werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Man, I hadn't realized that JFK presided fifty years ago! Doesn't seem possible.I always knew you loved JFK.
I see no reason welfare recipients shouldn't be "allowed" to have "luxury" items.
You see no reason morally that people living on the public dole shouldn't have luxury items in principle, or just don't want a government that intrusive and powerful? Personally I think that morally, as a general rule, people on welfare should not have true luxury items. I also cannot see any good coming from a government powerful enough to inventory a welfare recipient's stuff and decide what is acceptable and what is not, but in HR's real life example it offends me to be paying to support someone driving a Hummer who just can't be bothered to work. More people need a sense of shame, fewer need a sense of entitlement.
It does not offend me that welfare recipients might enjoy air conditioning, cable TV, a flat screen television, or Internet access, even though I consider none of those to be necessities to which one is entitled by mere virtue of existence (except A/C in an apartment complex, that's a life saver in a hot climate.) It DOES offend me when the nicely dressed lady in front of me buys top cut steaks on her food stamp or welfare debit card, then loads it all into an automobile worth more than mine and my wife's put together. I have to mentally force myself to relax and just assume that he or she has honestly fallen on hard times.
Twice that I can remember, I've been behind people who were actually buying a flat screen television in literally the same cart as groceries bought on food stamp cards. On those occasions I satisfy myself with not actually wishing their leeching asses dead. (Hey, I can only be so tolerant without exploding!) Those occasions particularly stand out because we did not have a flat screen or large screen television at the time. I'm pretty good about not being envious of others' possessions - until I'm subsidizing them.
