View Poll Results: Which is more reprehensible?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Earning more than $1,000,000 annually

    2 3.39%
  • Intentionally living off welfare

    57 96.61%
Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 160

Thread: Which is more reprehensible?

  1. #141
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,624

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Food stamps can only be spent on food. Medicaid can only be spent on health care. Failure to do so is illegal. If the rich are entitled to do whatever they like with their remaining cash, then so are the poor.

    Some people seem to be so eager to dump poor people into the shredder that they completely miss much more pressing problems in our society. That, and those of them who are Christians often forget about what Christ really said.
    I must have missed the part where Christ said to take some more from the richest 2% so that the bottom 30% may give nothing at all. I am sure you will come up with the correct biblical book, chapter and verse for us. ;-)
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  2. #142
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,771

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    But it's not money that belongs to the poor, so no, they are not "entitled to do whatever they like with remaining cash." It's money that provides a basic need to them that everyone else has to pay for, in addition to their own.
    Again, you make the mistake of omitting the working poor. They do have some cash, however little.

    He didn't say anything about installing politicians who will guarantee everyone's living standards. His words and influence were actually a threat to powerful bureaucracy, not a call to support more of it.
    Um. Feed the poor, heal the sick, clothe the naked...Kinda sounds like "take care of the poor" to me. And Jesus never took on the Roman Empire, not once, ever. The only organizations he opposed were the religious factions.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  3. #143
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,053

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Intention has nothing to do with how one gets on welfare and everything to do with not getting off welfare. It should be a short-term solution, a social safety net that catches people when they fall and allows them to climb back up again. Unfortunately, most people who go on welfare get there and stay there for as long as they can. That's what's reprehensible.
    And yet there are people who must live on it with intention because of health conditions.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #144
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    And yet there are people who must live on it with intention because of health conditions.
    yeah, and no one here is berating those people who actually "must" live on it due to infirmity or disability. they don't intentionally live on welfare since they did not choose to be disabled.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  5. #145
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    When we look at the # of people on welfare, and the increase in poverty, how is all of that working out for you in terms of teaching them to fish?
    Welfare does have holes. But there is no proof that welfare actually causes an increase in poverty.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  6. #146
    Professor
    TheLastIndependent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    08-29-15 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,545
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    guess what..I did all of that. There were a couple of winters where my wife and I and our two kids all slept in the same room in the same bed because we could not afford to run the heat. I've taken countless cold winter morning showers because I turned the hot water heater off to reduce the electric bill. I've lived off of nothing more than rice, beans and a few vegatables we grew in pots on our back porch for months at a time. I wore the same pair of shoes 7 days a week for 5 years. I once went 3 days with a broken wrist, hoping it was only badly sprained, because I didn't have insurance and I had to choose between paying a doctor and paying rent. I have a lovely scar on my leg from where I cut it WORKING construction and I stitched it up myself with a sewing needle and thread because we couldn't afford for me to go to the doctor.

    I also worked 16-18 hour days, 3 days a week and every weekend and attended college classes the other two days. I never got welfare and the one time I applied for food stamps they told me to qualify I would have to sell my 1964 volkswagon (this was in the late 80s) because it was an asset. When I asked them how I was going to get to work if I sold my car, they looked at me like I was crazy.

    So...it is a choice, they can get off their ass and get an education. or they can NOT have 3 kids by the time they are 19. there are plenty of programs available to anyone who has the desire to apply themselves that will provide training or an education. If you are able bodied and not a drug addict or a criminal, join the military for 4 years and Uncle Sam will pay for your college.

    If I can do it, anyone can do it. Unless, of course...I am just better than they are.
    My mom was 40, she had an education (she was an RN), and she looked for work. She was not lazy, she didn't mope and suck money, she did none of that. We drew welfare for no more than six months. There was no other choice unless being a homeless single mother is an option in your book. We needed the welfare, and we used it the way it was designed to be used. Living on welfare is a choice, needing to use it is far from a choice
    "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." : Stephen King

    "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson

  7. #147
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,555

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    as I said, if you choose to spend your limited resources on nice clothes and gold chains instead of bettering your situation, then you are intentionally living off welfare and your priorities are jacked up and you have no right to complain.

    I have a cousin who is always bitching about how he can't afford health insurance. but both he and his wife smoke two packs of cigs a day. if he chooses to spend $300 a month on cigs instead of on insurance, then it is not my problem that he can't "afford" health insurance.
    You can't buy health insurance for $300 a month, no way.
    If they need health insurance, they must not be on welfare. If they were, they'd be eligible for Medicaid.
    But, if they really smoke that much, they probably won't be around much longer anyway.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #148
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    And yet there are people who must live on it with intention because of health conditions.
    Pretty sure the "living off welfare" bit means those who scam the system. If someone is legitimately unable to sustain themselves due to disability or birth defect, I can't see anyone having a problem with them receiving monetary aid from the government.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  9. #149
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,555

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    Pretty sure the "living off welfare" bit means those who scam the system. If someone is legitimately unable to sustain themselves due to disability or birth defect, I can't see anyone having a problem with them receiving monetary aid from the government.
    Most people wouldn't have a problem with them getting aid from the government, but the extremists will say that welfare is not a function of government and that those who are unable to fend for themselves should look instead to family or private charity.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #150
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    You can't buy health insurance for $300 a month, no way. .
    a quick google search will show that you are wrong.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •