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 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 160

Thread: Which is more reprehensible?

  1. #71
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,803

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    How is that poisoning the minds of the next generation? It gives them a balance between compassion and discipline, also good physical fitness habits for life. Ok, replace the nuns with compassionate women who will give them the love they need (that way they won't be encouraged to be catholic). Besides, they would have chores to do, so they learn good work habits. Older children can do the cooking with guidence, everyone should learn to cook. From around the age of 11 on, they provide most of the needs the infants when not in class. After changing dirty diapers and trying to calm squalling babies, knowing that babies are created by having sex, I bet far fewer of them will be sneaking off to have a roll in the hay. The discipline they learn will help them in all things in life and help them not only be better educated and better citizens but will help them reach their potential.
    Remove the religious component entirely and you might be a little closer. Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing people required to take a class in high school, for instance, where they have to spend a significant amount of time around children, which would probably convince lots of them not to have any at that age.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #72
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    No, rational people are Pro-life and believe in adopting children out to responsible parents. All welfare recipients should have their children taken away and either raised by good parents or in properly managed group homes.
    What does being a "good parent" have to do with being on welfare? Are the two mutually exclusive? If your concern is for providing for the kids, then do you also support taking kids away from parents who are just poor but AREN'T on welfare? Wouldn't INCREASING the amount of government help that the kids get make more sense?

    Placing welfare children in a group home run by Nuns and Marine DIs would be much better for the children and cheaper for society.
    I'm sure you wouldn't just make that up out of thin air, and must have some sociological or economic studies that confirm your theory. I await your evidence.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #73
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I think that while on welfare, there needs to be a strict no-breeding clause. You will absolutely not make a penny more if you have any more kids while on welfare. I'm cool with all kids taken from welfare mothers if they have any more kids while on the public dole.
    Eugenics FTW!
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #74
    Professor
    00timh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    upstate NY
    Last Seen
    01-24-14 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,318

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    No question that a lifestyle of continued reliance on welfare does exactly what you've described. Now, as for the solution:



    If Mom (who knows where or even who dad is) doesn't have a high school education, then she doesn't get public assistance. What happens next?

    Drug testing: Mom smokes dope. What happens next?

    Florida tried that, BTW, and discovered that fewer welfare recipients than a random sample of the general public were on drugs, but that's an aside.

    Public service: Now, that might have some merit. Of course, there would have to be some provisions for child care.
    But: Mom doesn't show up, or shows up drunk or stoned. What happens next?
    The drug testing for welfare was a feel good thing, but like you said, are they really going to dump people on the street if they fail a piss test? A lot of them are in the situation they are in because of addiction. So then what? Do we put them through re-hab and then get the welfare? Its still going to cost the state money regardless if that is the case.

  5. #75
    Professor
    00timh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    upstate NY
    Last Seen
    01-24-14 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,318

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    I wonder the amount of people that actually enjoy living off welfare.... Im guessing its a very slim amount.
    But point being no matter what kind of gov assistance program, a slim amount are going to take advantage of that.
    There are more than just a slim amount. And there are many who do not need it at all and are exploiting the system. I would say all in all I am sure most aren't living the life they dreamed about as kids. I also feel that it is a trap that people fall into. I would rather see the majority of our resources go to tragic circumstance victims. Flood, earthquake victims, tornado, hurricane. You hear about these people not getting assistance for weeks and sometimes months. But people go and get normal welfare and that starts up immediately. There is a lot wrong with the system here, and the priorities are quite far out of whack.

  6. #76
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    I suppose it would depend on how the person was earning over $1,000,000 per year. There are a few things that would be worse than intentionally living off welfare. Generally though, I'd consider that worse.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  7. #77
    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 Wiggen View Post
    And you've reported these people, of course.
    No. Why? Because I know what it's like to get a welfare check. Once you get a job, they don't ween(possibly spelled wean maybe?) you off of it, they just start taking it away. Minimum wage can't cover the expenses of a mother (generally single).


    Quote Originally Posted by lunchbox View Post
    My guess is at least 50%.
    Your guess is quite a ways off. Have you ever had to receive welfare? If you had, you would know that very few people would intentionally live off of it. If looked at with assumptions, those who intentionally just live off of it would be on it for 5+ years. That is 19.6% of recipients and I can guarantee that a portion of those don't intentionally live off of it either.
    "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

  8. #78
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What does being a "good parent" have to do with being on welfare? Are the two mutually exclusive? If your concern is for providing for the kids, then do you also support taking kids away from parents who are just poor but AREN'T on welfare? Wouldn't INCREASING the amount of government help that the kids get make more sense?
    Unfortunately, too many times, good parent and welfare are mutually exclusive.

    Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime - June 7, 1995

    True, there are not an overbundance of studies relating the two that I could find in a quick search, but go ask any cop where they have the most problems with gangs and jevenile crime, the projects (welfare housing) and welfare areas. Welfare girls are also far more likely to become a teen parent. I have seen this over and over in different towns/cities I have lived in.

    As to those who are just poor and not on welfare, either they should apply for assistance or they are simply mismanaging their money. I have absolutely no problem with assistance to working poor families, just the non-working ones. If those children are being neglected because of poor money management, the parents should be counseled on money management and then if the problem continues, then hell yes, take the kids. Illegals in this country don't seem to have as much problem feeding and taking care of their kids as many legal residents do and they make a hell of a lot less.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm sure you wouldn't just make that up out of thin air, and must have some sociological or economic studies that confirm your theory. I await your evidence.
    Oh dear, someone actually using their brain and coming up with a possible solution to a problem. True, the economic part of it is conjecture based upon the fact the military has always found it cheaper to feed troops in mass than to pay them for food individually. But then, buying bulk is cheaper, go to Sams Club, if you want the best price per amount, buy the biggest package, of course if you have a few to feed, this doesn't always work, but in a group home doing large meals, it would save in overall costs.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,596

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Unfortunately, too many times, good parent and welfare are mutually exclusive.

    Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime - June 7, 1995

    True, there are not an overbundance of studies relating the two that I could find in a quick search, but go ask any cop where they have the most problems with gangs and jevenile crime, the projects (welfare housing) and welfare areas. Welfare girls are also far more likely to become a teen parent. I have seen this over and over in different towns/cities I have lived in.

    As to those who are just poor and not on welfare, either they should apply for assistance or they are simply mismanaging their money. I have absolutely no problem with assistance to working poor families, just the non-working ones. If those children are being neglected because of poor money management, the parents should be counseled on money management and then if the problem continues, then hell yes, take the kids. Illegals in this country don't seem to have as much problem feeding and taking care of their kids as many legal residents do and they make a hell of a lot less.



    Oh dear, someone actually using their brain and coming up with a possible solution to a problem. True, the economic part of it is conjecture based upon the fact the military has always found it cheaper to feed troops in mass than to pay them for food individually. But then, buying bulk is cheaper, go to Sams Club, if you want the best price per amount, buy the biggest package, of course if you have a few to feed, this doesn't always work, but in a group home doing large meals, it would save in overall costs.
    Parents still love their children even when they aren't able to take care of them properly. Children love their parents, too.

    The bond between parent and child is the strongest that there is, in fact.

    Is love important?

    Or is the most efficient way of feeding children the only consideration?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #80
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Which is more reprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Parents still love their children even when they aren't able to take care of them properly. Children love their parents, too.

    The bond between parent and child is the strongest that there is, in fact.

    Is love important?

    Or is the most efficient way of feeding children the only consideration?
    Love doesn't fill empty stomachs, pay for immunizations, put a roof over your head and provide education.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •