Comments on: WELFARE IS NOT A RIGHT http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html Indiana Barrister is the source for local Indianapolis and Indiana news, politics and commentary. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:50:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Taxpayer 834512 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10438 Taxpayer 834512 Tue, 27 May 2008 22:22:19 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10438 We've spent ourselves into a final 24-second economic clock (5-10 years at current spending levels). We must now bring the ball up the court for our kids and old age. Protecting those "truly in need" is as subjective as "worthwhile" foreign policy. Based on history and polarization along the lines of party, race, and income- it's not looking good. With years of not being able to say "No" to virtually any spending, we've got maybe one possession to figure it out. But, I still like our play options of across the board spending cuts or bipartisan sacrifice (like capping childbirth entitlement and out-of-country tax evasion at once). Can we put players on the court that care more about winning than individual success? Can we get a coach who's interested in long-term success instead of a few games? Can we put up a good shot? We’ve spent ourselves into a final 24-second economic clock (5-10 years at current spending levels). We must now bring the ball up the court for our kids and old age. Protecting those “truly in need” is as subjective as “worthwhile” foreign policy. Based on history and polarization along the lines of party, race, and income- it’s not looking good. With years of not being able to say “No” to virtually any spending, we’ve got maybe one possession to figure it out. But, I still like our play options of across the board spending cuts or bipartisan sacrifice (like capping childbirth entitlement and out-of-country tax evasion at once). Can we put players on the court that care more about winning than individual success? Can we get a coach who’s interested in long-term success instead of a few games? Can we put up a good shot?

]]> By: Robert-NW Side http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10425 Robert-NW Side Tue, 27 May 2008 11:09:06 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10425 Quoting John Howard, May 24th, 2008 at 8:56 am - Robert-NW needs to grasp the difference between ‘offer asylum’ and ‘incarcerate’ *********************** Hi John. I know the difference. In my 'world', the asylum would come with strings...as it should! - Want others to feed you? If you're able-bodied, then you work at something. You DO NOT sit around on your lazy azz. - Need a roof over your head? If you're able-bodied, then you work at something. You DO NOT sit around on your lazy azz. - There is nothing wrong with having able-bodied people work for the 'welfare' they wish to receive. - I suspect that our current lot of Overseers of the Poor (township trustees) don't enforce the current law requirement of getting aid from family first, then coming to the taxpayer. I also suspect that the work requirement gets a wink and a nod from the trustees. - So, John...should able-bodied people work for their 'welfare', or should they be permitted to lounge around on their lazy azz?? Quoting John Howard, May 24th, 2008 at 8:56 am
-
Robert-NW needs to grasp the difference between ‘offer asylum’ and ‘incarcerate’
***********************
Hi John. I know the difference. In my ‘world’, the asylum would come with strings…as it should!
-
Want others to feed you? If you’re able-bodied, then you work at something. You DO NOT sit around on your lazy azz.
-
Need a roof over your head? If you’re able-bodied, then you work at something. You DO NOT sit around on your lazy azz.
-
There is nothing wrong with having able-bodied people work for the ‘welfare’ they wish to receive.
-
I suspect that our current lot of Overseers of the Poor (township trustees) don’t enforce the current law requirement of getting aid from family first, then coming to the taxpayer. I also suspect that the work requirement gets a wink and a nod from the trustees.
-
So, John…should able-bodied people work for their ‘welfare’, or should they be permitted to lounge around on their lazy azz??

]]> By: John Doe http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10411 John Doe Sat, 24 May 2008 16:31:36 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10411 "Pothole repair is NOT in the Constitution either. Fire and police departments are “recent” developments too…" I agree. I should be allowed to pop out five bastard kids by different daddies and still be allowed to not have to hold down a job. If this means taking more of Wilson's money from his pension check, I don't see a problem with it. A person should not have to work, and their housing, food, medicine, etc. should be paid for by others. “Pothole repair is NOT in the Constitution either. Fire and police departments are “recent” developments too…”

I agree. I should be allowed to pop out five bastard kids by different daddies and still be allowed to not have to hold down a job. If this means taking more of Wilson’s money from his pension check, I don’t see a problem with it. A person should not have to work, and their housing, food, medicine, etc. should be paid for by others.

]]> By: John Howard http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10410 John Howard Sat, 24 May 2008 12:56:40 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10410 Robert-NW needs to grasp the difference between 'offer asylum' and 'incarcerate'. Robert-NW needs to grasp the difference between ‘offer asylum’ and ‘incarcerate’.

]]> By: Robert-NW Side http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10409 Robert-NW Side Sat, 24 May 2008 07:38:23 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10409 Quoting John Howard, May 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am Corralling people who happen to be poor into farms (to be honest, it should read ‘labor camps’)? Surely that would cross off at least two of the three on this list: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” ************************** John, you clearly believe that able-bodied people who have CLAIMS UPON THE SYMPATHIES AND AID OF SOCIETY should not have to 'labor' at all for this aid. - John, you also imply that these county farms would violate our constitution. Yet, how could some lawyer in a robe rule it unconstitutional, when it's written into our Constitution? - You want to play the 'poor have rights' game? Well, what about MY rights? What about MY right to the fruits of MY labor? - Yet, along come the poor person who is able-bodied, yet refuses to work. They cry and complain to government. - Along comes government, which uses force to extract some of the fruits of MY labor, and gives it to the able-bodied 'poor' who did nothing to earn it. - I have more respect for the panhandlers around town. At least they are out doing 'something'. - If some county decided to grow some 'nads, and implement Art 9 Sec 3, what would you do? File a lawsuit? Cry that there is no implementing statute? - Be at ease! Our Constitution trumps State statutes. - Anyone ready to invest in quonset huts ?!?! - http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title1/ar1/ch2.html IC 1-1-2-1 Hierarchy of law Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be: First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state. Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions. Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section. (Formerly: Acts 1852,1RS, c.61, s.1.) Quoting John Howard, May 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am

Corralling people who happen to be poor into farms (to be honest, it should read ‘labor camps’)?

Surely that would cross off at least two of the three on this list: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
**************************
John, you clearly believe that able-bodied people who have CLAIMS UPON THE SYMPATHIES AND AID OF SOCIETY should not have to ‘labor’ at all for this aid.
-
John, you also imply that these county farms would violate our constitution. Yet, how could some lawyer in a robe rule it unconstitutional, when it’s written into our Constitution?
-
You want to play the ‘poor have rights’ game? Well, what about MY rights? What about MY right to the fruits of MY labor?
-
Yet, along come the poor person who is able-bodied, yet refuses to work. They cry and complain to government.
-
Along comes government, which uses force to extract some of the fruits of MY labor, and gives it to the able-bodied ‘poor’ who did nothing to earn it.
-
I have more respect for the panhandlers around town. At least they are out doing ’something’.
-
If some county decided to grow some ‘nads, and implement Art 9 Sec 3, what would you do? File a lawsuit? Cry that there is no implementing statute?
-
Be at ease! Our Constitution trumps State statutes.
-
Anyone ready to invest in quonset huts ?!?!
-
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title1/ar1/ch2.html
IC 1-1-2-1
Hierarchy of law
Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be:
First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.
Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions.
Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.
(Formerly: Acts 1852,1RS, c.61, s.1.)

]]> By: Think Again http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10401 Think Again Fri, 23 May 2008 21:53:03 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10401 Pascal...where were the hipshots? (Love that term: may I borrow it?) It's prob. time to let it go, but I still don't understand the totality of your 5-22 8:20 comment. I think you're criticizing me and the ACLU. Why, I don't know. I merely pointed out that Abdul is wrong; welfare IS a right to those who have qualified by the state's rules. I didn't say whether I liked or loathed that fact. A few other posters have gone down a similar path. Pascal…where were the hipshots? (Love that term: may I borrow it?)

It’s prob. time to let it go, but I still don’t understand the totality of your 5-22 8:20 comment. I think you’re criticizing me and the ACLU. Why, I don’t know.

I merely pointed out that Abdul is wrong; welfare IS a right to those who have qualified by the state’s rules. I didn’t say whether I liked or loathed that fact. A few other posters have gone down a similar path.

]]> By: Pascal http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10400 Pascal Fri, 23 May 2008 20:12:48 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10400 Think again. I'm not overly critical of anyone but would like commentary based on realities and knowledge rather than hipshots. We have worked out a method to completely educate Abdul on one case from which he will draw conclusions other than what he has previous posted. We are all prisioners of what we think we know and if lucky, we find ways of escaping those constraints. Think again. I’m not overly critical of anyone but would like commentary based on realities and knowledge rather than hipshots. We have worked out a method to completely educate Abdul on one case from which he will draw conclusions other than what he has previous posted. We are all prisioners of what we think we know and if lucky, we find ways of escaping those constraints.

]]> By: IndyIndie http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10399 IndyIndie Fri, 23 May 2008 20:08:07 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10399 Um okay, just as an fyi for those of you without a legal background, and those with one that don't use it. Welfare benefits ARE a right once they have been granted. This is according the the US Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly. Thus the US Constitutional provision that guarantees the right to welfare is the 5th and 14th Amendment's Right to Due Process. Specifically, the Procedural Due Process right to notice and hearing before deprivation of property, which welfare benefits are once they have been granted. Incidentally this is the same provision that protects the right to an abortion (14th Amendment Substantive Due Process Liberty Interest). Good luck with that everyone. Um okay, just as an fyi for those of you without a legal background, and those with one that don’t use it. Welfare benefits ARE a right once they have been granted. This is according the the US Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly. Thus the US Constitutional provision that guarantees the right to welfare is the 5th and 14th Amendment’s Right to Due Process. Specifically, the Procedural Due Process right to notice and hearing before deprivation of property, which welfare benefits are once they have been granted. Incidentally this is the same provision that protects the right to an abortion (14th Amendment Substantive Due Process Liberty Interest). Good luck with that everyone.

]]> By: Pascal http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10398 Pascal Fri, 23 May 2008 19:54:58 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10398 What is concerned taxpayer concerned with? I suppose he pays Social Security taxes. When it is time for him to collect his benefits is he "entitled" to them or not? Let's not have any more double talk. What is sad about this is that conservatives have not taken the lead in defending those who are now abused by the system and denied benefits to which they are perfectly entitled. Nope, left that task to the Indiana Communist Liberties Union. What is concerned taxpayer concerned with? I suppose he pays Social Security taxes. When it is time for him to collect his benefits is he “entitled” to them or not? Let’s not have any more double talk. What is sad about this is that conservatives have not taken the lead in defending those who are now abused by the system and denied benefits to which they are perfectly entitled. Nope, left that task to the Indiana Communist Liberties Union.

]]> By: BigBrother http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10396 BigBrother Fri, 23 May 2008 15:16:51 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/05/welfare_is_not_a_right.html#comment-10396 Sorry Abdul, as a family member of one of these people you have zero clue what you are talking about. I'll give you that Welfare is not a right, but as one poster said, and I embellish, neither are sewers, roads, schools or any other governmental service. Those are all bargained for by the electorate who chose to form the Nation/State in the first place. This process has caused a great deal of unneeded concern on the part of many very deserving people. For example, my sister, or all you taxpayers, paid into the system for 30 years before her disabilities become so pervasive that she had to quit work. She would trade places with any of you if she could. And, let me say this Abdul, those who are cheating the system are more likely to know how to beat the system and probably didn't lose a dime in the transition. The ones who got hurt, like my sister, can't use the internet, can fillout the forms, can't do anything other than try and get someone to help them. Oh wait, there isn't anyone because there are no more caseworkers. Good Move Mitch! Sorry Abdul, as a family member of one of these people you have zero clue what you are talking about. I’ll give you that Welfare is not a right, but as one poster said, and I embellish, neither are sewers, roads, schools or any other governmental service. Those are all bargained for by the electorate who chose to form the Nation/State in the first place.
This process has caused a great deal of unneeded concern on the part of many very deserving people. For example, my sister, or all you taxpayers, paid into the system for 30 years before her disabilities become so pervasive that she had to quit work. She would trade places with any of you if she could. And, let me say this Abdul, those who are cheating the system are more likely to know how to beat the system and probably didn’t lose a dime in the transition. The ones who got hurt, like my sister, can’t use the internet, can fillout the forms, can’t do anything other than try and get someone to help them. Oh wait, there isn’t anyone because there are no more caseworkers. Good Move Mitch!

]]>