points on oil and mineral production as the law presently prescribes, if we discontinue subsidizing big oil, big agriculture, big businesses, kill the next person who ascribes to the next war, stop the war we're presently involved in, redirect our military forces to protect against incursions into US and US heald territories...and stop our forces habit of protecting big business interests, dissolve homeland security back to its parts, protect US workers and small businesses from ganster businesses like walmart and its clones, renegotiate trade agreements so american workers have a level playing field, re-institute tariffs, disallow the selling off or out-sourcing of stratigic infrastructure and industries...then, we will have a plentitude of funds for all to share the wealth.

Stefan

[kres24GT]

Kres...I suggested management by those who are involved with these different programs.

As far as the money to provide these programs, if we collect taxes on those who presently don't pay their share, collect lease points on oil and mineral production as the law presently prescribes, if we discontinue subsidizing big oil, big agriculture, big businesses, kill the next person who ascribes to the next war, stop the war we're presently involved in, redirect our military forces to protect against incursions into US and US heald territories...and stop our forces habit of protecting big business interests, dissolve homeland security back to its parts, protect US workers and small businesses from ganster businesses like walmart and its clones, renegotiate trade agreements so american workers have a level playing field, re-institute tariffs, disallow the selling off or out-sourcing of stratigic infrastructure and industries...then, we will have a plentitude of funds for all to share the wealth.

Stefan

1. Raising taxes doesn't always increase tax revenues, many times it decreases them.

2. You will never see the protection of big business with the Dems and Reps in power, in fact big business will be soon all that is left.

3. You aren't going to see the end of the global economy through higher tariffs and such. This wouldn't help much anyway, especially with out open border policy.

4. You can do all that and it won't matter. Still eventually there won't be enough people to fund these programs, or you will be force to tax them so high that they are better off being on the programs than paying into them.



I will avoid getting your anti-freedom points you made like stopping people from shopping at Wal-mart. If you want to do another thread on that go ahead, I'll join in.

[playboydojo]

I have a problem with the top-down method of government planning and execuition.


Yes. That's what I'm getting at. It's a top-down institution, so of course we won't benifit. A democratic bottom-up program would be necessary to control it's power. American Government--Soviet Government, neither were democratic, the only difference was the economy. Government has proven it can effectively serve the needs of the people it answers to, but the matter is keeping it powerless to act without consent of the majority. Right now, they neither need, nor want it.

All of the big government programs will be bankrupt eventually. Social Security is almost there. Medicare and Medicaid will be there soon. Welfare, same thing.

The military is the biggest government program in the world. Our military budget is closing in on $400B which is about half of the world's military spending. As a program, it's so large it's having trouble finding credible threats. As of 2002, it was 2-and-a-half times larger than our nine most potential enemies(Cuba, Iran, Iraq(whoops!), Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, China, Russia). Minus China and Russia and it's 19 times larger than "rogue states."

That is very big government. It's also doing fine--beat Iraq's army in 2 weeks (if that?)

The government can do big government, the problem is, like I said, what the government is beholden to do. Social Security and Medicare/aid funds were plundered to balance budgets when taxes were cut in the 80s--the programs didn't just fail. Welfare-to-work is a subsidy to companies that enlist in the program, as are enterprise zones. Welfare has been demonized by everyone after Nixon--including Clinton--and that's the first indication that politicians aren't aiming to let it work. Corporations are on welfare, though, and they're doing fine.

If you want to keep depending on government, be my guest, it will be the end of this country as we know it though. The more people who become dependent on them, the fewer that are supporting them. By that very fact right there we should strive for less government dependence.

Coming out of the Depression. Supporting IBM for fifty years until they could develop a marketable personal computer. Land givaways without which railroads wouldn't have crossed this country and wouldn't even cross counties. The support of automobile, aeronautical, and technology industries. Subsidizing Big PhARMA research and development through the university system. All these would have failed or simply wouldn't have existed without government intervention. The economy depends on the government doing something. Period.

Politicians are not going to reform these programs. Why? Because of political reasons. If one party tries to reform a program, the other party will attack them and say they are ending that service.

Orwell can explain this better than I can, but I'll try. The parties bicker so viciously over the most insignificant things because on subjects that matter there is no difference between the two. Just before the 2004 election, issue awareness polls concluded that about 10% of voters based their decision on "agendas/ideas/platforms/goals," 6% for Bush; 13% for Kerry. There was very little difference between the two, and that's about things where you could tell they actually had an explicit opinion. The much bally-hooed "moral values" voters that supposedly decided the race “when the voters were asked to choose the most urgent moral crisis facing the country, 33 percent cited `greed and materialism,’ 31 percent selected `poverty and economic justice,’ 16 percent named abortion, and 12 percent selected gay marriage” in one poll, “when surveyed voters were asked to list the moral issue that most affected their vote, the Iraq war placed first at 42 percent, while 13 percent named abortion and 9 percent named gay marriage” in another. Both parties might as well be a single Communist Party, because neither are interested in serving the majority--but that's because the parties control the process and the politicians make the decision. If we had a democracy, it'd be different.

[playboydojo]

1. Raising taxes doesn't always increase tax revenues, many times it decreases them.

2. You will never see the protection of big business with the Dems and Reps in power, in fact big business will be soon all that is left.

3. You aren't going to see the end of the global economy through higher tariffs and such. This wouldn't help much anyway, especially with out open border policy.

4. You can do all that and it won't matter. Still eventually there won't be enough people to fund these programs, or you will be force to tax them so high that they are better off being on the programs than paying into them.



I will avoid getting your anti-freedom points you made like stopping people from shopping at Wal-mart. If you want to do another thread on that go ahead, I'll join in.


Again, you're talking about a systemic problem with the American system of government, not a problem with government in and of itself. It is simply (and I use the word very, very loosely) a matter of changing the system. Government is capable. The current system wasn't meant to benefit you and that's the problem--not government in general.

[exarmyranger]

"Some people see a glass as half empty;Some see it as half full"...YEAH...IT's a Hard Rainnnnnn.Gonna Fall.Robert Zimmermen.

[stefan segal]

Dojo...most of these problems could be solved by the States taking back control of the agencies and laws affecting the populationa an their territory.

Federal law should be limited are per design, to the big things. Decentralized power is the answer...of which the decentralixzation would be reflected by the portion of State taxes were alloted to DC. In this fashion, we could strip the administration and the houses of congress from their ganster ways.

Repersentatives would represent...or hit the road.

I would like to see the same thing with the armed forces as with the taxes...the military would go back to thier State and await an ligitimate call...then the States would decide if, or how many troops to muster under federal banners.

I would also encourage State to State side deals of cooperative ventures...turning to the fed as a last resort.

I'm watching the house speak of finance and budget...I am so angry...this time at the dems for not permitting open debate, I could grab up my dented repug bat and rush the floor...inculcating sense and decency with every swing.

I would like to see a pandemic of decentralization into componet elements.

Stefan

[kres24GT]

Again, you're talking about a systemic problem with the American system of government, not a problem with government in and of itself. It is simply (and I use the word very, very loosely) a matter of changing the system. Government is capable. The current system wasn't meant to benefit you and that's the problem--not government in general.



We aren't willing to change the system. You yourself are not willing to do it as we have discussed before.

And regardless of the system, the larger anything gets, government included, it becomes more corrupt, more inefficient, and harder to manage. Changing the system will have minimal effects on inefficiencies.

[Bill]

So whattya wanna do about it?

The republicans have a plan - bankrupt the federal government and teh country, and live in walled enclaves with private armies to protect them.

You figure to sell your services to them?

Whttya got that they want?

Or what?

[kres24GT]

So whattya wanna do about it?

The republicans have a plan - bankrupt the federal government and teh country, and live in walled enclaves with private armies to protect them.

You figure to sell your services to them?

Whttya got that they want?

Or what?



Reps/Dems, no difference. It's either look elsewhere (not going to happen) or the country goes to shit sometime soon. My money is on going to shit.

[Bill]

I suppose I should have said the rich - altho it's the republicans who have explicitly stated that intention.

I always regarded Clinton as a republican, as far as I'm concerned it's been republican rule since Reagan.

My money is on collapse too.

It's just that I'm way more pissed at corporate welfare than poor welfare.

If you wanna put a bounty on the scalps of the old and the poor and the sick, go for it.

Bottom line for me, is that picking the poor, the old, the brown, and the sick to kick in the face first, looks exactly like buying the Limbaugh hate screed hook line and sinker.

[Caskey_91]

Caskey...if you added all your assets, and subtracted all your loans and credit tomorrow...how would you stand? In the red? or in the black?

Now if black, take away 150% of your mortagage out, a twenty day no work flue, and a stolen car...now what are you...in still in the black...or are you one of of those lazy, complacent, welfare paracites, soon to be homeless and industriously sucking on the government teat?

The only excuse I can fabricate for you is that you are a young chump raised in a nest of repugs.

Stefan

Okay firstly i'm only a 16 Sophomore in high school.

Secondly what are you trying to get at?

[Caskey_91]

Yo Stefan,I checked out Caskey's profile (just for the hell of it)Age 16,smart kid,reguardless what point of veiw.IMO...t/c ex

Thank you ex.

I still don't know what the hell he's trying to get at.

[kres24GT]

I suppose I should have said the rich - altho it's the republicans who have explicitly stated that intention.

I always regarded Clinton as a republican, as far as I'm concerned it's been republican rule since Reagan.

My money is on collapse too.

It's just that I'm way more pissed at corporate welfare than poor welfare.

If you wanna put a bounty on the scalps of the old and the poor and the sick, go for it.

Bottom line for me, is that picking the poor, the old, the brown, and the sick to kick in the face first, looks exactly like buying the Limbaugh hate screed hook line and sinker.


I hate corporate welfare the same as social welfare, its all bad.

Welfare and programs like it our a complete failures, it isn't picking on the poor and brown to say so.

Let people chose to help people or not to. It's not government's job to regulate morality by forcing everyone to care for those who cannot or will not care for themselves.

[Bill]

forcing everyone to care for those who cannot or will not care for themselves.

So you're a big fan of prisons?

Or ya wanna bring back the workhouses?

[exarmyranger]

I hate corporate welfare the same as social welfare, its all bad.

Welfare and programs like it our a complete failures, it isn't picking on the poor and brown to say so.

Let people chose to help people or not to. It's not government's job to regulate morality by forcing everyone to care for those who cannot or will not care for themselves.
Yo kres,first allow me to get this out of the way:lmao2: Alrighty Then.For the sake of argument. Sentence #1.Give people a choice,as to where,or on what thier individual tax dollar(s)are used,or not used for?:lmao2:oh pardon me...You may want to think that thru.No disrespect but if you are counting on feeding the hungry,with the milk of human kindness think again:hammer:Sentence #2.OK then who's job is it!The individual state,county,or zip code area... Anarchist's Unite! Get It...ex

[kres24GT]

So you're a big fan of prisons?

Or ya wanna bring back the workhouses?


Is anyone not a fan of prisons?

Are you making the we need welfare to keep people form stealing from us? Sorry, but I don't believe in paying protection money.

[kres24GT]

Yo kres,first allow me to get this out of the way:lmao2: Alrighty Then.For the sake of argument. Sentence #1.Give people a choice,as to where,or on what thier individual tax dollar(s)are used,or not used for?:lmao2:oh pardon me...You may want to think that thru.No disrespect but if you are counting on feeding the hungry,with the milk of human kindness think again:hammer:Sentence #2.OK then who's job is it!The individual state,county,or zip code area... Anarchist's Unite! Get It...ex


Again, I don't believe it is government's job to regulate morality and force us to help each other.

Also I don't believe you rob people of their freedom to choose simply because you think it is in their best interest.

Also, as I have mentioned, all of these programs will eventually be bankrupt because the number of people using them is growing so much faster than the number of people supporting them.

It's people's job to help people.

[Caskey_91]

Again, I don't believe it is government's job to regulate morality and force us to help each other.

Also I don't believe you rob people of their freedom to choose simply because you think it is in their best interest.

Also, as I have mentioned, all of these programs will eventually be bankrupt because the number of people using them is growing so much faster than the number of people supporting them.

It's people's job to help people.

For once I have agreed with you Kres.

With the Baby Boomers now entering retirement it is casuing Social Security to go into the red big time and is continuing to do.

As for the Welfare and such. It just seems that people become complacent with where they are and the fact they keep getting money from the government makes them lazy because their getting the check. That's why i'd propose a saftey net type of deal to get a person back on their feet and into a good paying job if they don't it just gets the point where your just pouring the money into a large black hole.

- Caskey -