• 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!

If you can afford alcohol, drugs, iPhone etc you shouldn't get entitlements

Should people be able to get entitlements if they are getting these other things?


  • Total voters
    49
I voted no. I also think that someone at the age of 19 who moves out of their parents house to go out on their own with two other roommates should not do so unless they can fully be "on your own". Wy do I say this? Because my DDs two roommates applied and received food stamps. They tried to talk my DD into it and I went off! This was a few months ago and now all three of them are living back home.

What made me soooo mad about this is that the two roommates were also giving cash money to someone for beer and cigarettes. This was wrong on many levels including underage drinking and such, but especially taking advantage of our government programs that are available for the NEEDY, not so that you can move out of your parents house to party.
 
I think the idea of entitlements is a poor one. Communities should be helping their poor when they can not the federal government. People are not, or should be be entitled to anything. If you cannot feed yourself you are not entitled to food. You should not demand food. You should not complain about what is given to you.
 
I see this one often and I actually totally agree and do in fact agree that you shouldn't be able to get welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc. If someone has images that say this please post. Thoughts?

I wonder if the people who agree with this sentiment would feel the same way if the "entitlements" we were talking about were things that middle-class people often used as well: Federal student loans, social security, etc. If a college kid can afford alcohol, should he be getting government assistance?

I think people are a lot more judgmental in the case of entitlements associated with poverty, because what it really boils down to is some rather negative (and generally false) assumptions about poor people.
 
Welfare should be offered in the same manner foriegn aid should be offered. Not in the form of cash but in the form of goods and services.
How coupons to use at the store? Oh that's almost the same as cash. Then, instead of a check in the mail, then going to Meijers a couple miles away, you go 20 miles to the government store down town and cash in your coupons. Nope, I'm wrong; there is not enough space downtown for such a store. So, I guess you'd build one. Then the government would have to stock it. Then the government would need a bunch of employees to run the store, purchasing agents to order the goods to stock it. Oh, wow, this is looking for an opportunity to have a much larger government. Hum, you've got such an easy neat answer. If I just don't think too much, I like it. Oh, but my name is OhIsee.Then.
 
Last edited:
I see this one often and I actually totally agree and do in fact agree that you shouldn't be able to get welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc. If someone has images that say this please post. Thoughts?

I like what Jon Stewart said in his debate with Bill O'Reilly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxNgFvv-_ps

I say good idea as long as its fairly enforced.

-Section 8 LANDLORDS who live on government assistance, essentially
-Corporate execs who got bail out money until its repaid with interest
-Business owners who get FEMA assistance after a weather disaster because they didn't have appropriate insurance
-Oil execs who get oil subsidies
-Bottled water companies who set up shop in cities that do not meter water then resell it by the bottle benefiting from a natural resource intended to be an individual use service
 
How coupons to use at the store? Oh that's almost the same as cash. Then, instead of a check in the mail, then going to Meijers a couple miles away, you go 20 miles to the government store down town and cash in your coupons. Nope, I'm wrong; there is not enough space downtown for such a store. So, I guess you'd build one. Then the government would have to stock it. Then the government would need a bunch of employees to run the store, purchasing agents to order the goods to stock it. Oh, wow, this is looking for an opportunity to have a much larger government. Hum, you've got such an easy neat answer. If I just don't think too much, I like it. Oh, but my name is OhIsee.Then.
Apparently you dont see much. WIC already works on the same theory...you take your vouchers and buy food items specifically on a list. Utilities could be directly paid as could any other direct needs service. No cash cards, no discretionary cash. No cash at ATMs. No cash at strip clubs.
 
I think the idea that people receiving welfare aren't entitled to buy soda, cellphones, alcohol, candy, etc. is draconian. The intent of these programs is to lift people somewhat out of poverty. Who doesn't have a cellphone today? Hell, the government even gives them away with certain income and usage requirements. Why shouldn't they be entitled to budget their money so they can enjoy steak one day a week? We buy 'em (Choice, by the way) for $4.00 each on sale for 8-oz portions. Why not beer? Candy? If it works, it works. It's theirs to spend.

I think if someone was careful, they could easily budget these things into their household. Drugs? Maybe a joint now and then, okay. But drug-drugs? No-way, no-how because it would indicate we were paying them too much -- and what we paid them, even though too much, would never be enough. But since you included that, I ignored it.

No it isn't.

These programs are intended to supplement savings, etc. in order to keep a person afloat during a temporary time of difficulty. Unfortunately they're now becoming an alternative to working as they seem to cover every luxury known to man with no end. A person shouldn't be "entitled" to steak, lobster, and cell phones just because they were born.
 
I like what Jon Stewart said in his debate with Bill O'Reilly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxNgFvv-_ps

I say good idea as long as its fairly enforced.

-Section 8 LANDLORDS who live on government assistance, essentially
-Corporate execs who got bail out money until its repaid with interest
-Business owners who get FEMA assistance after a weather disaster because they didn't have appropriate insurance
-Oil execs who get oil subsidies
-Bottled water companies who set up shop in cities that do not meter water then resell it by the bottle benefiting from a natural resource intended to be an individual use service
I don't see the one in red as being the same as the others. The Section 8 landlord is merely providing a service/product and the government is the customer. That's all. By this rationale, the company who sells the government photo copy paper would be classified the same way. Sometimes people, in this case Jon Stewart, over-think these things.
 
You pay in, you get out. Whatever you spend it on is no one's business but your own.

Public assistance is different; but there are loads of caveats on that stuff already anyway, and they hardly work.
 
muciti said:
I think the idea of entitlements is a poor one. Communities should be helping their poor when they can not the federal government. People are not, or should be be entitled to anything. If you cannot feed yourself you are not entitled to food. You should not demand food. You should not complain about what is given to you.

Please post more. Please.

Although I cannot argue with completely eliminating these types of social programs, I can argue with a complete overhaul that includes eliminating the vast majority of it.

Part of this I blame on what Bush really perpetuated - the "American Dream". Somewhere along the way, people were brainwashed into thinking that the "dream" is a "right". If you cannot make it on your own, you should be given the absolute bare essentials. If you waste your money on cigarettes and booze to the point where you wake up in a ditch, so be it. Money should also be reduced so that, if necessary, they can be given the basics to live when someone else needs to help. If that means some lazy, uneducated, inept 40 year olds have to move back in with mommy because they're leeching pieces of sh*t in society, I'm fine with that. Let your mom step in and make it her problem instead of mine. Perhaps some extensive ridicule and mockery can make you stand up for yourself and actually do something.

Welfare should be a token, nothing more. A band-aid on a bullet wound. It shouldn't allow you to maintain a lifestyle.
 
I don't see the one in red as being the same as the others. The Section 8 landlord is merely providing a service/product and the government is the customer. That's all. By this rationale, the company who sells the government photo copy paper would be classified the same way. Sometimes people, in this case Jon Stewart, over-think these things.

Yes, to an extent I can see your point but they benefit and even survive thanks to Uncle Sam's willingness to pay the rent their tenants could not otherwise afford. Those who can afford to pay the rent would chose to live in other communities. Unlike the copier example, there is no other realistic "market" for housing section 8 landlords except for the government.
 
I had a relative in section 8 housing. I was there many times. It had a 'manager' in a downstairs apartment that was almost normal. All the other residents were not normal. The few that were closer to normal took some care of the others. The residents didn't have the capacity to do much of anything consistently and or acceptably; and, not due to the lack of desire. Some would spend all the money and vouchers they would get immediately. My relative managed the money for some others so they could get through the month; but, he would also sometimes need to be rescued finically. What some are essentially arguing in this thread is that we would be better off if these people didn't survive. They are correct in as much as we'd be better off financially.
 
What some are essentially arguing in this thread is that we would be better off if these people didn't survive.

No argument here.

If someone wants to be irresponsible financially, do so with their money.
 
I had a relative in section 8 housing. I was there many times. It had a 'manager' in a downstairs apartment that was almost normal. All the other residents were not normal. The few that were closer to normal took some care of the others. The residents didn't have the capacity to do much of anything consistently and or acceptably; and, not due to the lack of desire. Some would spend all the money and vouchers they would get immediately. My relative managed the money for some others so they could get through the month; but, he would also sometimes need to be rescued finically. What some are essentially arguing in this thread is that we would be better off if these people didn't survive. They are correct in as much as we'd be better off financially.
Only those that are committed evolutionists would suggest such a thing. To the scientific mind, enabling and in fact encouraging the weakest of the species to not just continue but to procreate is counter-evolutionary.
 
No argument here.

If someone wants to be irresponsible financially, do so with their money.
I sorry, but you are incorrect. There is no desire to be irresponsible financially. Rather there is no capacity to be responsible in these people. Have you visited them? Have you had conversations with them on various occasions? Have you taken classes like Child Growth and Development, Phycology I & II, Sociology, etc.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I sorry, but you are incorrect. There is no desire to be irresponsible financially. Rather there is no capacity to be responsible in these people.

No capacity? Are you serious?

Then I guess we fail as a nation for not teaching the average American the simplest of math. Damn, if you can balance a checkbook, you can set aside some sort of rudimentary budget.

Have you visited them? Have you had conversations with them on various occasions? Have you taken classes like Child Growth and Development, Phycology I & II, Sociology, etc.

I've taken psychology, and at no point in the class did I learn that most human beings are born with a complete ineptitude toward counting and common sense.

I refuse to accept the concept of babying these people. It's absurd, disgusting, and morally repugnant. Where I come from, you chop off a gangrenous limb so it doesn't kill the entire body.
 
I would never begrudge any man a drink, especially if suffering under hard times.
 
I wish you could see the $513 check we get each month for our rent, bills,3 childrens needs and then $789 in foodstamps. There is no discounted rent etc. Section 8 is closed so wd manage by getting a little cup and sitting on the Vegas strip to suoplement our income. Other than selling drugs or prostituting I don't see how anyone can live on this. I think people generalize too much. I'm a college graduate that speaks 3 languages and I can't find a decent job to save my life.Letting people just die is cruel because thats what it would come to for millions.
 
The intent of these programs is to lift people somewhat out of poverty.

No it isn't, it's to prevent them from feeling the effects of living in poverty. Food stamps and welfare money do not, in any way, shape or form, help anyone to actually get out of poverty. Jobs, education and responsibility do that.
 
Absolutely not, very few things tick me off more than some dumbass with an iPhone in an SUV picking up prescriptions covered under Medicaid. We should not subsidize poor financial planning.
 
I see this one often and I actually totally agree and do in fact agree that you shouldn't be able to get welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc. If someone has images that say this please post. Thoughts?

Some things like alcohol should definitely make a welfare / food-stamp / section-8 recipient null and void. But some other things should be allowed, such as typically tobacco. (I am a non-smoker by the way.) I think the emphasis should be how much those products would alter their sentiments and minds. Alcohol and drugs alter them a lot. Cigarettes, not so much.
 
Chelsea said:
I wish you could see the $513 check we get each month for our rent, bills,3 childrens needs and then $789 in foodstamps. There is no discounted rent etc. Section 8 is closed so wd manage by getting a little cup and sitting on the Vegas strip to suoplement our income. Other than selling drugs or prostituting I don't see how anyone can live on this. I think people generalize too much. I'm a college graduate that speaks 3 languages and I can't find a decent job to save my life.Letting people just die is cruel because thats what it would come to for millions.

Might I suggest not having 3 kids?

I'd rather see Madonna and Angelina Jolie adopt a whole African village than watch a woman have a single child she cannot afford.

Besides...can't be too bad off if you own a computer to be here.
 
Might I suggest not having 3 kids?

I'd rather see Madonna and Angelina Jolie adopt a whole African village than watch a woman have a single child she cannot afford.

Besides...can't be too bad off if you own a computer to be here.

I don't own a computer its a smartphone that I also use to apply for jobs and make appointments etc... My husband and I have never been unemployed before this and these last 2 months of looking for work has been hell. So maybe you should shove it. :)
 
I don't own a computer its a smartphone that I also use to apply for jobs and make appointments etc... My husband and I have never been unemployed before this and these last 2 months of looking for work has been hell. So maybe you should shove it. :)

Forgive my curiousity, but what industry do you and your husband have your work histories in? And is it the geographic pull-apart of the volatile job market that prohibits the 2 of you to get a new job?
 
Chelsea said:
I don't own a computer its a smartphone that I also use to apply for jobs and make appointments etc...

And how much do you pay for a smartphone? Monthly rates? Uh...yeah. Learn to cut back, sweetheart. Welfare is for people in need, not people in need of a lifestyle.

My husband and I have never been unemployed before this and these last 2 months of looking for work has been hell.

So you guys start a huge family while living paycheck to paycheck, saving very little money, and having all sorts of disposable income not being retained so that you can have all those cool tech toys like a phone that does everything. Allow me to break out the violins.

So maybe you should shove it.

Wouldn't wanna get you pregnant again. We've already determined that it would be an awful idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom