40 Acres And A Mule

[PJABBER]

This thread is dedicated to hal2kilo. I promised him that I would start a thread with an OP from MediaMatters.

Actually the story is linked from Political Correction, another George Soros funded website, which describes itself as a MM project aimed at holding conservative politicians and advocacy groups accountable. I am not sure what they plan to hold them accountable for as the last time I checked the Democrats overwhelmingly controlled the Congress and everyone's favorite "progressive," BHO, is still spending time at the While House when he isn't on the golf course.

I was literally ROTFLMAO at what MediaMatters finds worthy of posting, but when Soros is sending you millions you had better post something, anything.

Among other gems of outrage I found,

Sen. Coburn Objects To Bill Aimed At Protecting Sharks

Republican Threat Of Health Care Reform Repeal Would Spell Disaster For The United States

Washington Post Shows Big Middle East Bias (No, it is not what you think, they are angry that a WP columnist actually seems to defend Israel by asking difficult questions.)

But for all of the hilarity, I did find something that made me consider that someone in Washington is actually thinking creatively.

Here it is. I hope everyone takes a moment to thank hal2kilo for enticing me to venture over to the Dark Side.

Rep. Gohmert's Ingenious Welfare Reform Proposal

September 29, 2010 12:28 pm ET — Walid Zafar
Political Correction

Speaking on the House floor last night, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered a Texas-style alternative to some of the most important social safety net programs. In place of providing unemployment insurance, food stamps, supplemental security income, housing assistance and promoting nutrition programs for school children and infants, Gohmert's idea calls on the government to offer several acres of land to Americans and then make the recipients promise that they'd stay off the public dole.

Gohmert: We have people on welfare and I know there's some that just don't wanna work, but there's some that do. How 'bout if instead of the welfare, we give 'em an alternative. We'll give you so many acres that can provide land where you can live off of it, make a living and we'll give you seed money to start, but you have to sign an agreement that you'll never accept welfare again. How 'bout that? We got plenty of land.
​

Gohmert — who sits on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands — doesn't say where all this land will come from. Most federal land is in the West, while most of our biggest cities are in the East. So if this alternative to welfare ever sees the light of day, it would presumably require people interested in the proposal to move across the country.

Now, I do consider subsistence farming to be quite a difficult job, especially should one try to feed a family on the produce of 40 acres in the arid West. You could raise buffalo there, I guess, considering the price of organic grass fed meat these days.

What if we allow homesteading on federal/state land that is a bit more arable? Say in Blue states, so that the people don't have to move all that far from the urban centers of the Democrat base?

I would up the ante for anyone that takes this offer and throw in one truck, two gas tanks and a rifle rack.

Yes, I would.

 

[waggy]

stupid idea. though if happens i see many people getting on welfare to get the land and sell it. not to mention its really hard work to earn a living off the land.

not to mention where they going to get the land? prime farmland is not cheap

 

[Pens1566]

Ridiculous idea. Lets give people land to farm when we don't know where the land is, and they don't know how to farm.

 

[swerus]

stupid idea. though if happens i see many people getting on welfare to get the land and sell it. not to mention its really hard work to earn a living off the land.

not to mention where they going to get the land? prime farmland is not cheap

Here is some free stuff, you don't have to work to earn it like everyone else.

 

[JSt0rm]

Where do I sign up? I promise to never take welfare.

 

[Moonbeam]

This in principle is a stupendous idea, in my opinion and one I have wanted all my life. Some folk have a genius for seeing things. They look at the world we have made, the competitive rat race, and see all the hate and violence it breeds. They can't participate in such a world and remain outside of the system and won't spin the wheels required to feed themselves. They beg or do meaningless labor that competes with nobody, wash toilets and serve so they can live with personal integrity. Such is the artist who has a muse to follow or the musician who can only hear song. Such are the meek who are promised heaven.

The answer of course is that in addition to forty acres if that much would be needed, there needs to be a community. Those giant wheels of crops that are fed from a central well would be a good place to start. The government should build settlements for the unemployed that folk can move to if they wish. A town, solar energy, and electric transportation out to ones own field where one can grow whatever one wishes and trade it in town for other goods or with the rest of the country. The Amish could maybe advise and direct this. Millions of folk living a simple and clean life growing food with available products would serve the nation well if the lights ever went out.

To just give folk some land for a promise, however, is a joke. There would need to be some preprogram before you got your land to show you really want it, maybe some years in the military or doing social service.

The problem with the rat race is that only rats race. Those who are the best are the worst.

 

[Ronstang]

Ridiculous idea. Lets give people land to farm when we don't know where the land is, and they don't know how to farm.

About 150 years ago many settlers headed out for a patch of land they had never seen and none of them knew how to farm. It turned out pretty well but considering your typical welfare recipient they would simply sit down on the land and wait for the government to start farming. Liberals have bred and raised a large population of useless people whose only purpose is as voting bloc to keep their free shit.

 

[swerus]

Or they could get a f*@king job, save their money and buy their own land.

 

[CitizenKain]

Liberals have bred and raised a large population of useless people whose only purpose is as voting bloc to keep their free shit.

Which is why so many redstates are a drain on the rest of the nation. Oh wait.

 

[IronWing]

Under the Homesteading Act folks picked up 160 acres of good land to prove up. When folks tried it in the West it didn't work as you can't support a family on 160 acres of dry land. So the Stock Raising Homestead Act was passed giving folks out west 640 acres of land to prove up instead of 160. Folks did okay on 640 acres in the West if they could find land with creek bottom.

Given that the vast majority of good land has already been homesteaded and is longer owned by the feds, 640 acres/family probably won't cut it. However, for the sake of discussion let's stick to 640 acres/family. Between the Forest Service and BLM, the feds own 684,000 sq miles of which 297,000 sq miles are in Alaska leaving 387,000 sq miles available for the new homesteading project in the West. That's enough land to settle 387,000 families. About 4,000,000 people received federal economic assistance payments (sometimes called welfare) as of 2009. If we assume a family size of three (single parent, two kids) this is leaves 946,000 families left on welfare after the land giveaway. This still leaves the food stamps program with its 40,000,000 folks. Rep. Gohmert aught to give math a try sometime.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Which is why so many redstates are a drain on the rest of the nation. Oh wait.

Which is also why 1/3rd of all welfare cases reside squarely in California, a state which only makes up 1/8 of the population in the US.

 

[IronWing]

Also, the Congressman from Texas needs to consider what creating 387,000 new farmers would do to the federal budget. Welfare queens are rank amateurs compared to farmers when it comes to sponging off the taxpayers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Also, the Congressman from Texas needs to consider what creating 387,000 new farmers would do to the federal budget. Welfare queens are rank amateurs compared to farmers when it comes to sponging off the taxpayers.

Pork for farms is traded for pork for cities by congress. Don't blame the farmers for those deals. Nobody will vote for a no pork politician anywhere.

 

[nobodyknows]

Also, the Congressman from Texas needs to consider what creating 387,000 new farmers would do to the federal budget. Welfare queens are rank amateurs compared to farmers when it comes to sponging off the taxpayers.

What? Do you have any sense at all? I'd like to see you feed yourself with all the commodities, etc. those welfare queens produce.

Face the facts. this country spend less per capitia for food then any other country on the world and I believe that includes the subsidies you're complaining about.

Now, as far as living off of 40 acres, good luck. You could raise enough to feed and clothe yourself, but you wouldn't be able to afford much else. No candy, no car, and no helath care.

 

[Dekasa]

I could really do with 40 acres near my hometown. Iowa land is worth more than I could ever get from welfare.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Give me land in Alaska, and ANY means of becoming self-sufficient off it (just what the hell could I raise in Alaska to live on???), and I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

 

[woolfe9999]

Which is also why 1/3rd of all welfare cases reside squarely in California, a state which only makes up 1/8 of the population in the US.

I've heard that statistic before, from a Meg Whitman speech, if memory serves. It may be correct. However, per capita welfare spending in California is right about the national average. NY is actually the highest, with nearly 2x the per capita welfare spending of CA. Alaska is second. These stats are from 2005-2006, but it is unlikely to be radically different now, especially since CA cut its welfare programs a lot in the past 2 years.

http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/welfarespending.htm

I know someone who gets food stamps here in California. It amounts to $12 per month. That may be a clue as to why that statistic is misleading.

- wolf