• 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 .
Yes, ANYONE can find themselves in a situation that requires swallowing ones pride but surrendering to the government for the help is a huge mistake. You might hurt your pride by asking for help from family and friends but you lose a lot more from accepting help from the government. People have fought and died for what has been taken from us when the government takes responsibility for ours.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
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.
Click to expand...

So realistically once she lost her job, she could have gone straight to work at your grandmothers restaurant and none of those things ever would have happened, right? If so, it was indeed her CHOICE, because she chose to not go straight to working for your grandmother. Right?
 
Arbo said:
So realistically once she lost her job, she could have gone straight to work at your grandmothers restaurant and none of those things ever would have happened, right? If so, it was indeed her CHOICE, because she chose to not go straight to working for your grandmother. Right?
Click to expand...

If you take the first job you're offered when you're unemployed without at least looking around to see if anything better is available, you're really selling yourself short and setting yourself up for a much less productive career.
 
Arbo said:
So realistically once she lost her job, she could have gone straight to work at your grandmothers restaurant and none of those things ever would have happened, right? If so, it was indeed her CHOICE, because she chose to not go straight to working for your grandmother. Right?
Click to expand...

Oh yes because everybody just works at the nearest low wage job after losing their job. And, my grandmother did not need the help when she first lost her job so that one was also unavailable. So no, that is not realistic.
 
Kandahar said:
If you take the first job you're offered when you're unemployed without at least looking around to see if anything better is available, you're really selling yourself short and setting yourself up for a much less productive career.
Click to expand...

If you are waiting for that perfect and/or preferred job while your kids go without heat in the winter, you are not doing everything that is needed to take care of your kids. You can work one job and still look for something 'better'. Loads of people do it.

TheLastIndependent said:
Oh yes because everybody just works at the nearest low wage job after losing their job. And, my grandmother did not need the help when she first lost her job so that one was also unavailable. So no, that is not realistic.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell what part of your story is true... as you first put it out as if she had the opportunity to work there but was looking for something better, now that story has changed.

If something happens and I need to, I will take any ****ty job, more than one, in order to ensure my family does not go without the basics. I have done it in the past, and they have never wanted for anything.
 
Arbo said:
It's hard to tell what part of your story is true... as you first put it out as if she had the opportunity to work there but was looking for something better, now that story has changed.
Click to expand...

Where did I state that? Don't assume.
 
grip said:
It's more reprehensible for someone making $1 million annually to complain about any poor slob living off welfare.
Click to expand...

This retort, I love !
The poll itself is "loaded"..
In truth, there may be no-one "living off welfare " ...
And, IMO, a man "earning" over one million is overcharging for goods/services !
And who gets this one million ?
Jonas Salk or some so-called rock star ??
Things in our nation are not as they should be...
 
earthworm said:
This retort, I love !
The poll itself is "loaded"..
In truth, there may be no-one "living off welfare " ...
And, IMO, a man "earning" over one million is overcharging for goods/services !
And who gets this one million ?
Jonas Salk or some so-called rock star ??
Things in our nation are not as they should be...
Click to expand...

That's not true at all, and shows what little people know of business.
 
ksu_aviator said:
To you, which is more reprehensible?
Click to expand...

What about intentionally making more than $1,000,000 a year by intentionally living off welfare?

In all serious, the latter, but no liberal believes that people should intentionally live off of welfare. In fact we support welfare to get the poor out of their decadent state and teach them to fish, rather than giving them a fish every day for the rest of their life.
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

If our society would place a far greater emphasis on giving our youth practical skills alongside necessary classroom knowledge, I believe our society would reap enormous benefits.

Oh, and here's a little secret: Youth WANT these kind of skills. It empowers them, far more than just sitting in a desk for seven hours a day.
 
Depends... is the person earning $1,000,000 a drug dealer?
 
Not enough information. If someone is earning 1 mil per year via child pornography while the other person is living off welfare because they're disabled and have no choice, then the 1 mil person is most reprehensible. If the 1 mil person is making that money from an honest business while the welfare person is faking needing the welfare, then the welfare person is most reprehensible.
 
MadLib said:
In fact we support welfare to get the poor out of their decadent state and teach them to fish, rather than giving them a fish every day for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Not a very good question. There are no absolutes. People at both ends of the spectrum could be reprehensible.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Isnt the point of the military supposed to defend our country?
When was the last time our country was about to be invaded or was in danger by another military force?
By having a "defense industry" that is heavily employed does that mean we have to go around invading countries left and right and start wars all across the globe?
Click to expand...

-->9/11/2001<--
 
Hatuey said:
Depends... is the person earning $1,000,000 a drug dealer?
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

The first option tells us nothing about the person's moral compass, the second option definitely gives us a good clue about the person's moral compass. Not a well thought out poll.
 
Arbo said:
If someone has to wear a uniform when they attack us in order for us to defend ourselves, we are screwed.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.
Being attacked by a foreign nation and being attacked by a loosely organized bunch of fanatics may have the same result, but the appropriate response is not the same.

In the case of the attack of 9/11, the appropriate response would have been to send a small but well trained international force to go in and take out the handful of fanatics that launched the attack, kill them or bring them to justice, and then come home.

Not go to war against two nations that did not launch the attack.
 
ksu_aviator said:
To you, which is more reprehensible?
Click to expand...

what kind of a moron would claim making more than 1 million a year is bad without having a clue how the money was made?
 
TurtleDude said:
what kind of a moron would claim making more than 1 million a year is bad without having a clue how the money was made?
Click to expand...

I think either way the obvious choice is the second. No matter how the million is earned, they're gonna put money into the economy at one point whether it's a Rolls Royce or investment. Someone who intentionally just draws the check does nothing for the economy but help stagnate it.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
Last edited:
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...


That is why I cannot answer this poll:(
 
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.
 
Kali said:
That is why I cannot answer this poll:(
Click to expand...

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