# Name a federal gov't program that works well



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Some see government as the solution to all our problems. But when you look into the details, seems just about all are failures, or rife with fraud, waste or abuse. Some say the government should protect us from free market greed, yet isn't that like the fox guarding the henhouse? Why do some insist that government workers are so much more honorable than the free market?

Maybe I'm missing something. Please name some federal government programs that work well and efficiently.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Swellfare


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Internet


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

WIC
Interstate highway system


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I hate to play "lawyer ball" like Bill Clinton but it depends on how you define "works well". The current government assistance/social security/welfare system works great as a vote buying device for incumbents.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

Thinking, thinking, thinking...


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Shygal said:


> WIC


One of the worst programs ever. We pay for people to have kids.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

Military? Hmmm....

I hear the FDIC closing down failing banks is extremely high speed low drag

I can promise you the VA does some good work but certainly is also a welfare/ full employment system.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

The United States Armed Forces. 

That is, they *would* work well if the politicians would leave them alone, and let them do their jobs.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Shygal said:


> WIC


Quite possibly _*the*_ most wasteful program we have.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

tyusclan said:


> Quite possibly _*the*_ most wasteful program we have.


Bingo. WIC is shoved on people whether they need it or not and I've seen it happen in my own family.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

poppy said:


> Bingo. WIC is shoved on people whether they need it or not and I've seen it happen in my own family.


Don't think it is shoved on anyone. If you do not sign up for it and go get it you don't get it. Things may have changed in the last few months but I used to park next to the building that housed WIC. Never say anyone taken into the office by force.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

pancho said:


> Don't think it is shoved on anyone. If you do not sign up for it and go get it you don't get it. Things may have changed in the last few months but I used to park next to the building that housed WIC. Never say anyone taken into the office by force.


If you go to one of the doctors at the local health dept here and are pregnant, they BEG you to sign up for WIC. My DIL informed them she and her husband made over $100,000 a year and didn't need it and they said it didn't matter and she should sign up because it was FREE. She told them it is not free because someone has to pay for it. It went right over their heads.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

The out of line profits from private companies are greater than the waste in government programs.Most government programs are ok.I do have a problem with the department of agriculture,and I deal with them all the time.Social security,medicare,veterans program,and the highway system are fine with me.wic is also ok with me although I know it is abused.At least children get a benefit from it.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

wwubben said:


> The out of line profits from private companies are greater than the waste in government programs.


And once again, we have a shining example of why we need to teach economics in school.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on any forum anywhere.

NO private company holds a gun on anyone and makes them buy their products and services. If a company makes a large profit, it shows that a LOT of people needed, desired, or wanted their products or services.

Absolutely amazing.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

poppy said:


> If you go to one of the doctors at the local health dept here and are pregnant, they BEG you to sign up for WIC. My DIL informed them she and her husband made over $100,000 a year and didn't need it and they said it didn't matter and she should sign up because it was FREE. She told them it is not free because someone has to pay for it. It went right over their heads.


Every day I see people on the street begging. I do not feel I have to donate to them. It is my choice. WIC is the same way. They may ask you to sign up, even beg you to sign up, but it is your decision to do so. Nothing can be shoved on a person without their consent. 

There might also be those who sign up for WIC then decide they need an excuse to tell others who might not approve.


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

tyusclan said:


> And once again, we have a shining example of why we need to teach economics in school.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on any forum anywhere.
> 
> ...


100% agree! And that comment came from someone who VOTES! Gee, I wonder who they voted for? Hmmmmm?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I agree with Shygal on the Interstate system. Interesting story on how it came to be. The seed was started when Ike was a staff officer in the Army in the 20's or 30's. He was involved in a training maneuver in which the goal was to move a large number of troops and equipment across the Continent. It was an enormously difficult task due to the state of our roads at the time. 

During WWII he was enormously impressed with the German Autobahn and was determined to create an American version when he became President. 

You could almost say that Hitler is the father of the Interstate highway system.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

tyusclan said:


> And once again, we have a shining example of why we need to teach economics in school.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on any forum anywhere.
> 
> ...


Amen!

But good luck improving education. More and more it's controlled by central government. Education spending goes up while performance declines, which declining performance is used as justification for more spending. Round and round we go!

The military is one of the few functions authorized by the Constitution, unfortunately it is misused. And even the Secretary of Defense has asked Congress to quit buying planes and other equipment he doesn't want or need. Meanwhile the wounded get inadequate treatment. Eiisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex.

Whenever something bad happens, people cry for more oversight, yet it was usually there already and failed. Madoff was reported many times to the SEC.

Government is a necessary evil, which is why it was supposed to be limited. 

Here's a congressman telling someone that the federal government can do anything it wants.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE[/ame]


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Considering how most people don't work too well themselves- Social Security ( no private company in the world could manage that much work at the low rate the government does,) most ports and interstate travel (your grocery store is well supplied,) Fema (despite problems, how many private companies would come and pull your rear end out of a flood at all,) most fire departments, most police departments, most public health departments ( when was the last epidemic in your community,) most building inspections departments ( unlike Haiti, most building will not fall down on their own,) FDIC, Dept of Forestry, etc etc.
Yes stuff goes wrong but not as wrong as when private companies decide to make profits out of your hide without any control at all. Everyone who complains thinks that they will be the rich ones, when they will most likely would be the slaves of someone else without protection. Ask someone from the Great Depression who was the enemy and it would most likely be a bank.
Some things have to be a group effort- some people are plenty willing to use services and not pay for them, so some regulations do "take" money from unwilling people who complain about everything- so cry me a river..................... and go buy yourself a derivative........


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Shygal said:


> WIC
> Interstate highway system


I have a friend who bought a paving company 2 years ago. He is very wealthy now. Lots of ways to make money besides paving.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

tyusclan said:


> The United States Armed Forces.
> 
> That is, they *would* work well if the politicians would leave them alone, and let them do their jobs.


Especially when it comes to the whole issue of private contractors.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

tyusclan said:


> And once again, we have a shining example of why we need to teach economics in school.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on any forum anywhere.


Is the statement untrue? The two parts may not be relevant to one another or even to the argument at hand, but is it also untrue?



tyusclan said:


> If a company makes a large profit, it shows that a LOT of people needed, desired, or wanted their products or services.


This statement is untrue. It certainly COULD show that, but it could be that the company found a way to scam another company into buying worthless goods or services at at inflated price, or that it sold lots of goods or services to one customer or a myriad of other.


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Not sure if it would be called a program, but NOAA and National Weather Service.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

tyusclan said:


> And once again, we have a shining example of why we need to teach economics in school.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on any forum anywhere.
> 
> ...


Do you have a reasonable choice not to buy car insurance?There are some things you just have to deal with private business with.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

tyusclan said:


> And once again, we have a shining example of why we need to teach economics in school.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on any forum anywhere.
> 
> ...


What service did the wall street bankers provide that you or anyone else had a great desire to have?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Works well? I have no idea what that means.

Does it mean do what they are chartered to do?
Does it mean doing it effectively?
Does it mean doing it efficiently?
Does it mean it is performing a function of the federal government as defined in the Constitution?
Does it mean all of the above?

I doubt seriously if there is a single federal government program that is effective and efficient. 

For years it was said that NASA was a successful program. But the reason it was "successful" was because it had an unlimited budget. So it may have been effective, but it wasn't efficient. 

The Interstate Highway System is crumbling and the bridges are dangerous. Hardly a program that works well by any definition.

The military. What is the purpose of the military? Is it defensive only? Is it efficient? I would argue no. Is it effective? IMO, doesn't seem to be in Afghanistan? 

The Internet was not "successful" until the government allowed the private sector to take it over.

And WIC. Why does this program even exist? Wouldn't it be much simpler to give people money and let them spend it as needed? Why micromanage people's lives and tell them what food they can buy and not buy?


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2010)

Shygal said:


> WIC
> Interstate highway system


Highways for sure.

WIC is better than food stamps.



Windy in Kansas said:


> Not sure if it would be called a program, but NOAA and National Weather Service.


Those are good.



MoonRiver said:


> And WIC. Why does this program even exist? Wouldn't it be much simpler to give people money and let them spend it as needed? Why micromanage people's lives and tell them what food they can buy and not buy?


That would defeat the purpose of WIC.

Food Stamps already lets them get what they want.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

mistletoad said:


> Is the statement untrue? The two parts may not be relevant to one another or even to the argument at hand, but is it also untrue?


Yes, the statement was untrue. *NO* private company can force any of us to buy their goods, while the government forces us to "participate" in many things that many of us find offensive, and then waste the money as well.




mistletoad said:


> This statement is untrue. It certainly COULD show that, but it could be that the company found a way to scam another company into buying worthless goods or services at at inflated price, or that it sold lots of goods or services to one customer or a myriad of other.


I'm not talking about scams. Scams are illegal, and those who perpetrate them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm talking about legitimate companies, providing legitimate goods and services. They only make profits because we spend money with their companies.





wwubben said:


> Do you have a reasonable choice not to buy car insurance?There are some things you just have to deal with private business with.


You have a choice which company to buy your insurance from, and the insurance company is NOT the one requiring you to buy it. It's the *GOVERNMENT* that requires it. Also, do you want the insurance company to have the money to pay you for you car if you're in an accident? Or you house if it burns? The only way they can do that is if they make a *profit*! If they aren't profitable, they have NO money to pay YOU when YOU need it.



wwubben said:


> What service did the wall street bankers provide that you or anyone else had a great desire to have?


How about making loans to people who were not in the least looking for a "home", but were trying to capitalize on the real estate boom and flip houses at a profit. The borrowers made a bad decision, bought at the wrong time, and got bit BIG time. I'm all for capitalism and profit, but it IS a gamble sometimes. You may make the wrong decision, and if you do it costs you.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

tyusclan said:


> Yes, the statement was untrue. *NO* private company can force any of us to buy their goods, while the government forces us to "participate" in many things that many of us find offensive, and then waste the money as well.


The original statement said nothing about forcing people to buy goods. What is untrue about the statement:



> The out of line profits from private companies are greater than the waste in government programs.


Do private companies actually make less profit than the government wastes?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Don't think it is shoved on anyone. If you do not sign up for it and go get it you don't get it. Things may have changed in the last few months but I used to park next to the building that housed WIC. Never say anyone taken into the office by force.


They may not shove it "on" them but they sure do shove it *"at"* them. There are ads; radio, newsprint and billboards, saying "GOT WIC?" if not come in and apply.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> The out of line profits from private companies are greater than the waste in government programs.Most government programs are ok.I do have a problem with the department of agriculture,and I deal with them all the time.Social security,medicare,veterans program,and the highway system are fine with me.wic is also ok with me although I know it is abused.At least children get a benefit from it.


I have to ask, just what is an "out of line" profit? 1%, 5%, 10% 

Also just which companies are making an "out of line" profit?

BTW, If you don't like the cost of something in the private market no one forces you to buy it.

Also if you don't like the mark up on something America is still free enough you can start a company and make your own product and sell it at your own price. Of course then YOU'LL have to take the risk, your product might not sell and you lose your home or listen to people whine about how much money you make if it does sell.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> Do you have a reasonable choice not to buy car insurance?There are some things you just have to deal with private business with.


 Insurance (auto, home, health et al) is heavily regulated and controlled by the government. So much so you'd have a hard time calling it a private business, IMO.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> They may not shove it "on" them but they sure do shove it *"at"* them. There are ads; radio, newsprint and billboards, saying "GOT WIC?" if not come in and apply.


Still doesn't force anyone to apply. The adds are more for those who need it but don't know about it.

There are adds: radio, newsprint, and billboards saying "GOT MILK". That doesn't mean anyone is forced to drink milk.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

tinknal said:


> I agree with Shygal on the Interstate system. Interesting story on how it came to be. The seed was started when Ike was a staff officer in the Army in the 20's or 30's. He was involved in a training maneuver in which the goal was to move a large number of troops and equipment across the Continent. It was an enormously difficult task due to the state of our roads at the time.
> 
> During WWII he was enormously impressed with the German Autobahn and was determined to create an American version when he became President.


Could you imagine a project of that magnitude trying to be carried out today? It would take years and billions $$$ just to get through the red tape and legalities.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> The Internet was not "successful" until the government allowed the private sector to take it over.


Ahh, but if Al Gore hadn't taken an afternoon off to invent it where would we be now? Well started is half done.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The *out of line profits from private companies *are greater than the waste in government programs


That's one of those oft parroted *FALSE *claims that no one ever seems to be able to prove

How about some DATA on those "out of line profits"?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

mistletoad said:


> Do private companies actually make less profit than the government wastes?


Yes, private companies make more money than the government wastes. If the private companies didn't make money to pay taxes on, the government would not have any money to waste. It's the very reason that tax revenue nosedives in a recession.

What is untrue about the statement is the "out of line" profits. It's been my experience that someone only thinks profits are "out of line" when someone else makes them. I've never heard a single person say that _their_ profits were out of line.

It's one more example of a complete misunderstanding of economics and of being jealous of someone else having something you don't.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Still doesn't force anyone to apply. The adds are more for those who need it but don't know about it.
> 
> There are adds: radio, newsprint, and billboards saying "GOT MILK". That doesn't mean anyone is forced to drink milk.


Very, very, very few people have meth forced on them but once they get hooked on it they find it dang hard to kick the habit. I've found the same thing applies to government hand outs.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> And WIC. Why does this program even exist? Wouldn't it be much simpler to give people money and let them spend it as needed? Why micromanage people's lives and tell them what food they can buy and not buy?


Because then you get food stamps. 

As it is now, I feel food stamps are the worst program ever. We've all been in line behind someone on food stamps and they're buying steaks and junk food. Then at the end of the month they're at the food pantry getting donations because they spent their money on junk. If we got rid of WIC then that's all we'd have. 

I think we need to get rid of food stamps and go to a program like WIC. If we make it slightly uncomfortable then maybe fewer people would want to be on it. We can create menu's that cover all 30 days of the month-with extra-for less than the average food stamp check. Granted there wouldn't be any free steaks, but hey, if I have to get by on hamburger then so can everyone else, right? If you don't like it, get a job.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2010)

tyusclan said:


> Yes, private companies make more money than the government wastes.


you do know that the government is 13.3 trillion dollars in debt, meaning it has spent 13.3 trillion dollars more than it has. So, how did private companies make more than the government wastes?? do you have a link to prove this?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> Very, very, very few people have meth forced on them but once they get hooked on it they find it dang hard to kick the habit. I've found the same thing applies to government hand outs.


I will agree completely with that, it is hard to kick the habit after it is started.
Free stuff is hard to turn down, especially when it is so easy to get.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Interesting how some people have an issue with free enterprise and resent profits.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Tonya said:


> Because then you get food stamps.
> 
> As it is now, I feel food stamps are the worst program ever. We've all been in line behind someone on food stamps and they're buying steaks and junk food. Then at the end of the month they're at the food pantry getting donations because they spent their money on junk. If we got rid of WIC then that's all we'd have.
> 
> I think we need to get rid of food stamps and go to a program like WIC. If we make it slightly uncomfortable then maybe fewer people would want to be on it. We can create menu's that cover all 30 days of the month-with extra-for less than the average food stamp check. Granted there wouldn't be any free steaks, but hey, if I have to get by on hamburger then so can everyone else, right? If you don't like it, get a job.


I can get on board with that. If we are going to have food stamps let's make it so they are only good for staple foods, purchased in bulk. Flour, sugar, rice, beans, pasta, etc, commodity cheese, fresh produce and fresh meat.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I can mail a letter clear across the country for less than the cost of a cup of coffee. I like that.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

tinknal said:


> I can get on board with that. If we are going to have food stamps let's make it so they are only good for staple foods, purchased in bulk. Flour, sugar, rice, beans, pasta, etc, commodity cheese, fresh produce and fresh meat.


Nice idea, but this assumes the purpose of such a program is to feed the poor.

There is always a stated purpose, and an actual purpose.

The actual purpose of food stamps is to give jobs and money to those who administer the program. It is also to get people to eat more and throw more food away so farmers can sell more food, since they are subsidized and produce too much. School lunch programs also help to waste food to create more demand.

Years ago I read a book called "The Tragedy of American Compassion", which discussed how private charity did a better job of truly helping the poor, but of course govt has put it out of business.

Government welfare programs must keep people poor - otherwise there would be no demand for services.

Like the War on Poverty that replaced dads, keeping people poor and dependent.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

salmonslayer said:


> Interesting how some people have an issue with free enterprise and resent profits.


Pretty scary isn't it?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

zong said:


> you do know that the government is 13.3 trillion dollars in debt, meaning it has spent 13.3 trillion dollars more than it has. So, how did private companies make more than the government wastes?? do you have a link to prove this?


You have to go all the way back to the first post that I responded to to get the context of this whole exchange.

But, yes, the national debt (as ridiculous as it is) is still only a percentage of the GDP. I don't know what percentage of the GDP would actually be net profit, so as to which one is actually higher, I don't have that, and really don't care enough to look it up.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

NASA - In 1969.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> I can mail a letter clear across the country for less than the cost of a cup of coffee. I like that.


And why does government need to run the mail? Just think how much cheaper it would be if it didn't have a monopoly.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/02/postal-service-continues-to-implode/



> Today, the U.S. Postal Service warned that it could lose $238 billion over the next ten years if it doesnât receive greater managerial flexibility from Congress.
> 
> The European Union and other countries around the world have long been moving toward competition and privatization for mail delivery services. Yet the United States remains way behind the global trend. The rise of the internet and other advances in telecommunications have fostered an irreversible decline in the USPSâs mail volume. At the same time, itâs being weighed down by a predominantly unionized workforce whose compensation and benefits constitute 80 percent of USPS costs.
> 
> ...


From an article in the 1990's
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html



> But the inherent problems of the Postal Service as manifest in its roller-coaster record on service in many ways this is not surprising. The average wage and benefit package of clerks and sorters is nearly $43,000, compared to about $35,000 for all private sector workers. [7] The Postal Rate Commission found recently that "nonproductive time" constitutes 28.4 percent of mail-processing labor costs. There is 1 manager for every 10 workers at the USPS, compared with 1 for every 15 workers at Federal Express.
> 
> Of course, the facts that there are 800,000 mostly-unionized postal workers, and that the USPS is a protected monopoly, combine to create an economic dynamic that almost ensures periodic cost and quality crises. There are very few hardships for the Postal Service if quality suffers, since customers cannot turn to competitors for services. But it is politically very difficult for the Postal Service to cut its work force to hold down costs. One cause of this difficulty is the fact that all congressional districts have numerous post offices and postal workers to remind elected officials and candidates of their special interests. Another cause is the fact that postal union political action committees make generous contributions to political campaigns, $3.27 million for the 1993-1994 election cycle. [8]
> 
> ...


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I agree the post office is a good deal. Aren't they provided for in the Constitution?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

tinknal said:


> I agree with Shygal on the Interstate system. Interesting story on how it came to be. The seed was started when Ike was a staff officer in the Army in the 20's or 30's. He was involved in a training maneuver in which the goal was to move a large number of troops and equipment across the Continent. It was an enormously difficult task due to the state of our roads at the time.
> 
> During WWII he was enormously impressed with the German Autobahn and was determined to create an American version when he became President.
> 
> You could almost say that Hitler is the father of the Interstate highway system.


Thank God we don't have the autobahn here. I hated them when we were stationed over there. No speed limits in a country where beer is drank like water. Not a good scenario.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Lyra said:


> One of the worst programs ever. We pay for people to have kids.


Im sorry but thats bullcrap. No one gets "paid" on WIC. IF you think people have a child to get five years of Kix cereal and apple juice, you don't know a lot about having children.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> And WIC. Why does this program even exist? Wouldn't it be much simpler to give people money and let them spend it as needed? Why micromanage people's lives and tell them what food they can buy and not buy?


I dont get it.

You complain about people buying JUNK FOOD with food stamps and wish theyd only let them buy good food......yet say that WIC should just give them money to spend as needed and not tell them what they can buy or not buy.........


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Hydroelectric dams


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Shygal said:


> I dont get it.
> 
> You complain about people buying JUNK FOOD with food stamps and wish theyd only let them buy good food......yet say that WIC should just give them money to spend as needed and not tell them what they can buy or not buy.........


My biggest complaint about WIC (and I have more than one) is that it is not at all based on need. The only requirement is that you have a baby. 

I think that's ridiculous.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

tyusclan said:


> My biggest complaint about WIC (and I have more than one) is that it is not at all based on need. The only requirement is that you have a baby.
> 
> I think that's ridiculous.


There are income limits for WIC


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Shygal said:


> Im sorry but thats bullcrap. No one gets "paid" on WIC. IF you think people have a child to get five years of Kix cereal and apple juice, you don't know a lot about having children.



Yes, they get "Paid" - their income is subsidized by the government. Food, housing, and healthcare - that is a large chunk of money that is added to an individual's income (if they have any). 

Cereal and juice? Come on. They get so much more than that. For instance, normal people have to pay for formula while those on WIC do not. That is a lot of money.

Actually, the kids are covered under government programs until they are 18. They also get free healthcare. You should really research all the government programs out there or talk to someone on welfare. The Democrats totally lied when they said that children were uninsured in order to pass Obamacare.

You want to know one of the main reasons that cities of all sizes and small towns are so screwed up? Section 8 housing.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Shygal said:


> There are income limits for WIC


Yeah, if you are responsible enough you get to pay to raise other people's kids. Congrats for being a working responsible American!


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2010)

Lyra said:


> Yes, they get "Paid" - their income is subsidized by the government. Food, housing, and healthcare - that is a large chunk of money that is added to an individual's income (if they have any).
> 
> Cereal and juice? Come on. They get so much more than that. For instance, normal people have to pay for formula while those on WIC do not. That is a lot of money.
> 
> ...


You obviously don't understand the WIC program at all.

Among your other fallacies, WIC only provides a limited amount of formula. The mother is expected to supply the rest.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Lyra, WIC provides for a limited amount of pre-approved items (milk, juice, peanut butter, and in some cases formula) for children up to the age of 5, not 18.

Most of the 'health care' you cite comes from your local health department.

IMO, WIC is far better than either cash welfare or foodstamps.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Thank God we don't have the autobahn here. I hated them when we were stationed over there. No speed limits in a country where beer is drank like water. Not a good scenario.


Well, my point is that it is great system for moving people and goods across a country.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Windy in Kansas said:


> Not sure if it would be called a program, but NOAA and National Weather Service.


The NWS often puts out incorrect data while trying to forecast seven days ahead....

**U.S. Geological Survey* is a good government program. 

*The *U.S. Forest Service *would be another great program. National forests and grasslands provide some of the greatest opportunities for outdoor recreation in the world.

As mentioned earlier, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was a great government program.


*The *contract with America in 1994 *would have been another great program IF it had passed fully.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

pancho said:


> Every day I see people on the street begging. I do not feel I have to donate to them. It is my choice. WIC is the same way. They may ask you to sign up, even beg you to sign up, but it is your decision to do so. Nothing can be shoved on a person without their consent.
> 
> There might also be those who sign up for WIC then decide they need an excuse to tell others who might not approve.


Nothing can be shoved on a person without their consent howabout health care

Dave


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

davel745 said:


> Nothing can be shoved on a person without their consent howabout health care
> 
> Dave


Guess I am wrong about that.
At one time in the past it was true that nothing could be shoved on a person without their consent. Guess that will be remembered as the good old days.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Hydroelectric dams


I think you may have found the one program that works like it should.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

People have listed programs they like, but no one has listed a government program that works well.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

IRS collections division.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> People have listed programs they like, but no one has listed a government program that works well.


You think the interstate system doesn't work well?

I think I could add air traffic control to the list. When you think of the sheer number of commercial planes and the low number of accidents it is a good record.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2010)

megafatcat said:


> IRS collections division.


That one only pretends to be a government program.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

tinknal said:


> You think the interstate system doesn't work well?


I can show you a few bridges you wouldn't want to take your family across.

Are you saying that the Interstate Highway System is maintained at the proper level? That it was built and maintained cost effectively?

I like the I Highway system, but it doesn't work well.

Air Traffic Control is using antiquated equipment. How is that "working well"? There are near collisions just about every day.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I can show you a few bridges you wouldn't want to take your family across.
> 
> Are you saying that the Interstate Highway System is maintained at the proper level? That it was built and maintained cost effectively?
> 
> ...


Cup is always half full, huh?


----------



## silverbackMP (Dec 4, 2005)

As a liberitarian fiscal conservative, WIC is one of the few social programs that I don't have a problem with. It is set up the way foodstamps should be. They can only purchase generic and healthy food items. Most stores (at least they used to) will mark WIC approved on the shelves.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> People have listed programs they like, but no one has listed a government program that works well.


What do you think about the hydroelectric dams? They seem to work well, actually make the gov. a little money, provide recreaction, control flooding.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Riverdale said:


> Lyra, WIC provides for a limited amount of pre-approved items (milk, juice, peanut butter, and in some cases formula) for children up to the age of 5, not 18.
> 
> Most of the 'health care' you cite comes from your local health department.
> 
> IMO, WIC is far better than either cash welfare or foodstamps.



My point was that when WIC is done with then the other state systems kick in. One day on state assistance is too long.

By the way, you don't even need to be a US CITIZEN to qualify!


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

ladycat said:


> You obviously don't understand the WIC program at all.
> 
> Among your other fallacies, WIC only provides a limited amount of formula. The mother is expected to supply the rest.


Well, my co-worker buys it all under her WIC coverage. She also has a "food stamp" card that she uses for the rest of the groceries. A few workers actually brag about their welfare at work.

Also, check out CHIP.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

pancho said:


> What do you think about the hydroelectric dams? They seem to work well, actually make the gov. a little money, provide recreaction, control flooding.


I'm not arguing whether these programs have benefit or not. I am arguing that not a single government program "works well", which was the original post.

To me, works well requires (at a minimum) that the program be effective, efficient, and meets the objective it was created for. Everyone seems to be ignoring the effective and efficient aspects.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2010)

Lyra said:


> My point was that when WIC is done with then the other state systems kick in. One day on state assistance is too long.
> 
> By the way, you don't even need to be a US CITIZEN to qualify!


Ummm, no, that's not the way it works.

It's true that people on welfare can get WIC if they qualify, but WIC is not welfare, and many, many WIC recipients never get welfare at all. Not before, during, or after.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

ladycat said:


> Ummm, no, that's not the way it works.
> 
> It's true that people on welfare can get WIC if they qualify, but *WIC is not welfare,* and many, many WIC recipients never get welfare at all. Not before, during, or after.



Yeah, where does the money come from to support these government programs? Oh, I forgot...money grows on trees in the Liberal world.

ANY government assistance is welfare. Sorry, you may not like the non-PC term of "welfare" but that is what it is.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm not arguing whether these programs have benefit or not. I am arguing that not a single government program "works well", which was the original post.
> 
> To me, works well requires (at a minimum) that the program be effective, efficient, and meets the objective it was created for. Everyone seems to be ignoring the effective and efficient aspects.


I think the hydroelectric dams are effective, efficient, and meets the objective they were created for.
It is hard to argue with making electricity out of water that is going to be there anyway. The cost is very cheap.
It is very effective as it provides power to millions of people.
The original objective was power and flood control. They have surpassed their objective.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

pancho said:


> I think the hydroelectric dams are effective, efficient, and meets the objective they were created for.
> It is hard to argue with making electricity out of water that is going to be there anyway. The cost is very cheap.
> It is very effective as it provides power to millions of people.
> The original objective was power and flood control. They have surpassed their objective.


And destroyed wildlife and prevented water from being used for irrigation and required the confiscation of privately held land.

You can't prove that a hydroelectric dam is efficient because it produces low cost electricity. You have to look at the number of employees, salaries and benefits, efficiency of the equipment, efficiency of distribution, etc. 

I'm saying that if it is a government project, by definition it is not efficient. Could a private company provide the same service at a lower cost? If yes, the government run program is not as efficient as it could/should be.

Plus under the Constitution, what Article grants the government the right to own and operate a hydroelectric plant?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

pancho said:


> I think the hydroelectric dams are effective, efficient, and meets the objective they were created for.
> It is hard to argue with making electricity out of water that is going to be there anyway. The cost is very cheap.
> It is very effective as it provides power to millions of people.
> The original objective was power and flood control. They have surpassed their objective.


And TVA stole a zillion acres doing it :clap::clap:


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Shygal said:


> There are income limits for WIC



If there are they are WAY too high.

I once worked with a man whose wife had a baby. We were living on my income alone, quite comfortably I might add, and he made considerably more money than I did. His wife also worked, yet they qualified for, and accepted WIC for the new baby. I have a REAL problem with people taking "aid" just because they can, when there is no real NEED for it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2010)

Lyra said:


> Yeah, where does the money come from to support these government programs? Oh, I forgot...money grows on trees in the Liberal world.
> 
> ANY government assistance is welfare. Sorry, you may not like the non-PC term of "welfare" but that is what it is.


Are you calling em a liberal???? Them's fighting words! :duel:

By your definition, all government benefit programs are welfare.

Social Security retirement benefits 
Social Security disability benefits 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits 
Social Security childâs benefits 
Medicare 
Social Security spouseâs or divorced spouseâs benefits 
Social Security widow or widowerâs benefits 
Social Security parentâs benefits 
Veterans' disability compensation 
Veterans' Group Life Insurance 
Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance (S-DVI) 
Vocational Rehab Training 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
Specially adapted housing grant 
DOD tricare(formerly CHAMPUS) 
Unemployment Benefits
Pell Grants

Let's take it a little further:

FREE access to:

Highway system
Public parks
National monuments
Public schools
Public libraries
Emergency medical care for the uninsured.

And then you have things like:

Agricultural grants
Low cost housing loans (NOT subprime bank loans. I'm talking the government programs)
Disaster relief programs (no jokes about FEMA, please).

And hundreds more.

Not all considered welfare? Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

ladycat I can see it taking a while to explain all those like highway system . Got any idea what some pay in fuel taxes to use these roads :grin:

Then in the very end someone will pull out the old race card :thumb:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> And destroyed wildlife and prevented water from being used for irrigation and required the confiscation of privately held land.
> 
> You can't prove that a hydroelectric dam is efficient because it produces low cost electricity. You have to look at the number of employees, salaries and benefits, efficiency of the equipment, efficiency of distribution, etc.
> 
> ...


The majority of hydroelectric power plants have far fewer employees than non gov. owned power plants. Hydro plants have very little down time, power cost almost nothing to produce, and they do not polute. Not many other power plants can say the same.

Many hydro plants were built many years ago. Their equipment does not go out of date. Distribution costs are a one time cost and they hook into the grid so usually only have to provide a switching yard, which is located very near the power plant.

Power companies would rather not buy power from hydro plants because of the low cost of the electricity. They have to have them for back up and to provide power to their plants when they have a shut down. Power companies are regulated. They can only make a certain percentage of profit on the electricity they sell to consumers. Many times in the spring of the year hydro plants will supply dump power. This is free of cost to the power companies. They the power companies sell it to the consumers at the cost it takes them to produce the power plus the highest percent allowed for profit.

There is no power company now in the U.S. that can provide electricity at the same price the gov. hydro plants can. the gov. hydro plants are very efficient, more so than a power plant owned by any other company in the U.S.

I don't think there is anything in the constitution about power plants. Was there even electricity than? Was there an electrical grid.
Don't remember anywhere in the constitutuion it saws anything about space stations either. But I may be mistaken.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Shygal said:


> WIC
> Interstate highway system


You think WIC works Good,,,The interstates...LOL they are crumbling away....


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I'm saying that if it is a government project, by definition it is not efficient. Could a private company provide the same service at a lower cost? If yes, the government run program is not as efficient as it could/should be.


Plenty of private companies don't operate efficiently or effectively either. Seems every time you get PEOPLE involved, things go all to heck!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> And destroyed wildlife and prevented water from being used for irrigation and required the confiscation of privately held land.


No hydro plant is allowed to stop the natural flow of any river.
They also provide water for irrigation and for many city water needs from the lakes they built and maintain. Also saved countless lives and property damage by preventing flooding.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

pancho said:


> No hydro plant is allowed to stop the natural flow of any river.
> They also provide water for irrigation and for many city water needs from the lakes they built and maintain. Also saved countless lives and property damage by preventing flooding.


What about the Colorado River? I also believe the flow of Niagara Falls is greatly diminished by the power plant. I remember seeing before and after pictures.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2010)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Then in the very end someone will pull out the old race card :thumb:


No doubt.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

You have to pay fees now to access "public parks/land"..i.e. the FDR Park in Georgia, etc. sure it is a small fee, but a fee nonetheless and so therefore isn't "free" any longer.

I am speaking only of the National Park System (Federal) not the local "public parks" which are paid for through tax dollars locally.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> What about the Colorado River? I also believe the flow of Niagara Falls is greatly diminished by the power plant. I remember seeing before and after pictures.


Flow isn't ever stopped. Do you also remember seeing the floods before and after pictures? I have seen a few, been a couple.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

ladycat said:


> Are you calling em a liberal???? Them's fighting words! :duel:
> 
> By your definition, all government benefit programs are welfare.
> 
> ...



They are all welfare programs. Our money should be used by the federal government for our protection only - military, environmental conservation, and food & drug safety. That's it. The rest of the programs can be put to a stop.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

pancho said:


> I don't think there is anything in the constitution about power plants. Was there even electricity than? Was there an electrical grid.
> Don't remember anywhere in the constitutuion it saws anything about space stations either. But I may be mistaken.


You have it completely backwards.

The Constitution says if it is not mentioned, then it is the responsibility of the states.

You're thinking that if they did not mention the ten million possible ways to spend money, then it's okay for the federal government to do. Completely wrong!

I ask you, as the congressman in the video was asked, do you see any limits for the federal government, or can it do anything it wants?

And I assume you think it's spending can be unlimited. I don't know why they even keep a budget, since it does not need to balance. And they can have unlimited funds printed. Why not just give each of us an official money printer? Why not give everyone as much money as they want?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Lyra said:


> They are all welfare programs. Our money should be used by the federal government for our protection only - military, environmental conservation, and food & drug safety. That's it. The rest of the programs can be put to a stop.


That would be very hard to do now that they are all in place.
Just think how our taxes would drop. How many fewer politicians we would need. How it would feel to keep a better percentage of our pay. Imagine how many gov. jobs we could do without.

We would have to learn to take care of our own. That would probably be a good thing.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

DJ in WA said:


> You have it completely backwards.
> 
> The Constitution says if it is not mentioned, then it is the responsibility of the states.
> 
> ...


Don't know what you are talking about. I was talking about power plants.
You are talking about another subject, maybe you have me mixed up with someone else. If you want to discuss hydro power plants we can do that.
If you want to cry and whine about other things I have better things to do.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Regarding WIC. I wonder how well the people working in the WIC office know the recipients of aid. Have they visited their home? Are they helping them to get on their feet? Do they know if they really need help?

There was once a time when charities actually know the people they helped.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Considering how most people don't work too well themselves- Social Security ( no private company in the world could manage that much work at the low rate the government does,) most ports and interstate travel (your grocery store is well supplied,) Fema (despite problems, how many private companies would come and pull your rear end out of a flood at all,) most fire departments, most police departments, most public health departments ( when was the last epidemic in your community,) most building inspections departments ( unlike Haiti, most building will not fall down on their own,) FDIC, Dept of Forestry, etc etc.
> Yes stuff goes wrong but not as wrong as when private companies decide to make profits out of your hide without any control at all. Everyone who complains thinks that they will be the rich ones, when they will most likely would be the slaves of someone else without protection. Ask someone from the Great Depression who was the enemy and it would most likely be a bank.
> Some things have to be a group effort- some people are plenty willing to use services and not pay for them, so some regulations do "take" money from unwilling people who complain about everything- so cry me a river..................... and go buy yourself a derivative........


Just a note... FEMA doesn't rescue anyone... they coordinate private and public organizations who come pull your rear end out of the flood.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Lyra said:


> My point was that when WIC is done with then the other state systems kick in. One day on state assistance is too long.
> 
> By the way, you don't even need to be a US CITIZEN to qualify!


No, it doesnt kick in. If you are low income and sign up, you do. WIC isnt a gateway drug that leads to harder stuff like Food Stamps and Medicaid


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Lyra said:


> They are all welfare programs. Our money should be used by the federal government for our protection only - military, environmental conservation, and food & drug safety. That's it. The rest of the programs can be put to a stop.


My arent we bitter.

So you would be ok with stopping all these then, even though you use some of them most likely on a daily basis 

Social Security retirement benefits
Social Security disability benefits
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits
Social Security childâs benefits
Medicare
Social Security spouseâs or divorced spouseâs benefits
Social Security widow or widowerâs benefits
Social Security parentâs benefits
Veterans' disability compensation
Veterans' Group Life Insurance
Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance (S-DVI)
Vocational Rehab Training
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
Specially adapted housing grant
DOD tricare(formerly CHAMPUS)
Unemployment Benefits
Pell Grants
Highway system
Public parks
National monuments
Public schools
Public libraries
Emergency medical care for the uninsured.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Shygal said:


> My arent we bitter.
> 
> So you would be ok with stopping all these then, even though you use some of them most likely on a daily basis
> 
> ...



I don't agree with Socialism so I am labeled as "Bitter". You progressives are all alike - Throw the hate whenever people don't agree with communism.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I can show you a few bridges you wouldn't want to take your family across.
> 
> Are you saying that the Interstate Highway System is maintained at the proper level? That it was built and maintained cost effectively?
> 
> ...


LOL. sound's like you don't want agencies that work "well", you want agencies that work "perfect".

80,000 miles of highways, most in pretty good shape and 87,000 aircraft take off and land each day. If they have near collisions often ,they sure don't have very many collisions.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Lyra said:


> I don't agree with Socialism so I am labeled as "Bitter". You progressives are all alike - Throw the hate whenever people don't agree with communism.


Oh please, no one is "throwing hate". Your posts speak for themselves, that is why I refer to you as bitter.

As for being a progressive, sorry, but you are mistaken. You use the government programs on a daily basis but will rant about them and how they are communism.


I noticed you didnt answer my question either, you would rather pull the offended routine as a subterfuge for not having to answer it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

Lyra said:


> They are all welfare programs. Our money should be used by the federal government for our protection only - military, environmental conservation, and food & drug safety. That's it. The rest of the programs can be put to a stop.


I agree that at least 90% of Federal government programs should be stopped, and the Federal government should be constrained by it's constitutional limits.

Unfortunately they can't be stopped overnight. Society needs to be weaned away from Nanny Gubmint slowly.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Shygal said:


> Oh please, no one is "throwing hate". Your posts speak for themselves, that is why I refer to you as bitter.
> 
> As for being a progressive, sorry, but you are mistaken. You use the government programs on a daily basis but will rant about them and how they are communism.
> 
> ...



Here's my anti-socialist answer again, since you didn't like it the first time around and chose to ignore it:

"They are all welfare programs. Our money should be used by the federal government for our protection only - military, environmental conservation, and food & drug safety."


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

tyusclan said:


> If there are they are WAY too high.
> 
> I once worked with a man whose wife had a baby. We were living on my income alone, quite comfortably I might add, and he made considerably more money than I did. His wife also worked, yet they qualified for, and accepted WIC for the new baby. I have a REAL problem with people taking "aid" just because they can, when there is no real NEED for it.





To be honest there ARE in fact income limits for WIC and if your "REAL problem" is people taking aid if they dont have a real need for it, then YOUR problem is with those people NOT the entire WIC Program. We have 5 children and have NEVER received WIC or any type of Government Assistance. That being said we live in a very small, very economically depressed area and to be honest a LARGE number of the people I know who have used WIC, ARE IN FACT working (sometimes 2 or 3 jobs) and using WIC as a supplemental means of stretching their food dollars and providing their children with adequate nutrition. To add to THAT I would say more than half of those on WIC are NOT getting food stamps.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

Momto5 said:


> To be honest there ARE in fact income limits for WIC and if your "REAL problem" is people taking aid if they dont have a real need for it, then YOUR problem is with those people NOT the entire WIC Program. We have 5 children and have NEVER received WIC or any type of Government Assistance. That being said we live in a very small, very economically depressed area and to be honest *a LARGE number of the people I know who have used WIC, ARE IN FACT working (sometimes 2 or 3 jobs) and using WIC as a supplemental means of stretching their food dollars and providing their children with adequate nutrition.* To add to THAT I would say more than half of those on WIC are NOT getting food stamps.


The forgotten working poor....

So very many of them do not qualify for food stamps or Medicaid, or other welfare assistance, and yet after they pay their basic bills, auto expenses, and child care, they have very little left for food.

I do not in any way begrudge them when they get WIC. It's a hugely tremendous help to them and can make the difference between their children getting cheap starchy food devoid of nutrition, and a healthy meal.

Thank you for posting. :goodjob:


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

Lyra said:


> Here's my anti-socialist answer again, since you didn't like it the first time around and chose to ignore it:
> 
> "They are all welfare programs. Our money should be used by the federal government for our protection only - military, environmental conservation, and food & drug safety."





So elaborate????It should cover anything having to do with protecting YOU???LOL!? Really!? And you justify this response with what reasoning? Tread lightly now, as my entire family including my Father in law are all highly decorated vets. You know...the vets who were/ are protecting you and now they receive benefits for life changing wounds/disabilities that they received while protecting your a**?????The ones who are "reaping the tremendous benefits" of the government and its what was it you called them "welfare programs?"


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Lyra said:


> Here's my anti-socialist answer again, since you didn't like it the first time around and chose to ignore it:
> 
> "They are all welfare programs. Our money should be used by the federal government for our protection only - military, environmental conservation, and food & drug safety."


No, that was your answer to the person that posted the list. You didn't answer my question.

But you would get rid of libraries, schools, roads, medicare, etc.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Shygal said:


> No, that was your answer to the person that posted the list. You didn't answer my question.
> 
> But you would get rid of libraries, schools, roads, medicare, etc.


For the 3rd time...yes, it is all a waste of money, out of date, corrupt, and poorly run. Privatize it all.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Momto5 said:


> So elaborate????It should cover anything having to do with protecting YOU???LOL!? Really!? And you justify this response with what reasoning? Tread lightly now, as my entire family including my Father in law are all highly decorated vets. You know...the vets who were/ are protecting you and now they receive benefits for life changing wounds/disabilities that they received while protecting your a**?????The ones who are "reaping the tremendous benefits" of the government and its what was it you called them "welfare programs?"



Protecting me from what? Illegals, Mexican Drug Cartels, Radical Muslims, etc.? Illegals have more rights and get treated better than I do as an American citizen. There is a mosque popping up on every corner in the US, even at the heart of the NYC 9/11 site. Islamic cells are actively recruiting and raising funds in the US. Sharia Law (which doesn't recognize any other laws) is working its way in to Michigan. Face it, we have lost the "war".

I have no problem with paying for a military but it would have to be totally revamped.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I didn't know we had this many liberals on the board. Praise for all these government programs gives me chills.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The forgotten working poor....
> 
> So very many of them do not qualify for food stamps or Medicaid, or other welfare assistance, and yet after they pay their basic bills, auto expenses, and child care, they have very little left for food.


A better idea would be, "Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em." JMO. :shrug:


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Government is flawed because mankind is flawed. Perfect and efficient government is an illusion, especially on the sheer scale of this nation.



> I didn't know we had this many liberals on the board. Praise for all these government programs gives me chills.


It is this kind of insulting bullmanure that leaves the parties uncooperative. Once upon a time people talked, debated, and moved on, now people howl like it's the end of the world and throw disrespectful insults that if anything only serve to diminish clout.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Prismseed said:


> It is this kind of insulting bullmanure that leaves the parties uncooperative. Once upon a time people talked, debated, and moved on, now people howl like it's the end of the world and throw disrespectful insults that if anything only serve to diminish clout.


Please explain. Your post is insulting, yet you propose talking and debating.

Maybe you should try what you preach.

Plus I don't believe I insulted anyone. Some people that are conservative and/or Tea party proponents are talking about government programs that they think are good. I just pointed out the dichotomy of this.


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> A better idea would be, "Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em." JMO. :shrug:


I would think a post like this wouldnt even be written here. Unfortunately we live in a day and age that does not guarantee security. MANY families in this area have depended upon their farms and various other jobs that are no longer available. MANY of them had children prior to losing their incomes, its not about "dont breed em' if you cant feed em'" especially not when the children are already here..


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

Lyra said:


> Protecting me from what? Illegals, Mexican Drug Cartels, Radical Muslims, etc.? Illegals have more rights and get treated better than I do as an American citizen. There is a mosque popping up on every corner in the US, even at the heart of the NYC 9/11 site. Islamic cells are actively recruiting and raising funds in the US. Sharia Law (which doesn't recognize any other laws) is working its way in to Michigan. Face it, we have lost the "war".
> 
> I have no problem with paying for a military but it would have to be totally revamped.




Its not about "losing the war" its about your right to sit behind your computer and have the freedom to complain. Those soldiers are the ones who will fight to uphold those freedoms. I am far from liberal. I do however believe that when others are down they should get a hand up and if I am in a position to give that hand I am more than happy too.
I do not agree with all government programs, but things like WIC and The VA are beneficial. Soldiers who have served deserve to be cared for PERIOD...thanks to them we can sit here and bicker back and forth about frivolous things. As far as WIC goes, it can be abused, but it also helps provide nutritious food to growing children....like it or not, and honestly I feel as a fellow human if someone needs help it should be given to them!!!


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

Momto5 said:


> I Those soldiers are the ones who will fight to uphold those freedoms.


That is such a fantasy. The military isn't protecting our freedoms. That is a bunch of patriotic marketing garbage used to indoctrinate individuals. The truth is that every day our "freedoms" are being eroded away by Congress and the judicial system.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> A better idea would be, "Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em." JMO. :shrug:


Should be made into a bumper sticker.
Very good idea.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> A better idea would be, "Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em." JMO. :shrug:


Tell that to teens who got pregnant and became a single mom.

People who got married young with stars in their eyes about happily ever after, not understanding financial realities.

People who had a decent living and jobs became lost or downgraded.

Women who's deadbeat husband walked out, leaving her with the children and a small child support check. Or he doesn't pay his checks half the time. Or he doesn't pay them at all.

Or you can look at it from a different perspective: if the working poor don't procreate, they will become non-existent. Who then will perform the working poor jobs?

Oh, that's right. The illegal Mexicans will.


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

Lyra said:


> That is such a fantasy. The military isn't protecting our freedoms. That is a bunch of patriotic marketing garbage used to indoctrinate individuals. The truth is that every day our "freedoms" are being eroded away by Congress and the judicial system.


LOL!!!Good, well please go on down to your local recruitment office and sign up..those who are so incredibly ungrateful to our military should be the first ones on the front lines.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

OK- some have decided every government program is "poorly run" and "ineffective." What is the basis for that decision?
If a farmer was held up to the same judgement, he wouldn't be so effective and well run either- as would every small business man, employee, etc. The hay got rained on- off with his head. Five minutes late to work once -off with his head. Left the food to burn on the stove- off with her head. Forgot to pay a bill- off with his head. Brought in an aution animal that was sick- off with his head.
If this was a real discussion of effectiveness, there would be at least occasional remarks about how this could be improved that did not begin and end with "get rid of them all."
Most people who say to eliminate everything picture themselves as totally self-sufficient and invunerable. Of course, one car accident, illness or law suit can change that 
instantly. Hardly any who hold that opinion decide to kill themselves when their luck runs out.
The only real issue should be how far a government can take care of a person's individual problems and whether the benefit exceeds the harm. Some level of government is inevitable as demonstrated by the fact it exists everywhere in some form or another. 
So I do resent paying to support some teenager and their baby. The recipient should be told that their poor decisions are a drag on everyone else- otherwise, there will be string of such people. Welfare should be called what it is -charity. Their children should not grow up with the delusion that this is a way of life and if that makes the parent and child feel bad- good. Then they will be on notice of the way to get rid of this bad feeling. Living with a sense of entitlement not based on their own work is wrong. 
That does not mean I want to starve a child, not matter how obnoxious the parent is.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shygal said:


> My arent we bitter.
> 
> So you would be ok with stopping all these then, even though you use some of them most likely on a daily basis
> 
> ...


I was going to take them one at a time but that would take to long. Let's lump them into three groups. First programs which are things the government should do for the nation. This covers all the public items, parks, monuments and highway systems. On one individual directly benefits from these because they are open to public use. For the most part I have no problem with these types of programs. AAMOF, I think they fall under the "general welfare" term in the USC.

Second, programs which provide support, funds, goods or other help directly to the individual but the individual does or is supposed to directly contribute. This would cover all the SS stuff, unemployment and veteran's benifits. These are contracts between the government and the individual therefore the individual has a right to revive what the contract calls for. I have problems with some of these programs because the contracts are forced upon the individual. Can you say extortion or kick backs?

Third, programs which provide support, funds, goods or any other help directly to the individual where the individual has done nothing nor invested anything into the program(s). These I think are wrong on moral as well as constitutional ground. The government has no power under the USC to take money from one individual for the direct enrichment of another. WIC, medicare, food stamps and the like fall into this group.


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

watcher said:


> I was going to take them one at a time but that would take to long. Let's lump them into three groups. First programs which are things the government should do for the nation. This covers all the public items, parks, monuments and highway systems. On one individual directly benefits from these because they are open to public use. For the most part I have no problem with these types of programs. AAMOF, I think they fall under the "general welfare" term in the USC.
> 
> Second, programs which provide support, funds, goods or other help directly to the individual but the individual does or is supposed to directly contribute. This would cover all the SS stuff, unemployment and veteran's benifits. These are contracts between the government and the individual therefore the individual has a right to revive what the contract calls for. I have problems with some of these programs because the contracts are forced upon the individual. Can you say extortion or kick backs?
> 
> Third, programs which provide support, funds, goods or any other help directly to the individual where the individual has done nothing nor invested anything into the program(s). These I think are wrong on moral as well as constitutional ground. The government has no power under the USC to take money from one individual for the direct enrichment of another. WIC, medicare, food stamps and the like fall into this group.


Watcher, I cant say I totally diagree, but my husband works 60+ hours a week and pays taxes. He has worked every day since he was 16 years old as have many other folks. They HAVE in fact contributed to programs such as welfare, WIC, food stamps, etc...so using your own logic they would in turn have a right to file for those public assistance type programs IF needed. 
It would be nice if in order to qualify for these programs you had to do so many hours of community service or work study (if you are an individual who is physically and/or mentally le to do so) that way those who havent contributed to the system are still giving something back.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ladycat said:


> Tell that to teens who got pregnant and became a single mom.


How about you tell them actions have consequences therefore don't screw around until they are married and can support a family? Otherwise you are on your own, either find some way to take care of the kid or let someone who is mature enough to have kids adopt it.




ladycat said:


> People who got married young with stars in their eyes about happily ever after, not understanding financial realities.


How about you tell them actions have consequences therefore they need to make sure they have the ability to support children before they start having them?




ladycat said:


> People who had a decent living and jobs became lost or downgraded.


These you help but not support. The old teach a man to fish thing.




ladycat said:


> Women who's deadbeat husband walked out, leaving her with the children and a small child support check. Or he doesn't pay his checks half the time. Or he doesn't pay them at all.


How about you tell them actions have consequences therefore make sure the man you marry isn't a deadbeat and make sure you have been married long enough to be sure he's not a deadbeat before you have kids. 

I have NEVER meet a woman who had a man change from being a loving, hard working man into a deadbeat. I have meet a LOT of women who got deadbeats because they refused to see what kind of man they were getting involved with or thought "I can change him."

You change the law. If a parent, male or female, doesn't pay support for their kids you take their property and sell it, think IRS for child support.




ladycat said:


> Or you can look at it from a different perspective: if the working poor don't procreate, they will become non-existent. Who then will perform the working poor jobs?


As the supply of unskilled labor went down the price for their services would go up therefore we would no longer have working poor. But as long as there is a glut of undereducated, skill less workers out there there will never be any reason to pay them more to do the jobs they are qualified for.

To me all of these government programs are made to keep a permanent class of people who will always need government "help". That to me is just about as evil as you can get.




ladycat said:


> Oh, that's right. The illegal Mexicans will.


If the dems have their way.

BTW, you will note a central theme here: actions have consequences. For the most part poor people are poor due to their own actions. Yeah, there are exceptions but in my dealing with "poor" people those exceptions are few and FAR between.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Momto5 said:


> Watcher, I cant say I totally diagree, but my husband works 60+ hours a week and pays taxes. He has worked every day since he was 16 years old as have many other folks. They HAVE in fact contributed to programs such as welfare, WIC, food stamps, etc...so using your own logic they would in turn have a right to file for those public assistance type programs IF needed.
> It would be nice if in order to qualify for these programs you had to do so many hours of community service or work study (if you are an individual who is physically and/or mentally le to do so) that way those who havent contributed to the system are still giving something back.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. He has had his money stolen from him. What's the difference between the government coming up to him and telling him he can either hand over $100 so the government can give it to his next door neighbor or he can go to prison and his next door neighbor coming over and tell to either hand over $100 or the neighbor will shoot him? 

Show me where in the US Constitution the federal government has the power to take from one individual for the enrichment of another individual?

I'm not a wordsmith so I ask you to read this: 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Threads like this one remind me about how spoiled we Americans are getting. People in many other countries can't get clean water to drink, safe food to eat, work in safe conditions or enjoy many other benefits we get from our government(s). 
You know why it makes the news in the US when somebody gets sick from eating at a restaurant or food they bought at a store? Because it happens so infrequently. Things that are reported on in the US as a tragedy aren't even mentioned in other places.
Next time you want to talk about how the US government fails at EVERYTHING, take a look at a book called, The Good Old Days-They Were Terrible, by Otto L. Bettmann.
I guess it's been so long since Child Labor Laws were passed, and the EPA must be doing something right, since you don't hear nearly as much NEWS about smog in the cities and pollution in the water.
I'm not saying every program the government runs is a shining success, but they're not all total failures, either.
BTW, there is a reason the Post Office is still a semi-government organization. It's because no private company wants to take over the job as it is done now. Some companies have expressed some interest in taking over some(the more profitable) parts, but none of them wants the whole thing. 

"That is such a fantasy. The military isn't protecting our freedoms. That is a bunch of patriotic marketing garbage used to indoctrinate individuals. The truth is that every day our "freedoms" are being eroded away by Congress and the judicial system."

So you want the military to go and "deal with" the Congress and the judicial system? Last time I checked, the military wasn't created to keep the Congress and the judicial system in line, but that may have changed since I got out.:rock:


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Lyra said:


> That is such a fantasy. The military isn't protecting our freedoms. That is a bunch of patriotic marketing garbage used to indoctrinate individuals. The truth is that every day our "freedoms" are being eroded away by Congress and the judicial system.


:clap::clap::clap::clap: What is protecting our Freedoms, the Constitution, and the guns and ammo the CITIZENS have. Once the citizens become disarmed, it's Tienanmen Square, and the citizens won't be the ones with the tanks and guns.

Look at Waco, well armed religious practicing Americans that deserve respect, and they got it. That is the impediment of Tyranny.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. He has had his money stolen from him. What's the difference between the government coming up to him and telling him he can either hand over $100 so the government can give it to his next door neighbor or he can go to prison and his next door neighbor coming over and tell to either hand over $100 or the neighbor will shoot him?
> 
> Show me where in the US Constitution the federal government has the power to take from one individual for the enrichment of another individual?
> 
> ...


At least with the neighbor there is a chance you might get to keep your money. With the gov. there is no chance at all. One other thing, at least the neighbor will come get it. The gov expects you to send it to them.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

> Please explain. Your post is insulting, yet you propose talking and debating.


Well it's because your post didn't really give much to talk of or debate. It was slander and disgust with no counter points. That's my beef.

It's politics, there is going to be disagreements and differences, but statements like the one previously made are pointless unless you want to affirm a group mentality distrust and dislike.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

FourDeuce said:


> Threads like this one remind me about how spoiled we Americans are getting. People in many other countries can't get clean water to drink, safe food to eat, work in safe conditions or enjoy many other benefits we get from our government(s).
> You know why it makes the news in the US when somebody gets sick from eating at a restaurant or food they bought at a store? Because it happens so infrequently. Things that are reported on in the US as a tragedy aren't even mentioned in other places.
> Next time you want to talk about how the US government fails at EVERYTHING, take a look at a book called, The Good Old Days-They Were Terrible, by Otto L. Bettmann.
> I guess it's been so long since Child Labor Laws were passed, and the EPA must be doing something right, since you don't hear nearly as much NEWS about smog in the cities and pollution in the water.
> ...


Posts like this make me realize the best government program is the education system that has indoctrinated the populace to worship the government. I could go down each of your points, but don't have time. Example - work conditions were improving before OSHA came about - it's called technology.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/13/more-job-killing-regulation/

You are saying no private companies want to deliver the mail because it is unprofitable. So if people don't want to pay enough to make it profitable, maybe it shouldn't be done and they don't want it bad enough. You can't subsidize everything so that people will buy it. That's the whole idea of a free market, is allowing people to vote with their wallet. Govt helped make housing too easy to buy, and look what happened.

Personally, I could do quite well without all the junk coming in my mailbox. Apparently that is federally subsidized advertising.

It will be interesting what happens when the math of unlimited spending and money printing takes hold. Now every problem is to be solved throught government and unlimited spending.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

watcher said:


> BTW, you will note a central theme here: actions have consequences. For the most part poor people are poor due to their own actions. Yeah, there are exceptions but in my dealing with "poor" people those exceptions are few and FAR between.


No No No No No No No... Are you Insane??? Actions have consequences??? You're talking crazy talk... :grin: [where is that facetiousness smiley when you need it?]
IF ONLY those three words were still ingrained in young people today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My favorite govt. agency, that does mostly what it's supposed to, is the National Park Service. Sometimes, politics gets ugly, and they have to bend the hard and fast rules, in order to survive... but it's not their fault, but others. I've seen local Pols demanding special services, that the general public could never get. Pols on budget committees can get anything they want.


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

I guess I live in a very different area then most of you do. Yes there are poor people here, who are poor due to their own actions. However, the majority of the people in our area who are poor are good people, usually farmers. They work their farms and then pick up seasonal jobs in the vineyards and wineries to supplement their incomes. They can food, they conserve gas and utilities, they dont drive expensive trucks or buy fancy tractors, most live in nice, clean farm houses that are neither extravagant or outlandish and yet they still find themselves in need of help once in awhile. Sorry if you dont like it , but thats the facts!!!!
Are there people here who dont deserve a hand up? Definitely, but in our area THEY are the minority, NOT the majority.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Momto5 said:


> they dont drive expensive trucks or buy fancy tractors, most live in nice, clean farm houses that are neither extravagant or outlandish and yet they still find themselves in need of help once in awhile.


Everyone I know, including myself, have found themselves in need of a little help at one time or another. That happens. That's also what families and churches are for. It's *not* the government's job.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

DJ in WA said:


> Posts like this make me realize the best government program is the education system that has indoctrinated the populace to worship the government.
> 
> 
> *Looks like you are trying to imply that I worship the government(without coming out and saying it). If you are, you are wrong. Maybe the education system should work on more reading comprehension skills.*
> ...


*I wouldn't say that and now that you mention it, I've NEVER heard anybody suggest that, even the people who seem to agree with it.* :umno:


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

tyusclan said:


> Everyone I know, including myself, have found themselves in need of a little help at one time or another. That happens. *That's also what families and churches are for. It's not the government's job*.


Amen!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Momto5 said:


> I guess I live in a very different area then most of you do. Yes there are poor people here, who are poor due to their own actions. However, the majority of the people in our area who are poor are good people, usually farmers. They work their farms and then pick up seasonal jobs in the vineyards and wineries to supplement their incomes. They can food, they conserve gas and utilities, they dont drive expensive trucks or buy fancy tractors, most live in nice, clean farm houses that are neither extravagant or outlandish and yet they still find themselves in need of help once in awhile. Sorry if you dont like it , but thats the facts!!!!
> Are there people here who dont deserve a hand up? Definitely, but in our area THEY are the minority, NOT the majority.


That is the way I was raised.
Do you think the people might not need a helping hand if the gov. didn't take such a large persentage of their money?


----------



## Momto5 (Mar 10, 2010)

pancho said:


> That is the way I was raised.
> Do you think the people might not need a helping hand if the gov. didn't take such a large persentage of their money?


While I may agree with you (and trst me I do) the reality is THAT aspect of government is NOT going to change. Its been that way for eternity and will continue to be that way.
As far as being helped by church and family
A) Despite what you may think NOT everyone attends church. I am NOT getting into a discussion about how everyone should, because those are personal decisions.
B) Not everyone has family to help and if they do the families are often not in a position TO help.
Everyone has an answer or opinion about what SHOULD or SHOULDNT be done, but until those changes are made it is our job to take care of each other. Sorry I was raised to respect my fellow man and if they need a hand up you give them one and do it with a smile on your face and be grateful that you are in a position to help and not the one needing the help.
So any further discussion is pretty much pointless. I have my opinion you have yours. I am grateful that I have the freedom and ability to express it and I respect all of your opinions, even if we disagree.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Back to programs that work well. Cooperative Extension Service, anyone?


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Back to programs that work well. Cooperative Extension Service, anyone?


That's a good program.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Back to programs that work well. Cooperative Extension Service, anyone?


Ours just got shut down, Sept. 2 is the last day they will be open, no funding.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

How many people worry about the food they order in a restaurant or buy in a supermarket or the water they get from their tap? People complain about the highways, but dirt roads used to be a LOT more fun.:sing:
For a system that people want to imply is a failure, we Americans sure avoid a lot of the worries that people in other countries don't get to avoid. Most Americans can hardly even imagine something like the government changing hands overnight(although some wish it would now :banana02: ), but it has happened in other countries. I'm not saying it can't happen here, but how many people here even think about stuff like that. :indif:
I'd say *something* must be working if people don't even think about things which used to be major problems in the US and which are still problems in other countries.


----------

