Tuesday, October 5, 2010


 At the beginning of every month, I drive my elderly tenants and former tenants around town to pay bills, pick up prescriptions, buy groceries and visit friends.
I thought I was being helpful to those in need - but am I just adding to the benefits received by many of those we would consider as being 'poor'?

There are many hustles being made on the Federal, state and local governments.
The most recent example is the one where people who receive federal aid are eligible to receive a free cell phone.

Is paying for someones cell phone Constitutional?
Does one really need a cell phone to survive?
When did something once considered a luxury become a 'necessity'?
 From free Glucose Meters, to free food programs, to free assisted lift recliners - the government is doing far too much for those who really don't need it.
When did the 'poor' having the latest goods become part of our entitlement programs?
The thing that struck me was that many of these under skilled, undereducated ladies had access to goods and services for which other people work.
These women are ready to fight for their 'right' to all the goods these services provide while the whole time they rail against how America treats them poorly.
Many of these elderly women had assisted lift recliners which were paid for by Medicare?
All of them had walkers, canes and scooters which were rarely used or needed.
All of these women thought that they had earned these things.

What ever happened to poor people actually being poor?
When did being poor become so comfortable that there was no longer a need to escape it?
The thing about all those scooters is that they often take the place of a person actually walking.
Look around - those who cannot walk use wheelchairs, while those who are too fat or too lazy to walk use scooters.
But if these fat/lazy people walked to the store instead of rode a scooter they would lose weight and be able to walk better.
This is just another example of a government solution causing a bigger problem than the one it was attempting to solve.
Maybe the Tea Party is right.


Val said...

Poverty is sometimes just a symptom of a bigger problem. And the bigger problem(s) is/ are not always readily apparent.

Sure some people take advantage but others truly need the assistance. And I'd rather live in a country where there is a safety net for the poor rather than one where the poor are left in the streets to rot, even if that means a few people will try to get over.

uglyblackjohn said...

I'm not as mad at the people as I am with the companies who create these hustles.
The government waste isn't so much in the services provided but in the middle-men.
Each of the companies providing these services takes a cut which adds to the overall cost.

D.Freeman said...

Man UBJ you make me laugh! Now I agree that being poor should be enough to survive aka the bare minimum. I too wonder if things like cell phones are taking it a bit too far. I mean damn the regular phone company already provides a discount rate if you don't have any money.

I don't know if it's a symptom of inflation and I mean life inflation as the bare minimum has changed since I lived it OR is it some super liberal person thinking kids can't learn without a IPAD!

My conspiracy senses says the cell phone companies are behind this to get more subscribers. I found out that they wanted to pass legislation to give all poor people access to bank services through debit cards which also made me think WTF is wrong with cash.

I think they need to overhaul what is the bare minimum and provide that across the board. The goal of welfare is so people will survive not thrive. I wonder like most people if the system has created such a level of comfort that most people are happy with 100 rent, cable, and now a damn cell phone..

What's funny is at 17 if you would've gave me that I would've been happy and fat my damn self. Sh*t all of us in college pretty much had that and we went to parties... LOL