snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Inboxer Rebellion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 17 June 2012, 12:02 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,351
Default "Put me in charge" welfare rant

My relatives have been posting this one on facebook, supposedly written by a 21 year old woman in Texas. I expressed my opinion about it and my cousin deleted my posts!

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

--------------------
ETA: Reading around the internet, it was apparently written by a man named Alfred W. Evans as a letter to the editor of the Waco Tribune. You have to be a subscriber to see the original, though.

Last edited by wanderwoman; 17 June 2012 at 12:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17 June 2012, 12:31 AM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,577
Default

What if you are paid bi-monthly?

The funny thing is I can sort of understand the logic (which is not the same as agreeing with it) for everything up until voting, I don't really see how those link up. The argument of "If you are using our money you'll meet our terms" is something I 'get' in terms of the internal logic of it.. But I fail to see where it crosses into voting issues.. I mean everybody benefits from some kind of government program (whether it be a good local fire department or nice roads) so to say "You have an incentive to vote a certain way!" is sort of moot.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17 June 2012, 12:34 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,294
Default

Quote:
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Healthy women under age 65 who aren't pregnant probably aren't even eligible for Medicaid.

Quote:
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest.
Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for anyone to vote? If they're banned from voting because they might vote for someone who will keep their benefits going, why shouldn't I be banned from voting because I might vote for someone who will raise the threshold for receiving benefits?

Last edited by lord_feldon; 17 June 2012 at 12:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17 June 2012, 12:41 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
Healthy women under age 65 who aren't pregnant probably aren't eligible for Medicaid.
Well, and there are already home inspections for people in government housing, and yes, they can get kicked out if they don't maintain them properly or if they violate the rules. Also, here we are wanting to mandate birth control while Planned Parenthood is being attacked on a regular basis instead of being allowed to promote the use of birth control. And drug testing welfare recipients has been found to be more expensive than not drug testing them, as they have been found not to use drugs any more frequently than the general population. And, I think "workfare" has been found to be an expensive fiasco when it's been tried.

But we won't let things like facts get in the way of our rant!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17 June 2012, 12:48 AM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Gloucester, ON
Posts: 6,918
Baseball

I found that rant bizarre. No doubt in the mind of the originator, this is a way to stop wasting tax payer's money. But, in doing so, he creates a collective and initiates a communist system.

The originator is a closet socialist!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17 June 2012, 03:27 AM
Saint James Saint James is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2007
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 1,259
China

Not draconian enough, say's I.
Put me in charge. As a proper tyrant, I say we fully dehumanize the poor* Here are my better proposals:

1. Bread and water only. And when I say bread, I mean cake - in the Marie Antoinette sense. And regular rain or swamp water - not the good stuff that we waste funds on treating and purifying for the so-called 'public good' (which is really just another term of socialism)

2. Mandatory sterilization of all undesirables. Don't let the sub-human vermin breed.

3 and 4. Gulags! Put all the undesirables in work camps and make them earn their meager keep. Any non-authorized items, including any sort of toys for children, shall be strictly forbidden. Children need to learn to suffer and obey they all powerful state.

And before you start complaining about human dignity, let me remind you that the founding father's permitted slavery. And surely, these people always have the options to keep their dignity and die (and watch their children die) from starvation and lack of basic medical care. They should either surrender their humanity and civil rights, find a way to struggle their way out of poverty, or just die already since everyone knows that life is perfectly fair and bad things never happen to good people (unless it is people we know and care about - in which case we'll make a limited exception).

*Dehumanize is really what it comes down to. That and the delightful concept of cognitive dissonance. It can be hard to come to terms that some people are suffering despite doing their hardest to get by; that life is, in fact, not fair. Worse than that, such problems seem almost insurmountable even from the outside, and it is easy to feel helpless when facing the sheer scale of poverty and suffering, the programs which we have are a mere band-aid to patch up the worst of the problems.

Further, it is frightening to look and think that there but for Providence go I. Not an easy thing to contemplate. It is far easier on the ego to pretend that the people who are suffering are so because of their own fault, and not really deserving of compassion. That position has the added bonus that one's success can be attributed solely to one's hard work and talent, with no good fortune involved.

In a way, you almost have to pity such people (though I admit I consider pity the cruelest of emotions) as they lack the mental strength and moral fiber to come to terms with the fact that life is messy, complex, and inherently unfair.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17 June 2012, 03:40 AM
KingDavid8 KingDavid8 is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check.
Voluntarily? If you're forced to do it, then there's nothing "voluntary" about it.

Quote:
If you want to vote, then get a job.
How about a compromise? You can vote, but it only counts for 3/5 of a vote.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17 June 2012, 03:52 AM
Skeptic's Avatar
Skeptic Skeptic is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2005
Location: Logan, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
Voluntarily? If you're forced to do it, then there's nothing "voluntary" about it.



How about a compromise? You can vote, but it only counts for 3/5 of a vote.
Ironically, the idea of only allowing the privileged to vote existed in some western democracies until fairly recently, certainly within my lifetime.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17 June 2012, 04:25 AM
Ana Ng's Avatar
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations.
Well, let's start here. Free IUDs for every American woman who wants one and is under 45. What, is there some sort of problem with that?

Quote:
Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
That should save so much money!

Quote:
We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Oh, wow, I wonder what they're talking about with that. Can you make it plainer?

WW, did you see Bill Maher's hologram Obama this week? This kind of reminded me of it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17 June 2012, 04:59 AM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ana Ng View Post
Well, let's start here. Free IUDs for every American woman who wants one and is under 45. What, is there some sort of problem with that?
The problem is that the author isn't talking about "free birth control for any woman who wants it" but "forced birth control for poor people." It is somewhat ironic that in the same year that the Republicans have launched their war on Planned Parenthood you're also got wingnuts arguing for mandatory sterilization of poor people.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17 June 2012, 08:05 AM
Ana Ng's Avatar
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz1980 View Post
The problem is that the author isn't talking about "free birth control for any woman who wants it" but "forced birth control for poor people." It is somewhat ironic that in the same year that the Republicans have launched their war on Planned Parenthood you're also got wingnuts arguing for mandatory sterilization of poor people.
I realize that. I was pointing out that many of the people banging the personal responsibility drum feel that birth control is an irresponsible, immoral or recreational issue. The vast majority of people, I imagine, who would repost this sort of thing would be against free BC for poor people in any way, shape or form, though packaging it as a force thing might boost approval ratings in this demographic.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17 June 2012, 12:18 PM
smittykins's Avatar
smittykins smittykins is offline
 
Join Date: 27 December 2003
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 1,712
Default

Quote:
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
If you want hamburger, eggs, or fruits and vegetables, get a job.

Quote:
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations.
Note how he never says, "I'll give the men a supply of condoms."

Quote:
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you.
Question: So while the irresponsible single mothers(after all, they're the only ones on welfare, right?)are all out doing their goverment jobs, what happens to their kids?
*lightbulb*
I got it! We'll recruit godly stay-at-home mothers to watch them! They'll have plenty of other kids to play with and lots of chores to teach them the value of hard work! No socialistic day-care centers here!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17 June 2012, 12:35 PM
Nonny Mouse's Avatar
Nonny Mouse Nonny Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 30 April 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 14,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smittykins View Post
Question: So while the irresponsible single mothers(after all, they're the only ones on welfare, right?)are all out doing their goverment jobs, what happens to their kids?
I'm sure a solution to this problem will be Swiftly developed.

Nonny
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17 June 2012, 02:43 PM
Jahungo's Avatar
Jahungo Jahungo is offline
 
Join Date: 23 May 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 5,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smittykins View Post
Note how he never says, "I'll give the men a supply of condoms."
Or a vasectomy, which would be closer.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17 June 2012, 02:46 PM
Jahungo's Avatar
Jahungo Jahungo is offline
 
Join Date: 23 May 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 5,281
Default

The OP seems to think anyone who is poor is an unemployed bum, but at least around here I'd bet a large percentage (probably even a majority) of families on food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing have a working member. And of course in the worst recession in almost a century, everyone who wants a job can just go out and get one.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17 June 2012, 02:49 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 67,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonny Mouse View Post
I'm sure a solution to this problem will be Swiftly developed.

Nonny
[letters]
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17 June 2012, 02:53 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ana Ng View Post
I realize that. I was pointing out that many of the people banging the personal responsibility drum feel that birth control is an irresponsible, immoral or recreational issue. The vast majority of people, I imagine, who would repost this sort of thing would be against free BC for poor people in any way, shape or form, though packaging it as a force thing might boost approval ratings in this demographic.
Woah.. We could get free birth control for all women (or at least poor ones) if we start framing the debate in this way. We can even pull it off without it being mandatory, we can just use the same kind of tactics used when they go up against abortion, we say "Now we aren't saying that we should sterilize the poor.. How about we just (wink wink) give them free birth control (nudge nudge), I mean what's wrong with that right?"

The right will have to decide which they hate more, abortion or the threat of single mothers, 'welfare queens' who have babies to collect the money and anchor babies combined!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 17 June 2012, 02:59 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahungo View Post
And of course in the worst recession in almost a century, everyone who wants a job can just go out and get one.
That one always kills me with those "get a job" rants. I'm a bartender for a casual dining restaurant & we have several people (myself included) who hold college degrees and are serving tables. I don't know if I've worked a shift since the economy tanked where I didn't have at least one person come in looking for an application. We had a fry cook who held a culinary degree. Even the lowest rung McJobs can be very selective about who they hire, so somebody who grew up without the educational advantages that I had is often S.O.L.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 17 June 2012, 03:10 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,577
Default

Yea.. I mean I can get the logic (perhaps not agree, but get) when the economy is doing well and somebody could argue that if you cannot get a job it's either cause you are lazy or made poor life decisions.. But now? Where "The economy is broken!" has been the battle cry of conservatives for the past four years?

You cannot both say "Our economy is dying! Obama is bad" and also say "Poor people should just get better jobs! They are lazy!".
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 17 June 2012, 03:59 PM
KingDavid8 KingDavid8 is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
The right will have to decide which they hate more, abortion or the threat of single mothers, 'welfare queens' who have babies to collect the money and anchor babies combined!
True. Every time a woman on welfare gets knocked up, she's either going to have one more mouth to feed (for the taxpayer to feed, that is), or will get an abortion. It seems to me like the right should be jumping at the chance to get the "welfare queen" proper birth control. Even if it's out of the taxpayer's pocket, it either prevents an abortion, or saves the taxpayer thousands of dollars in the long run.

It does seem to me that the right (at least the more moderate ones) don't like the idea of the government forcing sterilization or birth control on anyone, but it seems like providing it for those who request it, even at taxpayer expense, is something they would want to get behind.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GM changed "employee" to "employe" snopes Business 41 21 July 2009 10:55 PM
SC Republican Fiercely Opposes "North American Union" and the "Amero" Bohemian Rhapsody in Blue Sightings 13 31 May 2008 11:46 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.