YART: welfare recipiant has a Scion TC???

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Eli
Do you realize how many wealthy individuals and corporations recieve government grants? Are they "in need"? Yes, but only from their point of view. Which is really the key, because thats the way everyone looks at things, obviously.

If the multi billion dollar corporation can get a 200 million dollar grant for something, you better bet your ass they will. Do they need it from our point of view? No.

Did they take advantage of the system by following the rules? NO!

No, because the purpose of that grant was likely not to alleviate financial need but rather to promote economic development. That benefits the public, a $5000 paint job on a Cadillac does not.

Huh? The purpose of Welfare is to promote economic and social development.

What on Earth do you mean that the purpose of the grant was likely "not to alleviate financial need"?

I'd say needing 200 million dollars for something is a financial need.

Those grants are made to promote growth is small business....not give ailing business money to relieve debt.

That is incorrect.

Haven't you been watching your infomercials? lol...

There are grants, both government and private, for EVERYTHING. All you have to do is apply(and qualify).

You can get grants to fix your car, pay your rent, buy a house..

Wow, I sound like the guy with all the questionmarks all over him. But it's true.

you base your truth on infomercials? The reason you can use those grants towrads relieving debt is because no one ever applies for them. It's just like Financial aid at school. The only reason i recieved grants was because i was one of the only people to apply for them. They are based on need, but I was not in need according to my FAFSA. All I have to do is just claim what no one has claimed.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

And you are wrong. The person buying a 5,000$ paintjob IS promoting economic development; they are supporting their local paint shops. Silly, but its true.

That's just ridiculous.

yeah, but that's also why it makes sense for governments to do technology grants.... watch this....

gvt gives 50k to a uni and a company to work together to develop a solution to a problem. Uni gets big credit, company takes it commercial, prospers, creates jobs, new tax revenue, quickly paying back 50k....

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

And you are wrong. The person buying a 5,000$ paintjob IS promoting economic development; they are supporting their local paint shops. Silly, but its true.

That's just ridiculous.

What on Earth do you mean it's ridiculous?

It's absolutely, 100% true. If recieving Welfare enabled them to spend their money on something they would not have otherwise been able to, that has contributed to the economy.

Same concept behind the tax rebate checks people got a few years ago. It did not matter what they spent their 300$ on, all that mattered was that it was being spent.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: sonz70
My mother was on welfare for a year, with 2 kids, after my father left. She was trying to get a job that entirew year, and ended up getting a low paying job at 7-eleven. This job payed less than her welfare checks that she was getting. Yeah are there people who abuse the system? of course, does that mean that all of them are liars and thiefs? no. Maybe most of you should actually meet and talk to people who are on welfare before passing the judgement you all seem so inclined to do.

This is certainly true, and it's important to remember that welfare can have a positive impact on our society when it's used as it was originally intended: as a temporary stop-gap for brief periods of unemployment.

The main problem with the current system is that it fails to provide the proper incentives to get out of the program. As you stated in your story, welfare generally pays better than employment alternatives, and with little responsibility on the part of the recipient. Welfare should help people help themselves by providing job training and placement and by educating recipients on money management.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

And you are wrong. The person buying a 5,000$ paintjob IS promoting economic development; they are supporting their local paint shops. Silly, but its true.

That's just ridiculous.

What on Earth do you mean it's ridiculous?

It's absolutely, 100% true. If recieving Welfare enabled them to spend their money on something they would not have otherwise been able to, that has contributed to the economy.

Same concept behind the tax rebate checks people got a few years ago. It did not matter what they spent their 300$ on, all that mattered was that it was being spent.

except that 1) most of the refund was wasted on administrative costs... and 2) studies showed it spruned little new spending, it just helped pay off debt

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Juice Box
Scions are very reasonably priced cars....and it may have been a gift or a prize...you dont know and cant pass judgement till you know how she got it.

Yeah it could have been a relative or something... still just wrong though - I've lived without a car, in gov't housing, and on food stamps and we didn't buy ANYTHING that wasn't ABSOLUTELY necessary (parents immigrated and were going to college = poor).

 

[Gibson486]

maaco is a local paint shop?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Two of my tenants receive welfare.

One drives a Cadillac with a $5k+ paintjob and however-expensive 20", chrome, spinning wheels and a GMC Sierra. The other just bought a new Acura MDX to complement their late model Isuzu Trooper.

you see this and just let it slide???? aren't obligated to inform the city by law???

i know nothing about landlord/renter stuff so bare wit me

Errr...but if they cut their welfare, it might also affect the HUD

Actually, there's no doubt in my mind that they're quite poor--they're just living way outside their means

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Eli
Do you realize how many wealthy individuals and corporations recieve government grants? Are they "in need"? Yes, but only from their point of view. Which is really the key, because thats the way everyone looks at things, obviously.

If the multi billion dollar corporation can get a 200 million dollar grant for something, you better bet your ass they will. Do they need it from our point of view? No.

Did they take advantage of the system by following the rules? NO!

No, because the purpose of that grant was likely not to alleviate financial need but rather to promote economic development. That benefits the public, a $5000 paint job on a Cadillac does not.

Huh? The purpose of Welfare is to promote economic and social development.

What on Earth do you mean that the purpose of the grant was likely "not to alleviate financial need"?

I'd say needing 200 million dollars for something is a financial need.

Those grants are made to promote growth is small business....not give ailing business money to relieve debt.

That is incorrect.

Haven't you been watching your infomercials? lol...

There are grants, both government and private, for EVERYTHING. All you have to do is apply(and qualify).

You can get grants to fix your car, pay your rent, buy a house..

Wow, I sound like the guy with all the questionmarks all over him. But it's true.

you base your truth on infomercials? The reason you can use those grants towrads relieving debt is because no one ever applies for them. It's just like Financial aid at school. The only reason i recieved grants was because i was one of the only people to apply for them. They are based on need, but I was not in need according to my FAFSA. All I have to do is just claim what no one has claimed.

No, I was being silly, but it's still the truth.. It's the point I'm trying to get across.

Is a multibillion dollar corporation in need of money, or not? Should they be able to apply for government assistance, or not?

If you have no problem with this, what about someone with a million dollar mansion?

Now how about someone with a 5,000 dollar paint job?

You do understand that nomatter how much money you have, you always need more.. Right? It doesen't matter if you're poor and on the streets or Bill Gates. Your goal is still to gain.

That's why it isn't unethical for the multibillion dollar corporation to recieve government help; they are following the rules.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: ariafrost

Originally posted by: Juice Box
Scions are very reasonably priced cars....and it may have been a gift or a prize...you dont know and cant pass judgement till you know how she got it.

Yeah it could have been a relative or something... still just wrong though - I've lived without a car, in gov't housing, and on food stamps and we didn't buy ANYTHING that wasn't ABSOLUTELY necessary (parents immigrated and were going to college = poor).

exactly, the point is to use to get you back on yoru feet, not for a down payment on a new car. If it was a gift, fine. If it wasn't though, it is wrong.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

And you are wrong. The person buying a 5,000$ paintjob IS promoting economic development; they are supporting their local paint shops. Silly, but its true.

That's just ridiculous.

What on Earth do you mean it's ridiculous?

It's absolutely, 100% true. If recieving Welfare enabled them to spend their money on something they would not have otherwise been able to, that has contributed to the economy.

Same concept behind the tax rebate checks people got a few years ago. It did not matter what they spent their 300$ on, all that mattered was that it was being spent.

except that 1) most of the refund was wasted on administrative costs... and 2) studies showed it spruned little new spending, it just helped pay off debt

Err, well.. lol.. That's besides the point.

Saying that someone spending 5,000$ on a paint job "didn't contribute to the economy" is what is ridiculous.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Eli
Do you realize how many wealthy individuals and corporations recieve government grants? Are they "in need"? Yes, but only from their point of view. Which is really the key, because thats the way everyone looks at things, obviously.

If the multi billion dollar corporation can get a 200 million dollar grant for something, you better bet your ass they will. Do they need it from our point of view? No.

Did they take advantage of the system by following the rules? NO!

No, because the purpose of that grant was likely not to alleviate financial need but rather to promote economic development. That benefits the public, a $5000 paint job on a Cadillac does not.

Huh? The purpose of Welfare is to promote economic and social development.

What on Earth do you mean that the purpose of the grant was likely "not to alleviate financial need"?

I'd say needing 200 million dollars for something is a financial need.

Those grants are made to promote growth is small business....not give ailing business money to relieve debt.

That is incorrect.

Haven't you been watching your infomercials? lol...

There are grants, both government and private, for EVERYTHING. All you have to do is apply(and qualify).

You can get grants to fix your car, pay your rent, buy a house..

Wow, I sound like the guy with all the questionmarks all over him. But it's true.

you base your truth on infomercials? The reason you can use those grants towrads relieving debt is because no one ever applies for them. It's just like Financial aid at school. The only reason i recieved grants was because i was one of the only people to apply for them. They are based on need, but I was not in need according to my FAFSA. All I have to do is just claim what no one has claimed.

No, I was being silly, but it's still the truth.. It's the point I'm trying to get across.

Is a multibillion dollar corporation in need of money, or not? Should they be able to apply for government assistance, or not?

If you have no problem with this, what about someone with a million dollar mansion?

Now how about someone with a 5,000 dollar paint job?

You do understand that nomatter how much money you have, you always need more.. Right? It doesen't matter if you're poor and on the streets or Bill Gates. Your goal is still to gain.

That's why it isn't unethical for the multibillion dollar corporation to recieve government help; they are following the rules.

I never said it was unethical. It just simple. There are grants, no one gets them. They have to go to someone, so people who do not need them, get them.

Anyways, back to the original topic....

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

And you are wrong. The person buying a 5,000$ paintjob IS promoting economic development; they are supporting their local paint shops. Silly, but its true.

That's just ridiculous.

yeah, but that's also why it makes sense for governments to do technology grants.... watch this....

gvt gives 50k to a uni and a company to work together to develop a solution to a problem. Uni gets big credit, company takes it commercial, prospers, creates jobs, new tax revenue, quickly paying back 50k....

But there is a return on investment to give money for research. There isn't to give away money for a paint job.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Gibson486

I never said it was unethical. It just simple. There are grants, no one gets them. They have to go to someone, so people who do not need them, get them.

Anyways, back to the original topic....

Yes, and that is exactly why I brought up the grant analogy in the first place.

I wanted to know if the Welfare system worked this way. That's the way I was thinking about it, so it made sense to me that the rules were extremely lax.. To promote people being able to use the money that is available. Does that make sense?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

And you are wrong. The person buying a 5,000$ paintjob IS promoting economic development; they are supporting their local paint shops. Silly, but its true.

That's just ridiculous.

yeah, but that's also why it makes sense for governments to do technology grants.... watch this....

gvt gives 50k to a uni and a company to work together to develop a solution to a problem. Uni gets big credit, company takes it commercial, prospers, creates jobs, new tax revenue, quickly paying back 50k....

But there is a return on investment to give money for research. There isn't to give away money for a paint job.

That simply isn't true. By supporting the local paint shop, you are keeping people employed.. and *gasp*... helping both them and the business pay taxes!!!! Wow.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli

It's absolutely, 100% true. If recieving Welfare enabled them to spend their money on something they would not have otherwise been able to, that has contributed to the economy.

Same concept behind the tax rebate checks people got a few years ago. It did not matter what they spent their 300$ on, all that mattered was that it was being spent.

Giving some welfare queen money to blow is just wasteful. This is money that I can't spend on things because they're getting it, and did nothing to deserve it. I, on the other hand, worked to produce it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

And you are wrong. The person buying a 5,000$ paintjob IS promoting economic development; they are supporting their local paint shops. Silly, but its true.

That's just ridiculous.

What on Earth do you mean it's ridiculous?

It's absolutely, 100% true. If recieving Welfare enabled them to spend their money on something they would not have otherwise been able to, that has contributed to the economy.

Same concept behind the tax rebate checks people got a few years ago. It did not matter what they spent their 300$ on, all that mattered was that it was being spent.

Generally when you spend money on economic development, you want the returns to be greater than the expense. That is absolutely not the case when you give an individual $5000. If I recall correctly, the $300 was essentially an advance on your refund, wasn't it?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli

That simply isn't true. By supporting the local paint shop, you are keeping people employed.. and *gasp*... helping both them and the business pay taxes!!!! Wow.[/quote]

You lack the knowledge required to carry on an intelligent conversation.

There's a huge difference between spending $1 million on research that will generate $2 million in revenue later on, and giving a welfare queen $5k for a paintjob and getting back maybe a quarter of that in taxes.

One of those generated money, and the other lost money.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

And you are wrong. The person buying a 5,000$ paintjob IS promoting economic development; they are supporting their local paint shops. Silly, but its true.

That's just ridiculous.

What on Earth do you mean it's ridiculous?

It's absolutely, 100% true. If recieving Welfare enabled them to spend their money on something they would not have otherwise been able to, that has contributed to the economy.

Same concept behind the tax rebate checks people got a few years ago. It did not matter what they spent their 300$ on, all that mattered was that it was being spent.

Generally when you spend money on economic development, you want the returns to be greater than the expense. That is absolutely not the case when you give an individual $5000. If I recall correctly, the $300 was essentially an advance on your refund, wasn't it?

I think we're all getting confused here.

Welfare does not pay for paintjobs. However, it may enable someone to save up for a paintjob.

 

[mugs]

I think the biggest wtf in this thread is why does the topic title start with "YART?"

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

That simply isn't true. By supporting the local paint shop, you are keeping people employed.. and *gasp*... helping both them and the business pay taxes!!!! Wow.

You lack the knowledge required to carry on an intelligent conversation.

There's a huge difference between spending $1 million on research that will generate $2 million in revenue later on, and giving a welfare queen $5k for a paintjob and getting back maybe a quarter of that in taxes.

One of those generated money, and the other lost money.[/quote]Thanks for the insult, jackass. Nice to see you can hold an intelligent conversation; something that has been happening just fine until you had to come in here and open your ass.

Anyway, your first mistake is assuming that the 1 million dollar grant is for reasearch that will generate 2 million in revenue later on. It could be to install a new toilet system.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli

I think we're all getting confused here.

Welfare does not pay for paintjobs.

Sure it does.

You seem to be getting confused about the flow of money. I can either spend $200 of MY OWN money on groceries and have nothing left over for that watch that I want, or I can get welfare, get YOU to pay for my groceries, and then I'll buy that watch that I wanted.

In effect, welfare money bought the watch. It's just not as direct.

And let's take an example that we see in Philly. A crackhead uses foodstamps to buy $200 of groceries, they sell those groceries to another welfare queen for $100, then they use that money to buy alcohol and crack. The government's better off just giving them $2,000 of crack right now and letting them overdose on it. No more payments to worry about.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

I think we're all getting confused here.

Welfare does not pay for paintjobs.

Sure it does.

You seem to be getting confused about the flow of money. I can either spend $200 of MY OWN money on groceries and have nothing left over for that watch that I want, or I can get welfare, get YOU to pay for my groceries, and then I'll buy that watch that I wanted.

In effect, welfare money bought the watch. It's just not as direct.

And let's take an example that we see in Philly. A crackhead uses foodstamps to buy $200 of groceries, they sell those groceries to another welfare queen for $100, then they use that money to buy alcohol and crack.

What the fsck is wrong with you?

I'm the one confused, and you completely ignored the rest of my statement?

Here, I will bold it for you.

Welfare does not pay for paintjobs. However, it may enable someone to save up for a paintjob.

.

Which is exactly what you just repeated.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli

Anyway, your first mistake is assuming that the 1 million dollar grant is for reasearch that will generate 2 million in revenue later on. It could be to install a new toilet system.

Usually grants are for research. They're called "research grants". I've never heard of the government giving a company money to install toilets.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli
What the fsck is wrong with you?

A: I'm not a liberal that feels that it's society's responsibilty to feed a welfare queen's kids so she can buy a new car and install 22 inch chrome rims on it.

The only thing we should provide, in my opinion, is birth control pills.