SIMPLE MINDED FOOLS > Logan Utah, Cache Valley, Bridgerland, Local Community Forums, News and Information > Bridgerland, Logan Utah, Cache Valley Utah

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search Members

Forums > Local Personal Posts > IN DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION

Subject: SIMPLE MINDED FOOLS

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

singlemom26
Posts:4

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 8:22 AM
THIS BLOG IS FOR JOHN MUHOLLAND AND EVERY OTHER SIMPLE MINDED FOOL IN THE VALLEY. It was recently written in a letter to the editor of the herald journal a persons reasons for not wanting free lunches for our children in need. I agree that our government help programs need better regulations governing the processes involved in who is qualified and who is not. The reason we have a system like that in place is to help those who for a time cannot (not will not) help themselves. You simple minded fools think nothing of the single mom and her 3 small children struggling to survive after being abandoned by an abusive and non caring husband/father. You've obviously never seen it first hand the mom who has to work 3 jobs and still can't pay a $450 a month rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in which all her children share the two rooms while she sleeps on the couch. She knows that in order for her and her children to survive she must return to school and get the degree she had started on before she was swept off her feet by her prince charming. Never knowing that he would drop her down a well of despair. Let me break it down for you the cost of survival. $450 Rent $300 Groceries enough to feed 4 people the basics for a month $150 Heat $100 Electric $200 Medical visits, replacement shoes or clothes any other emergency that comes up $105 Normal School lunch price for 3 kids for a month $1305.xx TOTAL Now she makes about $1400.xx a month working 80 hours a week between 3 minimum wage jobs. So she is surviving barely. But you can't work that many hours and still go to school without it taking it ten years to complete and she has no time to spend with her children who most often need to fend for themselves by heating frozen dinners because mom is never home to cook and watching themselves because there is no money for daycare. NO ONE DESERVES TO LIVE THIS WAY ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN WHO DIDN'T ASK TO BE HERE BUT ARE. WITH THE HELP OF STATE AND CHURCH FUNDED PROGRAMS THIS MOM WAS ABLE TO QUIT ALL 3 JOBS FOR A TIME WHILE SHE TOOK THE MAX AMOUNT OF CREDITS AND EVEN DURING THE SUMMER ATTENDED COLLEGE COURSES IN ORDER TO FINISH IN THE SHORTEST AMOUNT OF TIME. AFTER GRADUATING SHE RECIEVED THE VERY KIND OF JOB SHE NEEDED TO SUPPORT HERSELF AND HER CHILDREN WORKING FOR ONE OF THE AGENCIES THAT HAD HELPED HER GET THROUGH IT. THIS MOM MADE IT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WAS THERE TO HELP. AND YOU SIMPLE MINDED FOOLS WERE NOT!

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 8:54 AM
I do not envy your situation and do actually have understanding towards it. You must realize that I have experienced similar situations. I have lived in a small 2 bedroom apartment with my wife and 3 children and currently live in a 3 bedroom with 4 kids as I have been in school for many years. I am glad that you were able to find help through church programs. I fully support them. I am glad that you were able to find better work through education. I fully support that also. I also commend you for trying hard to live within your means and not getting into a mountain of debt. You would probably be quite surprised at the poverty I have seen and the financial insecurity I have personally faced. I have spent two years in the Philippines living amongst the poor. I could tell you stories that would make you sick. While I am not a single parent I am familiar with several similar situations. It is a very difficult problem as these mothers yearn to both provide and spend adequate time with their children. They try to have strong influences on their children but it is a huge struggle to raise them alone. But despite this I still do not believe that the government has the right to take taxpayer money and give it to somebody else. I believe that all efforts to help the poor should be voluntary and done by private organizations. I believe that this system is far more just and in the long run helps the poor far more along with helping those that give. There are many willing to help and people who want to help more. But unfortunately many pay over 50% of their income in taxes. They are less able to help in the way that they feel will make the most difference. And if you notice I am attacking an expanding government program. Where will it end?

singlemom26
Posts:4

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 9:03 AM
This is not my story but the one of my mother. And without the government there are not enough organizations dedicated to the charity of helping single mom's stand on their own two feet which is why the government is then called to step in. There aren't enough people that are charitable enough to provide for the hundreds of thousands of people who find themselves in these situations year after year.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 9:17 AM
Do you think people would be more charitable if they had more money? Do you think people would be more charitable if they saw needs? Do you think that they are less charitable because they expect the government to take care of it? I do not have enough details as to what was available, where she lived, and other circumstances to be able to agree that there were not enough people who would help her. Was she in Utah? Was she LDS? Were scholarships available? What avenues did she look for help?

singlemom26
Posts:4

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/06/2007 10:25 AM
It was right here in cache valley and yes she is LDS but the church only has so much money and no I don't think people would be more charitable if they had more money it wouldn't be given to those in need it would be spent on possesions and other thinks to heighten what they view as their status in society

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/07/2007 9:27 AM
My main argument is that government has no authority to take my money and give it to somebody else. I also say that welfare destroys people. It is hard to see those effects. But this argument seems to be heading towards is other help available. I guess we have a different view on people. I think that people are very generous but often do not know how to help so they find themselves unable to. Could your mom have done it without state funds? I think so. The hard thing about charitable needs is that every case is different. The needs are different and the resources available are also different. This is why I love the way the LDS church handles these situations. They look at the needs and resources of the family and make appropriate decisions based on that. But some people want an easy way out. I have recently been working with a lady who is 'trying' to get out of debt. My wife and I helped her move out here to get a better job than she had but she refused to follow our advice and got into a job she didn't like. She refused to follow a budget and work very hard at where she is. She is going back to a handout from her parents because it is easier than real work and discipline. What a pitiful life! While the handout is there most people will not work as hard. The funny part of the whole thing is that I might have agreed with you a couple of years ago. I used to have quite a different view on things and my politically thinking has drastically changed in the last 3 years due to the help of some great friends and being able to learn correct principles that both the founding fathers and LDS church have taught regarding government. For some reason I wasn't taught much about what liberty and freedom of in public schools. I was taught what the UN was but never taught to question the UN. I was taught about some of the laws and processes of our government but never given a comparison to the way it was originally setup and why and how it has changed. Without these correct fundamental principles of what government is and why we have it and critical thinking skills, which most people lack, you can easily be led along with the current political thinking of the day. That is another discussion altogether as to why. I am some excellent material you can read to better understand these principles from much more talented writers than myself if you are interested. I may do some book reviews here of some good things I have read.

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/07/2007 10:33 AM
MJ, I still haven't heard any developed arguments about why the government "doesn't have the authority to take your money and give it to somebody else". I have heard snippets here and there, but not much development. I've read many of the sources you've cited, and the arguments there are just as bare. As I see it, the social contract that governs citizens is between the citizens themselves initially, and then adds a third party - the government (which only exists insofar as the citizens recognize it). Under traditional contract law, two parties can contract to do a lot of things. For instance, a group of people can get together and enter into a contract forming a corporation. The people give their money to the corporation and the corporation uses that money to further the interests of its contributers. The founders of the corporation can agree to be ruled by majority vote (which all are), subject to certain limitations laid out in the corporate charter. If the majority of the corporation's stockholders vote to spend the corporation's assets on a certain program, they can - as long as it does not violate the corporate charter. The US Constitution, along with state constitutions, act as the corporate charter in my example. The US Constitution has been amended to allow the govenrment to tax individuals and then redistribute that money in certain ways. In the example of the school lunch program, the Utah State Constitution allows school boards to fund this kind of program using tax dollars. As such, it appears to me that the government DOES have the authority to take your money (through income taxation - but since this is a school program, it's more likely to be property taxation) and give it to soemone else (through school lunches). If your quarrel is with the redistributive nature of the program, I have addressed this point before - ALL government programs are redistributive in nature. The idea is that we all contribute to the government so that it can protect the common good. In the case of school lunches, these students are now being fed which is helping to build up their immune systems and their learning capacity (hungry students don't learn). This decreases their need for medical care (which lowers insurance rates for everyone) and increases their chance of becoming productive members of society (the uneducated tend to be more of a burden than their educated counterparts). Therefore, the government isn't arbitrarily taking money from one person and giving it willy nilly to another. It is using its legitimate taxing power to provide a benefit to society at large.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/07/2007 10:44 AM
I would agree if we were a democracy. I also believe that this program is federally funded and the power to fund this is not explicitly listed in the Constitution so the 10th amendment bans it. Please refer me to the portion of the State Constitution which allows for this funding. Do you include fire, police, military, and regulating commerce as government programs. These are not redistributive in nature and pay people for their services. Welfare on the other hand only pays for people's votes. They may not take money from one person willy nilly but they take it from certain groups, particularly the middle class. Look at how complicated our tax code is. Do you not seeing it target particular groups for higher taxes or rather particular groups to pay lower taxes? As far as lowering insurance costs I disagree. The forcing of doctors to treat those who don't pay has only increased medical costs and insurance rates for everybody else.

PoohRadley
Posts:3

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/15/2007 12:13 AM
I would like to add my two cents, though they may be childish or uneducated. I feel that a main problem here is that those who do pay for the lunches feel it unfair. They are paying for their son or daughter and someone elses. Then there are those that don't even have children in the school systems who are paying. I don't see a problem with helping a mother in need. But, as with all welfare programs there are those who are milking the system. They know they can get a free ride so they take advantage of it. My brother is working with a guy who refuses to work too much. He doesn't want to earn too much money. He is living in a government subsidised house and recieves welfare. He is a student at USU and is quoted saying " I am a poor student, that is what the money is there for. I shouldn't have to get a job, I am going to school!" This mentality is what ruins the whole idea of welfare for me. The manner in which the LDS church does it is a good way, it protects against such leeches. I see a resolution to the problem at at, it may be an expesive one, but it would be fair. That is to have all school lunches be free! If we were paying for all the children to eat, then that removes the problem. You could look at it as a cheritable contribution to the state and the future tax! My two cents, hope they were worth something!

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/15/2007 5:39 AM
First of all welcome Pooh. I hope you are watching out for my kids if they get attacked . The problem is the whole agency and proper role of government. Many feel that it isn't the proper role of government to be a social safety net. As Bastiat says, government is to protect our property but then gets involved in the very activity it is supposed to protect, plunder. I suggest you download and listen to his book. http://www.fee.org/!UserFiles/events/TheLaw.mp3 Many also feel that forcing people to support these programs takes away their agency to do it themselves. Does government see me as a agent unto myself or as part of an industrial army which only it has the wisdom to manipulate?

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/15/2007 9:02 PM
The link given above is to an audio copy of the book (I presume--I haven't listened to it). People who prefer to read (or who had their MP3 players stolen last week) may wish to check out the PDF version of the book at http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf or the HTML version at http://www.fee.org/library/books/thelaw.asp. Beware, the first 20 pages are introductions.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/16/2007 9:01 PM
Yes, the audio is abridged, about 75 minutes. Go ahead and read the PDF.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Local Personal Posts > IN DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION > SIMPLE MINDED FOOLS

ActiveForums 3.7