• 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 .
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.
 
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).


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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Eugenics FTW!

Eugenics specifically refers to improving the genetic composition of a population. No genetics here. Try again.
 
To you, which is more reprehensible?

I voted living off welfare, but let me be as clear as possible on this: The people who do this are a very small minority of worthless, opportunistic ****bags who will see jail time for it. I also see nothing wrong with making over a million a year. The people I know who do are business owners, and that money goes right back into the business the second it's earned.
 
Yes you should, if a significant portion of it is going to welfare, then move it offshore and hide it.

$131.9 billion a year is insignificant in context with the massive expenses that add onto our debt such as pointless decade long conflicts.
 
$131.9 billion a year is insignificant in context with the massive expenses that add onto our debt such as pointless decade long conflicts.

Good thing we don't engage in pointless conflicts then. It is never pointless to engage against and fight evil. I have to admit, although not pointless, they were badly managed. The mistakes made weren't that we did it, but how we went about doing it.
 
Good thing we don't engage in pointless conflicts then. It is never pointless to engage against and fight evil. I have to admit, although not pointless, they were badly managed. The mistakes made weren't that we did it, but how we went about doing it.

Iraq was unnecessary. However, if I got reactivated back into Service for the purpose of going there, I would do it without question. However, I will be asking for an M1097 contact truck as compensation for my Service. The Army won't cough it up, but I'll still demand it.
 
It's more reprehensible for someone making $1 million annually to complain about any poor slob living off welfare.


Why is that?
 
Iraq was unnecessary. However, if I got reactivated back into Service for the purpose of going there, I would do it without question. However, I will be asking for an M1097 contact truck as compensation for my Service. The Army won't cough it up, but I'll still demand it.

Having spent many days over a decade of time deploying to enforce no fly zones over Iraq because he attacked civilians (used poison gas on at least one village) because of "religious" differences. I was glad we finally went ahead and took the bastard out. He was, undoubtedly evil. I don't in anyway consider Iraq unecessary, just way too late in coming. Maybe it's the fact that he on occasion over that decade long span shot at myself and others doing our jobs that made it personal. All because we wouldn't let him gas his own people or bomb civilians.
 
Having spent many days over a decade of time deploying to enforce no fly zones over Iraq because he attacked civilians (used poison gas on at least one village) because of "religious" differences. I was glad we finally went ahead and took the bastard out. He was, undoubtedly evil. I don't in anyway consider Iraq unecessary, just way too late in coming. Maybe it's the fact that he on occasion over that decade long span shot at myself and others doing our jobs that made it personal. All because we wouldn't let him gas his own people or bomb civilians.

If it was to kill a bad guy who was persecuting his people, we should have invaded North Korea. Saddam didn't have **** on Jong Il's reign of terror. People get put into concentration camps for eating the wrong bowl of rice over there, regardless of their beliefs.
 
If it was to kill a bad guy who was persecuting his people, we should have invaded North Korea. Saddam didn't have **** on Jong Il's reign of terror. People get put into concentration camps for eating the wrong bowl of rice over there, regardless of their beliefs.

I agree, but I don't get to make the decisions. I really didn't give a damn what made the politicians finally make the right decision, even if it was for wrong reasons, I just knew I was helping take out one evil bastard and that was all that mattered to me, still all that matters to me about the initial invasion.

I would totally support taking out NK. If they would let me, I would definitly go (unfortunately, I was ordered into permanent retirement due to medical reasons). I have also spent a lot of time keeping an eye on those evil bastards too.
 
I agree, but I don't get to make the decisions. I really didn't give a damn what made the politicians finally make the right decision, even if it was for wrong reasons, I just knew I was helping take out one evil bastard and that was all that mattered to me, still all that matters to me about the initial invasion.
I don't believe the ends justified the means at all. Over a million deaths, just to topple a crooked regime. I can't get behind such an inefficient wast of life, even though I was fully prepared to go. The Army had other plans for me, though.
 
Having spent many days over a decade of time deploying to enforce no fly zones over Iraq because he attacked civilians (used poison gas on at least one village) because of "religious" differences. I was glad we finally went ahead and took the bastard out. He was, undoubtedly evil. I don't in anyway consider Iraq unecessary, just way too late in coming. Maybe it's the fact that he on occasion over that decade long span shot at myself and others doing our jobs that made it personal. All because we wouldn't let him gas his own people or bomb civilians.

Was saddam evil when we supported him in the war against Iran, or did he become evil later?
 
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.

Why were you in that position? Was there no jobs where you were? Was it lack of skills to get a better job?
 
Was saddam evil when we supported him in the war against Iran, or did he become evil later?

He was always evil since taking power. Unfortunately, for the last 2+ decades we have had to deal with very poor choices of "allies" during the cold war. We should of never supported dictatorships, oppressive governments or pretty much anyone who did not at least share some of our values. We were wrong to support him, the shaw, the Mujahadeen (sp), Pakistan, Noriega, Marcos, some of the south Korean leaders that were in power at different times, Castro, the Sandanistas, Saudi Arrabia, the South Vietnamese Government, etc, etc. Pretty much anyone who did not share core values of human rights, democracy, freedom of religion or other freedoms valued by Americans.
 
Why were you in that position? Was there no jobs where you were? Was it lack of skills to get a better job?

It wasn't me. I was a kid at the time. My mom (unmarried) lost her job and had a hard time getting a new one immediately. She searched for 2-3 months before she just decided to work at my grandmother's restaurant. After those 3 months, we never received welfare again.
 
Back
Top Bottom