TexasCHLforum.com

This found my Facebook wall:

Sorry if it's a repost...


Written by 21 yr old female in Texas

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011

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.

I'm on board with the above. Won't happen in my lifetime, but, I'm on board.

...I don't know how Facebook works, so I'm glad you posted it here...

Shamelessy cross-posted, thanks.

With cool things like these, I always try to find the original. In this case it is very difficult. There are multiple attributions, and multiple dates listed for when it was supposedly published in the Waco Herald Tribune.

But alas, I think I've found the most accurate posting (with explanation from the original author in the first comment):

http://www.blackshards.com/?p=2415" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 to 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 get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test all recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke, or get tats and piercings, 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 to do. 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 is 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.

Thanks for posting my letter. I wrote it as a letter to the editor at the Waco (Texas) Trib. My cousin (a Democrat) works on Ft Hood and a co-worker handed him his I-Phone and asked him to read a letter his brother in Mich had sent him. Half way through it he said “My cousin could have written this” and as he scrolled down he saw my name. It’s a small digital world.

I googled “Put me in charge” and found it on many sites. Thanks again for getting what I consider common sense out to the people.

Alfred W Evans
1SG, USA(Ret)
Gatesville, Texas

Notice it is not from a 21 year old female on facebook, and it does not include the part about voting.

While I like the idea of cleaning up our welfare system, I can't get behind some of these ideas because they are also unconstitutional. Unwarranted searchs and seizures, forced sterilizations (although reversable), ect. While I understand that people would be accepting welfare voluntarily and willing accepting these conditions we have to remember that once the government gets a little bit of a power it wants more and more and more, and more and more ... As it sits I say severly limit how long someone gets welfare and then thats it. Eventually if your violating civil liberties as a requirement to get onto a government program you will eventually force people on to it, the WIC program is one of my favorite issues.

The WIC program is a great example of how a welfare/socialist program can have a negative impact on society. As it currently works WIC items other than produce have a price limit that a retailer doesn't want to exceed. While the program allows retailers to charge a reduced price to WIC customers and another "regular" price to non-WIC customers its typically a poor practice to do so and can cause other issues. In addition to that each year just before the time when the WIC program sends out its questionaires the manufacturers of many WIC items like baby formula will raise their price to the absolute highest price forcing the warehouse/distributor to raise their price, which will then force the retailers to raise theirs so that the questionare gets filled out at the highest possible price. The government gets a kickback from many manufacturers (like on the baby formula) as part of the bidding process so its actually paying less per item than the general public. This eventually forces people who would never use the WIC program to do so in order to afford to be able take care of their child.

I say limit the time one can use a program, then eventually eliminate the program and call it good.

G.A. Heath wrote:While I like the idea of cleaning up our welfare system, I can't get behind some of these ideas because they are also unconstitutional. Unwarranted searchs and seizures, forced sterilizations (although reversable), ect.

A case of the "solution" being worse than the problem.

C'mon folks you are being "unfair."

I think there were some leaders in 1930s and 1940s Germany who were also big supporters of forced sterilization and requiring people to live in barracks with random inspections. Incredible that people in America could advocate those same things. And from someone who, while serving, was sworn to uphold the Constitution. Wow.

RiverCity.45 wrote:I think there were some leaders in 1930s and 1940s Germany who were also big supporters of forced sterilization and requiring people to live in barracks with random inspections. Incredible that people in America could advocate those same things. And from someone who, while serving, was sworn to uphold the Constitution. Wow.

Nice trolling but the Germans didn't give them the option of getting a job. Or even leaving the country.

I could say making me pay taxes to support people who don't work is economic slavery and call you a self-declared Domestic Enemy of the United States Constitutuion. That would be at least as fair as your analogy, but it might be considered a personal attack, so I won't do it.

Benjamin Franklin wrote: “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

[and]

“Sloth makes all things difficult, but industry all easy; and he that riseth late must trot all day, and shall scarce overtake his business at night; while laziness travels so slowly, that poverty soon overtakes him.”

Charity begins at home, and it should end there—not be taken up as a public works commitment. Ben Franklin was not preaching against charity. He was preaching against enabling chronic poverty and dependence. To the extent that we are charitable, we should be individually charitable. To the extent that our charity is a coordinated effort, it should be done through churches and other groups of private citizens who see a need and fill it. But it is morally repugnant to create chronic dependency. I am a religious man and I take my cues from the Bible. Jesus said: "That which you do for the least of these, you do also for Me." Paul said, in response to other believers who had decided to "wait on The Lord" and let others take care of them: "He who will not work, should not eat." There is a balance in there somewhere that is up to each of us to figure out; but I note that neither Jesus nor Paul nor Paul urged us to create a culture of dependence on anything or anybody except God.

Offering a divergent point of view is trolling? I expect that from some other boards, but didn't think that was the atmosphere here. I strongly disagree with the premise of the op and believed it was OK to do that here.

It's OK to state your opinion. However, the comparison to NAZIs out of the blue is a common trolling tactic.

I didn't think it was out of the blue. The similarities were so blatant to me that I was alarmed. Someone once said that those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it, and I thought this was an instance where that lesson was worth a reminder.

...I think that piece reflects more of the feelings of we're tired of carrying the whole load and we've had enough than literal intent and a literal plan...it was written, and, posted, somewhat tongue in cheek...

...the fact is that hard work and taking personal responsibility is what made this country great...and the lack of it is taking her down...