YART: welfare recipiant has a Scion TC???

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli
Exactly.

I don't think many of you are understanding that if the money is not given out, it does not get used(for its intended purpose).

So either the rules are so lienient because they have plenty of money to give everybody, or people that really need it are not getting it. Since the rules are so lienient, I'm kinda doubting the latter.

You don't seem to understand. You seem to view welfare as this big untapped resource that's just waiting to be exploited. It doesn't work that way. Someone has to pay for it, and it's the people who work.

If more people start receiving welfare, your taxes are going to go up. If welfare starts dishing out 2x the amount of money as it used to, it will require the funding (from your taxes) to go up 2x also.

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
*stamp* Denied. *stamp*

And um, I've seen welfare recepients driving Beamers and Mercedes. (newer style) a tC is a drop in the bucket.

Yeah. A Scion is actually a reasonable vehicle for a welfare recipient

Around here I've seen far nicer vehicles...

I disagree. A welfare receipient would be better off with a 5+ year old used car, not a new one.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli
Exactly.

I don't think many of you are understanding that if the money is not given out, it does not get used(for its intended purpose).

So either the rules are so lienient because they have plenty of money to give everybody, or people that really need it are not getting it. Since the rules are so lienient, I'm kinda doubting the latter.

You don't seem to understand. You seem to view welfare as this big untapped resource that's just waiting to be exploited. It doesn't work that way. Someone has to pay for it, and it's the people who work.

If more people start receiving welfare, your taxes are going to go up. If welfare starts dishing out 2x the amount of money as it used to, it will require the funding (from your taxes) to go up 2x also.

Uhm, hello?

I completely understand that.

However, if you cut the welfare userbase in half because of stricter rules, you could either A) reduce taxes , B) spend it elsewhere, or C) increase the ammount you give the people that, under the new stricter rules, really need it.

Get it?

 

[acemcmac]

The problem with welfare is that most of the people on it were dumb enough to get themselves into the situation- what real incentive do they have to get out?

The religious right refutes Darwin. Tragic, since it's mostly their wallets being drained to pay for the scum that isn't dying off...

I have good friends on welfare. They don't deserve it. I'd rather see them make the tough choices in their lives while they're hungry rather than use the insane tax refunds they get to landscape the front yards of their trailer parks and duck out on car insurance.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Argue all you want. What it comes down to for me is that if someone has the money to buy a nice car(s) or nice things like that, OR if they RECEIVE these nice things somehow (gift, contest, whatever), then they can damn well sell all their nice possessions to pay the bills & stop fvcking wasting my goddamn money. Everytime I look at how much money I lose out of my 4 paychecks from the jobs I work it pisses me off because I know a decent portion of that is wasted on sh!t like this.

I have a lot of nice things, but I'm not anywhere near rich. But do you think I would try to collect gov't money to buy food & such when I have a laptop, nice desktop, and overall several pieces of cool technology that I put a decent chunk of change into at one point. Fvck no, if it came down to paying the bills I would sell that sh!t and keep working hard.

 

[Eli]

And you're wrong, I do NOT view welfare as some infinite pool of money, that's obsurd.

I'm looking at it from this point of view;

There's 800 million dollars in the pool. There are 250,000 recipients, recieving a total of 600 million dollars. The USDA decides to adveritse because 200 million dollars is going unused.

Can you show me that more welfare users are causing the taxes to go up? If that is indeed the case, then CLEARLY the rules need to be changed. However, if the Welfare money is already set aside regardless ... that is completely different, and again - it would be up to the people in charge of the program to set the rules for who gets it!

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli


I completely understand that.

However, if you cut the welfare userbase in half because of stricter rules, you could either A) reduce taxes , B) spend it elsewhere, or C) increase the ammount you give the people that, under the new stricter rules, really need it.

Get it?

I think my disagreement starts with this:.

Some people view every human as being so precious that we must keep them alive at all costs. I disagree with that. Sometimes you get good apples, sometimes you get bad apples. Nature has a way of sorting them out- it's called natural selection.

With these welfare policies, we are keeping people alive that just consume resources and don't produce anything. We are paying to keep the bad apples around. It's a bit naive to think that nobody comes out bad. They do, and we just foot their bills to keep them living. There are even some people that are REALLY messed up and they go around stealing and killing. At that point they go to prison, which is another form of welfare. Instead of being removed from the population, they're just put in a cage and kept alive there. Why should I pay to keep rapists/murderers/theives alive? Put them down like a rabit animal.

I don't think that my taxes should pay for any welfare. There are already too many people on Earth, and the Earth is a very competitive place. You can either work to survive or you can die off.

I'm not advocating rounding up law-abiding, hard-working, self-sustain people and punishing them for nothing. But I am advocating NOT paying for people who are not law-abiding, not working, and not self-sustaining. We shouldn't pay for freeloaders.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Eli
And you're wrong, I do NOT view welfare as some infinate pool of money, that's obsurd.

I'm looking at it from this point of view.

There's 800 million dollars in the pool. There are 250,000 recipients, recieving a total of 600 million dollars. The USDA decides to adveritse because 200 million dollars is going unused.

Can you show me that more welfare users are causing the taxes to go up? If that is indeed the case, then CLEARLY the rules need to be changed. However, if the Welfare money is already set aside regardless ... that is completely different, and again - it would be up to the people in charge of the program to set the rules for who gets it!

so your argument is we're already wasting what we are so we shouldn't try to cut it back, and only worry about wasting more than we already are?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Eli
And you're wrong, I do NOT view welfare as some infinate pool of money, that's obsurd.

I'm looking at it from this point of view.

There's 800 million dollars in the pool. There are 250,000 recipients, recieving a total of 600 million dollars. The USDA decides to adveritse because 200 million dollars is going unused.

Can you show me that more welfare users are causing the taxes to go up? If that is indeed the case, then CLEARLY the rules need to be changed. However, if the Welfare money is already set aside regardless ... that is completely different, and again - it would be up to the people in charge of the program to set the rules for who gets it!

so your argument is we're already wasting what we are so we shouldn't try to cut it back, and only worry about wasting more than we already are?

Huh?!?!?!

Where on Earth did you get that from what I said?

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli


I completely understand that.

However, if you cut the welfare userbase in half because of stricter rules, you could either A) reduce taxes , B) spend it elsewhere, or C) increase the ammount you give the people that, under the new stricter rules, really need it.

Get it?

I think my disagreement starts with this:.

Some people view every human as being so precious that we must keep them alive at all costs. I disagree with that. Sometimes you get good apples, sometimes you get bad apples. Nature has a way of sorting them out- it's called natural selection.

With these welfare policies, we are keeping people alive that just consume resources and don't produce anything. We are paying to keep the bad apples around. It's a bit naive to think that nobody comes out bad. They do, and we just foot their bills to keep them living. There are even some people that are REALLY messed up and they go around stealing and killing. At that point they go to prison, which is another form of welfare. Instead of being removed from the population, they're just put in a cage and kept alive there. Why should I pay to keep rapists/murderers/theives alive? Put them down like a rabit animal.

I don't think that my taxes should pay for any welfare. There are already too many people on Earth, and the Earth is a very competitive place. You can either work to survive or you can die off.

my thoughts exactly, but the religious right refutes Darwin and natural selection completley :roll:

hell, you can deomonstrate natural selection in a peatri dish and they'll still refute it... this is a case of majority rules, and in this case, the majority is stupid.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Eli
And you're wrong, I do NOT view welfare as some infinate pool of money, that's obsurd.

I'm looking at it from this point of view.

There's 800 million dollars in the pool. There are 250,000 recipients, recieving a total of 600 million dollars. The USDA decides to adveritse because 200 million dollars is going unused.

Can you show me that more welfare users are causing the taxes to go up? If that is indeed the case, then CLEARLY the rules need to be changed. However, if the Welfare money is already set aside regardless ... that is completely different, and again - it would be up to the people in charge of the program to set the rules for who gets it!

so your argument is we're already wasting what we are so we shouldn't try to cut it back, and only worry about wasting more than we already are?

Huh?!?!?!

Where on Earth did you get that from what I said?

you said the money is already set aside regardless...which i took to mean you see no reason to reduce the welfare budget

and you also said if more users are causing the taxes to go up something needs to be changed, which suggests you don't want it to be increased either

or did i miss something?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I think my disagreement starts with this:.

Some people view every human as being so precious that we must keep them alive at all costs. I disagree with that. Sometimes you get good apples, sometimes you get bad apples. Nature has a way of sorting them out- it's called natural selection.

With these welfare policies, we are keeping people alive that just consume resources and don't produce anything. We are paying to keep the bad apples around. It's a bit naive to think that nobody comes out bad. They do, and we just foot their bills to keep them living. There are even some people that are REALLY messed up and they go around stealing and killing. At that point they go to prison, which is another form of welfare. Instead of being removed from the population, they're just put in a cage and kept alive there. Why should I pay to keep rapists/murderers/theives alive? Put them down like a rabit animal.

I don't think that my taxes should pay for any welfare. There are already too many people on Earth, and the Earth is a very competitive place. You can either work to survive or you can die off.

my thoughts exactly, but the religious right refutes Darwin and natural selection completley :roll:

hell, you can deomonstrate natural selection in a peatri dish and they'll still refute it... this is a case of majority rules, and in this case, the majority is stupid.

:thumbsup:

 

[Eli]

No, damnit. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand... LOL.

If the government sets aside XXXX money for X program, they also need to setup the rules regarding how that money gets distributed. Right? OK.

If you are a person looking for a way to gain free money, you are, obviously, only going to sign up for the programs you qualify for.

Is it your fault that you qualify for the program? So you believe that it is MY responsibility to tell myself that I shouldn't take the free money, even though I qualify based on the programs rules, because I "don't need it" in your opinion, because in your opinion my car is "nice"?

Well, in my opinion... my goal is to have a Ferrari. That's what I consider a nice car. My goal is to use ANY legal means necessary to own a Ferrari.

Now change Ferrari with a Cadillac and a 5,000 dollar paint job. That's the point of view of the person. You, me, everybody.

 

[quakefiend420]

i like this thread...it has gone on for 3 pages without degenerating into personal attacks and insults :thumbsup:

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Eli
And you're wrong, I do NOT view welfare as some infinate pool of money, that's obsurd.

I'm looking at it from this point of view.

There's 800 million dollars in the pool. There are 250,000 recipients, recieving a total of 600 million dollars. The USDA decides to adveritse because 200 million dollars is going unused.

Can you show me that more welfare users are causing the taxes to go up? If that is indeed the case, then CLEARLY the rules need to be changed. However, if the Welfare money is already set aside regardless ... that is completely different, and again - it would be up to the people in charge of the program to set the rules for who gets it!

so your argument is we're already wasting what we are so we shouldn't try to cut it back, and only worry about wasting more than we already are?

Huh?!?!?!

Where on Earth did you get that from what I said?

you said the money is already set aside regardless...which i took to mean you see no reason to reduce the welfare budget

and you also said if more users are causing the taxes to go up something needs to be changed, which suggests you don't want it to be increased either

or did i miss something?

I didn't STATE anything, I was asking questions...

I see no reason to reduce the welfare budget, UNLESS it is based entirely on the number of recipients....

That would mean that the taxes are increased based on the number of people that recieve it. If that's the case, then obviously the people that take advantage of the system need to be stopped.

The ONLY way to do this is going to be through tighter rules and regulations. Right?

It is not fair to lay out rules and then tell the people they've gotta make some sort've weird moral or whatever you want to call it decision judging whether they really need it or not. The rules should be setup to decide who needs it or not, that's what the rules are for........

I think you have a hard time comprehending what I say for some reason. Take the speed sign analogy again. I didn't say anything about removing any laws.

I was saying that.. OK, if we removed all speed limit laws and signs, that would be the new law.. No speed limit. According to you, it's now everybodies job to determine how fast they should go. Sounds like a nice thought idea in theory, but obviously it does not work like that in reality. Why? Because people will always take advantage of what they are given.

That's the way Welfare is now. The rules are so lienient, there are almost no laws.. no speed limt. If you want people to slow down, you are going to have to change the rules.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
hey, if the gov't is going to give me free money, I'm not just going to turn it down...

you actually think it's free? you know YOUR taxes pay for their stuff.

Yeah, but you don't have to pay taxes at all if your ...."poor"

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i like this thread...it has gone on for 3 pages without degenerating into personal attacks and insults :thumbsup:

Three pages?

How can you stand that?

I have mine set to 100 posts per page or something, so it's still only 1 here.. lol

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Eli
I didn't STATE anything, I was asking questions...

I see no reason to reduce the welfare budget, UNLESS it is based entirely on the number of recipients....

That would mean that the taxes are increased based on the number of people that recieve it. If that's the case, then obviously the people that take advantage of the system need to be stopped.

The ONLY way to do this is going to be through tighter rules and regulations. Right?

It is not fair to lay out rules and then tell the people they've gotta make some sort've weird moral or whatever you want to call it decision judging whether they really need it or not. The rules should be setup to decide who needs it or not, that's what the rules are for........

i agree that the rules need to be changed...but is it really too much to expect some common sense and decency out of people?

Originally posted by: Eli
I think you have a hard time comprehending what I say for some reason. Take the speed sign analogy again. I didn't say anything about removing any laws.

Originally posted by: Eli
It's like saying we may as well remove all speed limit signs and rules because people just know they shouldn't go fast.

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i never said we should remove the rules...what i'm saying is people should know better than to drive 70mph in a blizzard, even though the speed limit sign says they can drive that fast...

I was saying that.. OK, if we removed all speed limit laws and signs, that would be the new law.. No speed limit. According to you, it's now everybodies job to determine how fast they should go. Sounds like a nice thought idea in theory, but obviously it does not work like that in reality. Why? Because people will always take advantage of what they are given.

That's the way Welfare is now. The rules are so lienient, there are almost no laws.. no speed limt. If you want people to slow down, you are going to have to change the rules.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i like this thread...it has gone on for 3 pages without degenerating into personal attacks and insults :thumbsup:

Three pages?

How can you stand that?

I have mine set to 100 posts per page or something, so it's still only 1 here.. lol

because if i go back to look for a comment from earlier in the thread, i have somewhat of an idea of which page its on so it's easier to find it...if i had that many posts per page that would be a lot more scrolling...imo...i dunno, it works for me

 

[FoBoT]

<obligatory insult>

only nazis support unlimited welfare

</obligatory insult>

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
<obligatory insult>

only nazis support unlimited welfare

</obligatory insult>

oh noes...there went our streak

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Eli
No, damnit. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand... LOL.

If the government sets aside XXXX money for X program, they also need to setup the rules regarding how that money gets distributed. Right? OK.

If you are a person looking for a way to gain free money, you are, obviously, only going to sign up for the programs you qualify for.

Is it your fault that you qualify for the program? So you believe that it is MY responsibility to tell myself that I shouldn't take the free money, even though I qualify based on the programs rules, because I "don't need it" in your opinion, because in your opinion my car is "nice"?

Well, in my opinion... my goal is to have a Ferrari. That's what I consider a nice car. My goal is to use ANY legal means necessary to own a Ferrari.

Now change Ferrari with a Cadillac and a 5,000 dollar paint job. That's the point of view of the person. You, me, everybody.

No, there are many people who know they COULD get government assistance but refuse. Some people have dignity.

I have no problem with people collecting assistance when they need it, but people who don't need it and collect it because they can are scum. Spin it however you want, but the only people you'll find who agree with you are welfare leeches.

 

[akubi]

this is one of the reasons I hate paying taxes :|

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Eli
No, damnit. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand... LOL.

If the government sets aside XXXX money for X program, they also need to setup the rules regarding how that money gets distributed. Right? OK.

If you are a person looking for a way to gain free money, you are, obviously, only going to sign up for the programs you qualify for.

Is it your fault that you qualify for the program? So you believe that it is MY responsibility to tell myself that I shouldn't take the free money, even though I qualify based on the programs rules, because I "don't need it" in your opinion, because in your opinion my car is "nice"?

Well, in my opinion... my goal is to have a Ferrari. That's what I consider a nice car. My goal is to use ANY legal means necessary to own a Ferrari.

Now change Ferrari with a Cadillac and a 5,000 dollar paint job. That's the point of view of the person. You, me, everybody.

No, there are many people who know they COULD get government assistance but refuse. Some people have dignity.

I have no problem with people collecting assistance when they need it, but people who don't need it and collect it because they can are scum. Spin it however you want, but the only people you'll find who agree with you are welfare leeches.

What? I am not trying to spin anything any way...

Why is it the people's fault that the system lets them take advantage of it?!?!?! Isn't that what rules and regulations are for?

You are obviously NOT comprehending me. The welfare leeches would NEVER agree with me, because I'm advocating taking their money away by making the rules more strict. Hello?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i agree that the rules need to be changed...but is it really too much to expect some common sense and decency out of people?

You still aren't quite getting it, I don't think.

The purpose of rules is to set boundaries. These people are doing nothing wrong by following the rules.

If the majority disagrees with these rules, then they need to be changed. It is as simple as that. I fail to see how you can condemn the people for following the rules. It is clearly the governments fault for making the requirements too relaxed.