• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is more reprehensible?

Which is more reprehensible?

  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
ksu_aviator

ksu_aviator

Democrats are the fascists
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
7,676
Reaction score
2,850
Location
Your Head
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
To you, which is more reprehensible?
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
To you, which is more reprehensible?

Earning $1,000,000+ annually
Intentionally living on welfare
Click to expand...

It's more reprehensible for someone making $1 million annually to complain about any poor slob living off welfare.
 
grip said:
It's more reprehensible for someone making $1 million annually to complain about any poor slob living off welfare.
Click to expand...

"Living off welfare" is mainly a fallacy. Welfare is far from a meaty check. The people that stay on welfare are very much so a minority
 
TheLastIndependent said:
Obviously intentionally living on welfare. But tell me, what percentage of welfare recipients do you think intentionally live on it?
Click to expand...

All of them? (I don't see how someone could be on welfare unintentionally, I mean, I think you have to apply and all that)
 
TheLastIndependent said:
"Living off welfare" is mainly a fallacy. Welfare is far from a meaty check. The people that stay on welfare are very much so a minority
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but anyone getting gov assistance has to meet the criteria for that monetary help. Which means they are basically living off of charity and don't have enough income to get by without it.
 
X Factor said:
All of them? (I don't see how someone could be on welfare unintentionally, I mean, I think you have to apply and all that)
Click to expand...

False. That is ridiculously false. Do you know what it's like to have to live in a tiny trailer and barely have enough money to pay the bills? Do you know what it's like to go only to bargain sales at grocery stores because, even with food stamps, you cannot afford to eat other foods? Have you ever had to wear preowned clothes because new clothes were too expensive? Have you ever lived in a cold house because heating is too expensive? I have. It is not a choice. It is not a fabulous life. It sucks; it's awful; it is no choice that anybody makes.
 
grip said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but anyone getting gov assistance has to meet the criteria for that monetary help. Which means they are basically living off of charity and don't have enough income to get by without it.
Click to expand...

I know quite a few welfare recipients that hide the fact that they work so that they can have enough money to pay for necessities. The problem with welfare is that it is taken away in whole and the people are not weened off. Welfare is not wealthy living
 
grip said:
It's more reprehensible for someone making $1 million annually to complain about any poor slob living off welfare.
Click to expand...

When you say making a million a year, do you mean before or after taxes? ;)
 
I don't see what could possibly be reprehensible about making a lot of money, in and of itself.

All welfare recipients do it intentionally, and many of them are using the system appropriately and in good faith, so there's nothing reprehensible about that either, in and of itself.

In order to make a clear judgment about either of these things, I'd need to be presented with an individual situation. How is the millionaire making their money? What sort of situation is the welfare recipient in?

I voted for the welfare recipient, simply because at best (it's being used as intended and in good faith) it still indicates that something bad has happened in someone's life, and at worst it's being abused by someone who is manipulating the system. It's never good news that someone is on welfare, even if they have a very good reason. It always sucks to be in such dire straights that you would need it.
 
Last edited:
Both are equally good at it's face.

What's hurtful about earning 1,000,000 annually is if those millions were earned by corporate welfare in the forms of bailouts, government granted monopolies, excessive litigation, patents and other things that are unfree and harmful to the market.

Intentionally being on the dole, a source revenue that isn't just welfare but also WIC, EBT, medicare, getting government financial aide for taking online classes, and other forms of "I'm poor" double dipping, can be hurtful to the individual who does this as it is making them dependent.

There is nothing wrong with accepting money from the government. There is no amount of restitution the government can pay you to repair the ill effects of public school, technological stagnation, encouraged criminality and all the other things the government does to us against our will and to the benefit of criminals and corporate interests. The money you get from the government is money they already stole from you.
 
How is making a million bucks a year reprehensible, unless of course, it comes from illegal activities? I'd make a million a year in a flash if I could.

There's nothing reprehensible about living on welfare for a while, either, unless the recipient just sits back and makes welfare a way of life. That is the deadly sin of sloth, is it not?

Anyone can get in a situation that requires that he/she swallow pride and take charity.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
Obviously intentionally living on welfare. But tell me, what percentage of welfare recipients do you think intentionally live on it?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the percentages are. But I suspect alot more are than should be.
 
ksu_aviator said:
To you, which is more reprehensible?
Click to expand...

Depends on how the money is earned... if it's from selling drugs, fraud, coning, hustling, etc. then that is worse than being an honest person living on welfare. If it's hard worker with an honest job, then being on welfare is obviously the bigger problem.
 
Living off of welfare while making more than $1m. If a company is able to pay ANYONE $1m, then they are obviously doing well enough that they don't need government subsidies, tax breaks, contracts and all the other things I don't know about because I'm a lower class schlub.
 
I understand the spirit of the poll but the options are poorly worded. Should someone who is on welfare not intentionally live off it? Better to die?

Welfare fraud; which seems to be the crux of the question is not some massive and insidious force however. Even in nations with very strong social safety nets have rather little of it; anecdotal cases become a political firestorm every few years but individuals do not make a pattern.

To answer the question neither is inherently more reprehensible. Either one can be done honestly or dishonestly; there is nothing wrong with honestly making money. Nor is there anything wrong with honestly needing help to survive.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
"Living off welfare" is mainly a fallacy. Welfare is far from a meaty check. The people that stay on welfare are very much so a minority
Click to expand...

Agreed. As with any program, there is abuse (and no programs have more abuse than those originating at the Pentagon), but anyone that thinks that our welfare rolls have very many members that are living proudly and well, is pretty damn ignorant.
 
Last edited:
monty said:
I don't know what the percentages are. But I suspect alot more are than should be.
Click to expand...

Any is more than there should be. However, the people that live off the check is a minority. The majority of welfare recipients use it for what it was designed for, as a boost back on your feet.
 
upsideguy said:
Agreed. As with any program, there is abuse (and no programs have more abuse than those originating at the Pentagon), but anyone that thinks that our welfare rolls have very many members that are living proudly and well, is pretty damn ignorant.
Click to expand...

:agree:

I don't understand how people assume that every welfare recipient is living well off of it. If they have seen the tiny number that is on that check, then they would have a better understanding.
 
grip said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but anyone getting gov assistance has to meet the criteria for that monetary help. Which means they are basically living off of charity and don't have enough income to get by without it.
Click to expand...

They're not basically living off charity...at least not the government's. Very few poor people are doing that. Poor families/communities have lots of coping mechanisms that don't even occur to wealthier people. Relying on extended family, working under the table (at legal or illegal jobs), selling/pawning items (both legal and illegal), etc. There is a vibrant economy in poor communities, and although it's a totally alien way of life to many people, there are other sources of income besides the government. Very few people can live off of the meager anti-poverty allowance they get from the government.
 
Earning more than $1,000,000 annually
Intentionally living off welfare
Click to expand...

Those options are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many of the people earning that much ARE living on welfare. The rent-seeking, politician-bribing kind.
 
I'd say it's reprehensible whether it's intentional or not. Not pulling your own weight for *ANY* reason is abhorrent.
 
Cephus said:
I'd say it's reprehensible whether it's intentional or not. Not pulling your own weight for *ANY* reason is abhorrent.
Click to expand...

Not *ANY* reason. Some people are too old, too sick, too feeble minded, or too young to work.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not *ANY* reason. Some people are too old, too sick, too feeble minded, or too young to work.
Click to expand...

Too old? Presumably you spent a lifetime working, why didn't you save any of that money for your retirement?
Too sick? I can see that in some circumstances.
Too feeble minded? Again, maybe a case.
Too young? Then you are covered by your parents who ought to have had enough money to pay for you or they shouldn't have had you in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom