I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[G.T.]

Poor people don't suffer enough

If we don't make them suffer they will not want to stop being poor

Is having your heart kept going with other people's money suffering, or is it a saving of your life?

 

[rightwinger]

Often the poorhouse was situated on the grounds of a poor farm on which able-bodied residents were required to work; such farms were common in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A poorhouse could even be part of the same economic complex as a prison farm and other penal or charitable public institutions. Poor farms were county- or town-run residences where paupers (mainly elderly and disabled people) were supported at public expense.

 

[G.T.]

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

When you force them to stay against their will, that's when you run into problems. As you lack the authority to strip people of fundamental rights without say, the commission of a crime and a conviction. And you have none. Nor even a charge of such a crime.

People can't relinquish their freedom to walk away. Making the enforcement of such a 'social compact' unconstitutional. As the moment someone wants to leave, their right to freedom of movement trumps any compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

You run into more problems.The folks who get public assistance aren't getting a penny of your money. They're getting money from the government coffers. The moment you pay your taxes, you lose ownership of the funds in question. So you're not paying for anyone. The government is.

You are paying the government. And that degree of separation is ethically and practically profound. As the government funds all sorts of programs, some of which you agree with, others you don't. Alas, your personal agreement isn't the threshold government action. That would be the majority.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

Oh, forced incarceration backed with violence for the commission of no crime is quite extreme. And quite criminal. Its a pretty awful 'solution'.

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

When you force them to stay against their will, that's when you run into problems. As you lack the authority to strip people of fundamental rights without say, the commission of a crime and a conviction. And you have none. Nor even a charge of such a crime.

People can't relinquish their freedom to walk away. Making the enforcement of such a 'social compact' unconstitutional. As the moment someone wants to leave, their right to freedom of movement trumps any compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

You run into more problems.The folks who get public assistance aren't getting a penny of your money. They're getting money from the government coffers. The moment you pay your taxes, you lose ownership of the funds in question. So you're not paying for anyone. The government is.

You are paying the government. And that degree of separation is ethically and practically profound. As the government funds all sorts of programs, some of which you agree with, others you don't. Alas, your personal agreement isn't the threshold government action. That would be the majority.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

Oh, forced incarceration backed with violence for the commission of no crime is quite extreme. And quite criminal. Its a pretty awful 'solution'.

In reality, you are wrong on one point. It's already established law that a person can commit themselves to a mental institution for a predetermined amount of time.

But , the OP's idea is stupid.

 

[G.T.]

Wouldn't it make MORE sense just to end all the stupid welfare programs, change to a national sales tax with no deductions and then handle "welfare" thusly?

Anyone who needs money can go get a job at their local city or county earning minimum wage tax free. Cleaning, painting, picking up trash, baby sitting kids of other needy people, whatever. Plenty to do in every community?

So, no more EBT, no more TIA no more SSI , no more WIC, no more HUD. No more NOTHING you want money from the taxpayers earn it. You don't want to earn it, go hungry

Small program set up to help those who simply aren't capable of course)

In part I could agree with this program.

But then you run into "full employment" issues, and also those who aren't on assistance but already occupy those jobs with the city and the pay discrepancy there would be.

 

[Ravi]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Interesting. If France had it, would the revolution have happened?

 

[G.T.]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

 

[Ravi]

What about the kids? You're gonna leave them living in a camp or take them away from their parents?

They can live there with their parents and also go to school.

Should they eat the shit food ebt allows them now, or a more nutritious but blander diet which is cheaper, better for them, and a way to mitigate their parents from spending our tax dollars, and their kids food money, on ciggs/beer/drugs, etc?

But you'd be holding children, probably involuntarily against their will for the sins of their parents.

I don't think there are really that many moochers. Most people on assistance are kids, mothers, elderly people, and Walmart employees.

I don't like your idea but I would go along with something like community food kitchens that served three healthy meals a day instead of handing out food stamps.

^ there can be middle ground like this.

It wasn't sat there and philosophized over for hours, it was an idea on a whim.

But the children would not be held against their will, they'd be able to run/play/do whatever the fuck they wanted that any other kid could do after school. We already don't let minors live without supervision. Same thing in this case.

Sorry, living in a FEMA camp isn't a good idea when it comes to children.

 

[g5000]

So if you want to take advantage of one of the government's social behavioral programs like a tax deduction, credit, or exemption you should go to a camp?

I like it!

People who use tax expenditures are mooching $1.2 trillion off the country.

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

I'm totally with you. You don't have to take a tax deduction or credit or exemption. But if you do, off to the camps you go!

If you are taking money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life, then I either get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

 

[g5000]

Obamaphones, food stamps, tax credits, tax exemptions, tax deductions. You don't have to accept them, but if you do, off to the camps, citizen!

 

[Ravi]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

 

[G.T.]

So if you want to take advantage of one of the government's social behavioral programs like a tax deduction, credit, or exemption you should go to a camp?

I like it!

People who use tax expenditures are mooching $1.2 trillion off the country.

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

I'm totally with you. You don't have to take a tax deduction or credit or exemption. But if you do, off to the camps you go!

If you are taking money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life, then I either get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

Your sarcasm isn't working in this scenario.

'Cuz when we eliminate the tax deductions for the people you're referring to, they don't magically lose their jobs, need food and need a place to live - thus submitting themselves to my very evil and nefarious Nazi camp.

 

[g5000]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

Well, it clearly can't be the government. That could be counterproductive!

I suggest volunteers. We could distinguish them as good citizens by providing them with brown shirts.

 

[Ravi]

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

When you force them to stay against their will, that's when you run into problems. As you lack the authority to strip people of fundamental rights without say, the commission of a crime and a conviction. And you have none. Nor even a charge of such a crime.

People can't relinquish their freedom to walk away. Making the enforcement of such a 'social compact' unconstitutional. As the moment someone wants to leave, their right to freedom of movement trumps any compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

You run into more problems.The folks who get public assistance aren't getting a penny of your money. They're getting money from the government coffers. The moment you pay your taxes, you lose ownership of the funds in question. So you're not paying for anyone. The government is.

You are paying the government. And that degree of separation is ethically and practically profound. As the government funds all sorts of programs, some of which you agree with, others you don't. Alas, your personal agreement isn't the threshold government action. That would be the majority.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

Oh, forced incarceration backed with violence for the commission of no crime is quite extreme. And quite criminal. Its a pretty awful 'solution'.

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

Now you're making being poor a crime.

 

[rightwinger]

We could even sell them as low cost labor for capitalists

 

[boedicca]

Response to the OP: Bad idea.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Camps are just another subsidy.

 

[Skylar]

In reality, you are wrong on one point. It's already established law that a person can commit themselves to a mental institution for a predetermined amount of time.

But , the OP's idea is stupid.

Granted.....with two enormous caveats: If they are an immediate danger to themselves or others. And for very finite periods of time, usually a matter of days.

There's no such requirement in the OP's system. Incarceration is indefinite. The basis of release is compliance with the conditions of release......none of which have a thing to do with directly endangering the public or one's self.

 

[Ravi]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

Well, it clearly can't be the government. That could be counterproductive!

I suggest volunteers. We could distinguish them as good citizens by providing them with brown shirts.

Who gets to define which of the camp inhabitants are lazy?

 

[G.T.]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

 

[g5000]

So if you want to take advantage of one of the government's social behavioral programs like a tax deduction, credit, or exemption you should go to a camp?

I like it!

People who use tax expenditures are mooching $1.2 trillion off the country.

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

I'm totally with you. You don't have to take a tax deduction or credit or exemption. But if you do, off to the camps you go!

If you are taking money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life, then I either get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

Your sarcasm isn't working in this scenario.

'Cuz when we eliminate the tax deductions for the people you're referring to, they don't magically lose their jobs, need food and need a place to live - thus submitting themselves to my very evil and nefarious Nazi camp.

Why do people take tax deductions, credits, and exemptions then? They clearly need the money! And that money comes from other taxpayers in the form of higher tax rates and borrowing.

Since other people are being forced to support them, they are moochers and should be treated exactly like every other moocher. No exceptions!