YART: welfare recipiant has a Scion TC???

[Amused]

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.

It's free to THEM, silly.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: Eli

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

.... Mind your own business.

Ugh. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

yes masta...i'll shut up now

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Eli

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

WTF?....

No you aren't obligated to inform the city by law. Inform the city of what?! They have not done anything wrong. Geez.... Mind your own business.

Ugh. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

imho, if you have 5K to spend on a fvcking paintjob, you don't need to be on welfare :roll:

EDIT: you pay for it as well, doesn't that bother you?

Err, well, I guess.

But it isn't a crime to own a nice car and be on welfare. This is evidence that the welfare laws and rules need to be reformed.

It doesen't mean that everyone who owns a nice car and recieves welfare needs to be "turned in".. Turned in for what, exactly? Owning a nice car and recieving welfare? Yeah, the detectives will be right on it.

lol

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Eli

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

WTF?....

No you aren't obligated to inform the city by law. Inform the city of what?! They have not done anything wrong. Geez.... Mind your own business.

Ugh. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

hmm

they may or may not be guilty of cheating welfare. but they shouldn't be on it in the first place. I have no trouble turning in a welfare cheat at all.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

I saw a women with over $230 in groceries that never even touched the top rail of her shopping card ( therefore expensive stuff ) She had crab legs and a bunch of other seafood and such. She then paid with food stamps and loaded them all into her 2004 Toyota.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Bothersome, but not all that bad since the TC is an economy car.

Come back when you have seen the ones in luxury cars.

Yeah, I see Lexuses and brand new SUVs parked in the projects all the time. Apparantly they don't report their income from drug sales.

 

[91TTZ]

In the projects in a town near me, it's routine to see high end Mercedes, BMW's, and other high end cars. One guy had an NSX. And we end up paying for their groceries and kids that they seem to be able to pump out every 4 months (having crack-induced preemies allows you to have more kids per year!)

I shouldn't have to pay for them. They should either be self-sufficient, forced to work, or just left to survive on their own. There should be no welfare. I can't believe that we think that someone on welfare should be allowed to have kids, because not only is the person a burden on society, but now they're sh!tting out litters of offspring that we'll need to pay for, also.

 

[Gurck]

Welfare in its current implementation disgusts me. How stupid must you be to think providing someone with an income for not working will inspire them to work? I remember reading about a woman on it who truly believed it was her job to have children - they just kept giving her more every time she popped one out. :roll:

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
In the projects in a town near me, it's routine to see high end Mercedes, BMW's, and other high end cars. One guy had an NSX. And we end up paying for their groceries and kids that they seem to be able to pump out every 4 months (having crack-induced preemies allows you to have more kids per year!)

I shouldn't have to pay for them. They should either be self-sufficient, forced to work, or just left to survive on their own. There should be no welfare. I can't believe that we think that someone on welfare should be allowed to have kids, because not only is the person a burden on society, but now they're sh!tting out litters of offspring that we'll need to pay for, also.

i don't have a problem with the welfare system itself...but i have a big problem with the way they pass it out like candy...a little common sense would go a long way there...there are people who really need welfare to get back on their feet...but thats really what it should be about, is getting back on your feet...not living off of it, sitting on their fat ass, eating bon bons, and watching oprah while spitting out kids like its going out of style...

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Antisocial Virge
I saw a women with over $230 in groceries that never even touched the top rail of her shopping card ( therefore expensive stuff ) She had crab legs and a bunch of other seafood and such. She then paid with food stamps and loaded them all into her 2004 Toyota.

I think we need to look at it a different way.

Perhaps the people running the programs know a little more than we do?

Yes, it is easy to get food stamps. You can get food stamps even if you work a full time job in some cases.

Obviously the money is there. If there were a lack of funds, perhaps they would be more discriminant.

It *DOES* help these peoples lives, even if you don't agree with their lifestyles. Who cars if they have a nice car? You don't know how they got it. They very well could have saved very hard earned money to get what they own.

If recieving money from the government because the government said "You qualify!" allowed them to buy better things... what is so bad about that? Is that wrong? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't do it too?

Now, cheating is another story. IE: lying. I wouldn't agree with that. But these people weren't cheating.. they listed their asset.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Gurck
I remember reading about a woman on it who truly believed it was her job to have children - they just kept giving her more every time she popped one out. :roll:

Yup, that's common. Some people think it's their god-given right to have children, even when they depend on welfare to pay for them and the children they produce.

Welfare should be an agreement. They should agree to get aid in exchange for not having kids and getting themselves out of their situation. As it is now, not only must we give them money that supplements their income, but we must also pay for them to be on maternity leave.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
In the projects in a town near me, it's routine to see high end Mercedes, BMW's, and other high end cars. One guy had an NSX. And we end up paying for their groceries and kids that they seem to be able to pump out every 4 months (having crack-induced preemies allows you to have more kids per year!)

I shouldn't have to pay for them. They should either be self-sufficient, forced to work, or just left to survive on their own. There should be no welfare. I can't believe that we think that someone on welfare should be allowed to have kids, because not only is the person a burden on society, but now they're sh!tting out litters of offspring that we'll need to pay for, also.

i don't have a problem with the welfare system itself...but i have a big problem with the way they pass it out like candy...a little common sense would go a long way there...there are people who really need welfare to get back on their feet...but thats really what it should be about, is getting back on your feet...not living off of it, sitting on their fat ass, eating bon bons, and watching oprah while spitting out kids like its going out of style...

i agree. i have NO problems with welfare either. but when you have cases like this, and people on top let it slide, it's just wrong. even if my friend denies it - the family go to court which will reinstate, and it's just sad.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Eli
I think we need to look at it a different way.

Perhaps the people running the programs know a little more than we do?

Yes, it is easy to get food stamps. You can get food stamps even if you work a full time job in some cases.

Obviously the money is there. If there were a lack of funds, perhaps they would be more discriminant.

It *DOES* help these peoples lives, even if you don't agree with their lifestyles. Who cars if they have a nice car? You don't know how they got it. They very well could have saved very hard earned money to get what they own.

If recieving money from the government because the government said "You qualify!" allowed them to buy better things... what is so bad about that? Is that wrong? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't do it too?

Now, cheating is another story. IE: lying. I wouldn't agree with that. But these people weren't cheating.. they listed their asset.

It does matter, because if they have an expensive car *I* should not be paying for their food. It doesn't matter how they got the car.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Antisocial Virge
I saw a women with over $230 in groceries that never even touched the top rail of her shopping card ( therefore expensive stuff ) She had crab legs and a bunch of other seafood and such. She then paid with food stamps and loaded them all into her 2004 Toyota.

I think we need to look at it a different way.

Perhaps the people running the programs know a little more than we do?

Yes, it is easy to get food stamps. You can get food stamps even if you work a full time job in some cases.

Obviously the money is there. If there were a lack of funds, perhaps they would be more discriminant.

It *DOES* help these peoples lives, even if you don't agree with their lifestyles. Who cars if they have a nice car? You don't know how they got it. They very well could have saved very hard earned money to get what they own.

If recieving money from the government because the government said "You qualify!" allowed them to buy better things... what is so bad about that? Is that wrong? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't do it too?

Now, cheating is another story. IE: lying. I wouldn't agree with that. But these people weren't cheating.. they listed their asset.

the problem is, people who don't need it are getting it...if you can get by without government assistance, don't get it...that simple...i don't want my tax dollars paying for someone's food bill so they can afford to put a 5K paintjob on their caddy...i have to work to get nice things, why shouldn't they? i don't see the government popping in and handing out money to me so that i can afford to have more disposeable income...as well they shouldn't...because i don't need it...

however if someone is going to go without something they need if they don't get that assistance, give it to them...because they're the reason the system is there in the first place...

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
In the projects in a town near me, it's routine to see high end Mercedes, BMW's, and other high end cars. One guy had an NSX. And we end up paying for their groceries and kids that they seem to be able to pump out every 4 months (having crack-induced preemies allows you to have more kids per year!)

I shouldn't have to pay for them. They should either be self-sufficient, forced to work, or just left to survive on their own. There should be no welfare. I can't believe that we think that someone on welfare should be allowed to have kids, because not only is the person a burden on society, but now they're sh!tting out litters of offspring that we'll need to pay for, also.

i don't have a problem with the welfare system itself...but i have a big problem with the way they pass it out like candy...a little common sense would go a long way there...there are people who really need welfare to get back on their feet...but thats really what it should be about, is getting back on your feet...not living off of it, sitting on their fat ass, eating bon bons, and watching oprah while spitting out kids like its going out of style...

i agree. i have NO problems with welfare either. but when you have cases like this, and people on top let it slide, it's just wrong. even if my friend denies it - the family go to court which will reinstate, and it's just sad.

You are not just "letting it slide". They have not broken any laws. There is nothing you can do about it.

Except push for welfare reform.

 

[ngvepforever2]

That's just not right. I work two damn jobs just so I can affort to pay for college next year and I pay my taxes so people like that can take advantage of the system? that's outrageous. That said, I think that the information your social worker friend sees is confidential and he cannot just give it out to anybody.


Regards

ng

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli

Obviously the money is there. If there were a lack of funds, perhaps they would be more discriminant.

It *DOES* help these peoples lives, even if you don't agree with their lifestyles. Who cars if they have a nice car? You don't know how they got it. They very well could have saved very hard earned money to get what they own.

If recieving money from the government because the government said "You qualify!" allowed them to buy better things... what is so bad about that? Is that wrong? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't do it too?

That thinking is so liberal it's disgusting. Money doesn't grow on trees. You're agreeing to spend money that we all have to pay.

You say that maybe they spent their hard-earned money on a new car. If they had that "hard earned" money to spend on a brand new car, then obviously they could have bought their own groceries. Why should we have to buy their groceries if they're capable of buying a new car? Why can't they pay for their own groceries and buy a cheaper used car?

This is messed up, since there are hard working people out there who DON'T collect welfare, and they CAN'T afford a new car because they're getting taxed out of their a$$ to pay for some welfare queen's groceries while she buys herself a brand new car.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Antisocial Virge
I saw a women with over $230 in groceries that never even touched the top rail of her shopping card ( therefore expensive stuff ) She had crab legs and a bunch of other seafood and such. She then paid with food stamps and loaded them all into her 2004 Toyota.

I think we need to look at it a different way.

Perhaps the people running the programs know a little more than we do?

Yes, it is easy to get food stamps. You can get food stamps even if you work a full time job in some cases.

Obviously the money is there. If there were a lack of funds, perhaps they would be more discriminant.

It *DOES* help these peoples lives, even if you don't agree with their lifestyles. Who cars if they have a nice car? You don't know how they got it. They very well could have saved very hard earned money to get what they own.

If recieving money from the government because the government said "You qualify!" allowed them to buy better things... what is so bad about that? Is that wrong? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't do it too?

Now, cheating is another story. IE: lying. I wouldn't agree with that. But these people weren't cheating.. they listed their asset.

the problem is, people who don't need it are getting it...if you can get by without government assistance, don't get it...that simple...i don't want my tax dollars paying for someone's food bill so they can afford to put a 5K paintjob on their caddy...i have to work to get nice things, why shouldn't they? i don't see the government popping in and handing out money to me so that i can afford to have more disposeable income...as well they shouldn't...because i don't need it...

however if someone is going to go without something they need if they don't get that assistance, give it to them...because they're the reason the system is there in the first place...

The government doesen't walk up to you and hand you money; you have to go to them and ask. What I'm saying is, have you looked to see if you qualify for any government assistance?

If you were looking for school grants, obviously you would only pay attention to the grant programs you qualified for, right? You would be ecstatic if there were some whos rules were so lienent that you easily qualified for them!

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

Obviously the money is there. If there were a lack of funds, perhaps they would be more discriminant.

It *DOES* help these peoples lives, even if you don't agree with their lifestyles. Who cars if they have a nice car? You don't know how they got it. They very well could have saved very hard earned money to get what they own.

If recieving money from the government because the government said "You qualify!" allowed them to buy better things... what is so bad about that? Is that wrong? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't do it too?

That thinking is so liberal it's disgusting. Money doesn't grow on trees. You're agreeing to spend money that we all have to pay.

You say that maybe they spent their hard-earned money on a new car. If they had that "hard earned" money to spend on a brand new car, then obviously they could have bought their own groceries. Why should we have to buy their groceries if they're capable of buying a new car? Why can't they pay for their own groceries and buy a cheaper used car?

This is messed up, since there are hard working people out there who DON'T collect welfare, and they CAN'T afford a new car because they're getting taxed out of their a$$ to pay for some welfare queen's groceries while she buys herself a brand new car.

quoted and bolded for emphasis

i couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: Eli
You are not just "letting it slide". They have not broken any laws. There is nothing you can do about it.

Except push for welfare reform.

ok, i'll recluntantly agree :beer: i'd said my piece

i don't know why my friend even told me, knowing i'll toss a fit. we were just supposed to meet up for lunch

 

[LuckyTaxi]

Yes, the in-laws are raping the system as well. I dont like it, but hey, lots and lots of ppl do it everyday.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Eli
What I'm saying is, have you looked to see if you qualify for any government assistance?

If you were looking for school grants, obviously you would only pay attention to the grant programs you qualified for, right? You would be ecstatic if there were some whos rules were so lienent that you easily qualified for them!

no, i haven't...because i don't need government assistance...i'm not trying to be high and mighty here, i'm not rich...and honestly i probably could qualify for something...but the point is i'm not going to freeload off the american taxpayers if i don't absolutely have to...

and you're equating education grants to welfare? come on now...the educational grants are there to help make you a productive citizen and taxpayer that doesn't require the government to support you...the welfare benefits encourage people to do exactly the opposite

 

[Freejack2]

I thought people could only get welfare for 3 years?!?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli

Obviously the money is there. If there were a lack of funds, perhaps they would be more discriminant.

It *DOES* help these peoples lives, even if you don't agree with their lifestyles. Who cars if they have a nice car? You don't know how they got it. They very well could have saved very hard earned money to get what they own.

If recieving money from the government because the government said "You qualify!" allowed them to buy better things... what is so bad about that? Is that wrong? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't do it too?

That thinking is so liberal it's disgusting. Money doesn't grow on trees. You're agreeing to spend money that we all have to pay.

You say that maybe they spent their hard-earned money on a new car. If they had that "hard earned" money to spend on a brand new car, then obviously they could have bought their own groceries. Why should we have to buy their groceries if they're capable of buying a new car? Why can't they pay for their own groceries and buy a cheaper used car?

This is messed up, since there are hard working people out there who DON'T collect welfare, and they CAN'T afford a new car because they're getting taxed out of their a$$ to pay for some welfare queen's groceries while she buys herself a brand new car.

Durrrr.

Why the fsck is that thinking liberal? WTF? My whole point is that it's the welfare system that needs to be fixed.

You can't blame the people for taking advantage of a system the government has laid out for them. The rules are clear!

But wait. You said,

If they had that "hard earned" money to spend on a brand new car, then obviously they could have bought their own groceries.

No. If they had spent their money on groceries, they wouldn't have been able to buy the new car!

See, I realize the problem with that line of thinking right there. Is that what you call "liberal"? LOL. I honestly don't even know or care what the labels mean. I think the way I think.

Look at my government grant analogy again. The money is available; the proprietors of the money set the rules for who gets it. If they have 50,000 dollars available, they are going to be more discriminant than if they have 500,000,000.

Is it really a problem? Are the people that really need Welfare not getting it? If not, then you all don't have anything to bitch about EXCEPT the fact that the welfare rules need to be changed. Let's place the blame correctly here, OK?

It is NOT the peoples fault. It is human nature to take advantage of what is given to you.

 

[BlueWeasel]

That poll isn't exactly true to the point of this thread. I don't feel that people on welfare should give up their car, but disagree with those using the welfare funds to purchase newer model cars or pimp out the existing cars.