• 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 .
Quag said:
I answered but it's a silly poll. I see no reason why earning 1kk$ would be reprehensible and only by the inclusion of the word "intentionally" can you consider it to be reprehensible to be on welfare. What is reprehensible is that there are people who have no choice but to live on welfare. But that is the situation that they are in that is reprehensible, not themselves or their actions.
Click to expand...

Which is why I answered the first option, as a joke. Because both options are jokes, as is the poll itself.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
I taught in a inner city public school for 10 years. over that time I saw hundreds of kids who's parent (note: parent, not parents) lived off welfare. 5 or 6 kids from 2 or 3 different fathers. making no attempt to do anything other than breed more kids. I don't know what % of the total "intentionally" live off welfare, but there are a lot of them. I have cousins who are in their 40s who have never worked a day in their miserable waste of a life.
Click to expand...

Then you must have seen what a luxurious life they lived and how their neighborhoods were virtually free of crime.
 
Phys251 said:
Then you must have seen what a luxurious life they lived and how their neighborhoods were virtually free of crime.
Click to expand...

What i saw was them wearing nicer clothes than my kids and them and their siblings committing the crime in their neighborhoods. You have no room to bitch about crime when you are the one doing it
 
OscarB63 said:
What i saw was them wearing nicer clothes than my kids and them and their siblings committing the crime in their neighborhoods. You have no room to bitch about crime when you are the one doing it
Click to expand...

People can wear nice clothes and still be broke. And careful with your pronouns, BTW. ;)
 
Living off welfare on purpose unless that million was made by enslaving children or something.
 
Phys251 said:
People can wear nice clothes and still be broke. And careful with your pronouns, BTW. ;)
Click to expand...

If you (the common you and not "you" specifcally. ;). ) can afford nicer clothes living on welfare than I can working then you either aren't broke or your priorities are ****ed up.
 
Apparently this question is extremely easy to answer. Living off welfare on purpose is extremely disgraceful.

What we fail to admit is that "on purpose" is a very subjective judgment call. I have personally met people who have been drug addicts for years and were informed that if they convincingly told a psychiatrist they heard and were tormented by voices, they would likely get on SSDI and get a bunch of subsidized prescriptions (a couple of which might even be marketable on the streets). So they dump the antipsychotics and sell the benzodiazepines or trade up for something they enjoy more.Needless to say this counts as "intentionally living off welfare," but if you talk to these people they'll swear up and down about their disability. They might even convince you they really are profoundly disabled. How can you prove someone is not in fact hearing voices? Well you can notice signs that they seem to function socially like normal folks when you see them in the community, or perhaps you're aware they're testing positive for opioids and amphetamines when they get brought in to the ER by police for being intoxicated in public. But who knows? Maybe they really ARE schizophrenic nonetheless?

So perhaps when we talk about "intentionally living off welfare," we should be referring to SSDI, keeping in mind that it's fairly easy to give up and allege "I can't work" but also that there is a very subjective notion that one "cannot" work period.
 
Last edited:
Why is living on welfare intentionally reprehensible if there must be an intention behind getting on welfare to begin with? Intentionally doing something doesn't give us a clue as to the context the action was carried out anymore than earning a million dollars tell us anything about how the money was gotten?

Example, there are disabled people who must intentionally live on welfare because they simply don't have the physical capability required for jobs.
 
It is immensely funny to watch people have a cow and complain about the 'intentionally' live off welfare bit. As if it never happens (it does).. in order to further deny it, let's guess the million dollar guy is a drug dealer!... oh what great fun you guys.
 
OscarB63 said:
If you (the common you and not "you" specifcally. ;). ) can afford nicer clothes living on welfare than I can working then you either aren't broke or your priorities are ****ed up.
Click to expand...

When was it ever the prerogative of food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs designed to relieve the suffering of the poor to decide what they do with the little money they do have? I must have missed the "Rich Only" sign in front of the halls of America's freedom.
 
Hatuey said:
Why is living on welfare intentionally reprehensible if there must be an intention behind getting on welfare to begin with?
Click to expand...

The intention is to get money for doing nothing.
 
Hatuey said:
Why is living on welfare intentionally reprehensible if there must be an intention behind getting on welfare to begin with?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phys251 said:
When was it ever the prerogative of food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs designed to relieve the suffering of the poor to decide what they do with the little money they do have? I must have missed the "Rich Only" sign in front of the halls of America's freedom.
Click to expand...

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.
 
OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phys251 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;-)
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

And yet there are people who must live on it with intention because of health conditions.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet there are people who must live on it with intention because of health conditions.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arbo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Welfare does have holes. But there is no proof that welfare actually causes an increase in poverty.
 
OscarB63 said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

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
 
OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet there are people who must live on it with intention because of health conditions.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Surtr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom