Rich dont pay enough but poor people dont pay any and people fine with that

[quote name='camoor']

However honestly, for me, giving a few bucks to folks that are down on their luck so they don't fall beyond a base subsistence level is totally worth it. If some people use the money to buy a flashy jacket instead of food then they can go hungry for all I care, but at least as a society we did the right thing.[/QUOTE]

This.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'm not the one harping on the word "assistance;" you are. That's why I called you a pedantic shitheel.[/QUOTE]

I'm not harping on it. I fully understand the word and how it works. You're the one who seems to believe words can have whatever meaning you'd like them to have.

It's a shame language isn't as easy as math, then I could just hold your hand and walk you through it all like I did above...
 
Sees beginning of a DD and UB war over parsing of words...

images


GET YA' POPCORN READY
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not harping on it. I fully understand the word and how it works. You're the one who seems to believe words can have whatever meaning you'd like them to have.[/QUOTE]
If you know what the word means and how it works, we wouldn't be having this conversation. For someone that like to quote the dictionary, you sure do like to ignore it when it's inconvenient.

It's a shame language isn't as easy as math, then I could just hold your hand and walk you through it all like I did above...
Click to expand...
:rofl:You really need to lay off the meth pipe.:rofl:

I know you're a real simple motherfucker, so I'm going to explain your own argument to you since you don't seem to understand what you're saying.

You're arguing that "public assistance" should be supplemental to any income while thumping on a dictionary like a goddamn loon. This is completely detached from reality when getting some extra hours or an extra job or two can be unrealistic for a vast majority of the population getting assistance. Whether it should be supplemental or the sole source is irrelevant when it will always be whatever it's required to be depending on the circumstance. All you're doing is hanging your argument on one aspect of the definition and removing all context like you always do.

I mean fuck! You work for Walmart and the company has far too many employees on public assistance as to not be homeless and/or starve. You think that Walmart, a corporation that does everything possible to eek that last cent of profit for anything, would start giving those employees more money or extra hours to get them off the dole? fuck no!

So take that pedantic bullshit and deepthroat it while shoving it up your ass. You already got Walmart spit roasting you, why not add your own bullshit to that gangbang.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You know RealDeals, some folks on here would call that racist. Like, seriously. Not even joking or being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]
... Except I was referencing to how T.O. specifically said it, YOU took it to mean I was referring to blacks in general....

Then again, you lost your shit over 'white-knighting'.
 
Oh, DD... I don't know if you have unresolved daddy issues or what. It amuses me that when you fall flat on your face, you think screaming profanities will make your pathetic argument better.

[quote name='RealDeals']... Except I was referencing to how T.O. specifically said it, YOU took it to mean I was referring to blacks in general....[/QUOTE]

Not at all.

I'm referring to when I was accused of "casual racism" for posting an animated .gif of a guy eating popcorn when the conversation turned to the fact that the Supreme Court was about to announce a ruling that, however it came out, I was looking forward to the entertainment factor from it.

See, you miss out on these kinds of things if you don't visit the forums enough. Like how posting a pic of a celebrity and popcorn is racism.
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Sees beginning of a DD and UB war over parsing of words...[/QUOTE]

The dictionary describes reality it isn't a code of law. The "argument" is just what happens when someone takes the troll bait.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Show your work.



Classy.[/QUOTE]

http://www.couponmom.com/tutorials-416 - it's even accessible through the free computers in the public library!

or, dried beans, pasta, prego, rice, bread, and peanut butter are all pretty cheap. Not the most exciting diet, but people can make it if they want to. Do I want to? No, that's part of the reason why I have a job.
 
I just wanted to mention, Maria Bartoli or whatever, the "money honey" from CNBC, was just on c-span and just essentially said that people earnign $250,000 a year are the working poor because they're living paycheck to paychek.

And now she just did the whiole, inflation is gonna blw up.

I really recommend you watch this c-span piece when it gets posted later today. She's a real piece of work, and has no idea what she's talking about.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You think that Walmart, a corporation that does everything possible to eek that last cent of profit for anything, would start giving those employees more money or extra hours to get them off the dole?[/QUOTE]

Maybe folks should just go work for the SEIU - I hear they pay $11/hour to stand outside and protest Romney. :D :D :D

Wonder what kind of benefits that comes with.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Maybe folks should just go work for the SEIU - I hear they pay $11/hour to stand outside and protest Romney. :D :D :D

Wonder what kind of benefits that comes with.[/QUOTE]

That's really a weak response.

Why don't you (or anyone with the same mindset) please give us a justification for why we should continue to allow Walmart to take advantage of welfare programs that were designed to help poor people and not pad the corporate bottom line.

It's tough to write legislation that forbids this opportunistic profiteering while keeping the simplicity and intention of the program. Or in other words, this is why we can't have nice things.

DD, you hit it out of the park with that one.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']http://www.couponmom.com/tutorials-416 - it's even accessible through the free computers in the public library!

or, dried beans, pasta, prego, rice, bread, and peanut butter are all pretty cheap. Not the most exciting diet, but people can make it if they want to. Do I want to? No, that's part of the reason why I have a job.[/QUOTE]

That's all very nice, but unless you're incredibly lucky, shit happens.

You know - you get a hole in the roof, or your car breaks down, or you develop a cough. The money that you were counting on is now owed in two or three places for basic needs (food, shelter, and health) and you gotta make some hard choices.

Hey - I get it, from your complacent view atop Horatio Alger mountain, if these people want to get a decent meal and/or roof over their heads they should stop being a damn hippy and get a job like you did.

Except it ain't that easy - many, many people are desperate for a job that isn't there. That's the truth.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's really a weak response.

Why don't you (or anyone with the same mindset) please give us a justification for why we should continue to allow Walmart to take advantage of welfare programs that were designed to help poor people and not pad the corporate bottom line.

It's tough to write legislation that forbids this opportunistic profiteering while keeping the simplicity and intention of the program. Or in other words, this is why we can't have nice things.

DD, you hit it out of the park with that one.[/QUOTE]

I say we should pass legislation that makes it a crime to take a job where you cannot support yourself and your family. That should take care of it for you. No one would be allowed to work jobs that pay below what they need to get by. Cool?

I'd hardly say DD hit it out of the park.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']That's all very nice, but unless you're incredibly lucky, shit happens.

You know - you get a hole in the roof, or your car breaks down, or you develop a cough. The money that you were counting on is now owed in two or three places for basic needs (food, shelter, and health) and you gotta make some hard choices.

Hey - I get it, from your complacent view atop Horatio Alger mountain, if these people want to get a decent meal and/or roof over their heads they should stop being a damn hippy and get a job like you did.

Except it ain't that easy - many, many people are desperate for a job that isn't there. That's the truth.[/QUOTE]

That $10 a day was based on the assistance that some family was getting for food.

Edited out personal information. Summation: fuck you, you don't know me.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']That $10 a day was based on the assistance that some family was getting for food.

Edited out personal information. Summation: fuck you, you don't know me.[/QUOTE]

You sound pissed, hit a little too close to the mark ;)

PS go fuck yourself
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I say we should pass legislation that makes it a crime to take a job where you cannot support yourself and your family. That should take care of it for you. No one would be allowed to work jobs that pay below what they need to get by. Cool?[/QUOTE]

I agree it's a tough problem to solve but it was caused by Walmart's opportunism.

It's not cool but I appreciate the response.
 
[quote name='camoor']You sound pissed, hit a little too close to the mark ;)

PS go fuck yourself[/QUOTE]We've gotten quite a few of those "You don't know me!" posts in the past, seems to be the standard response when we hit a nerve.
 
[quote name='Clak']We've gotten quite a few of those "You don't know me!" posts in the past, seems to be the standard response when we hit a nerve.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's the standard response when you make baseless assumptions about people you don't know, dumbass.

At some point some of you regulars might want to consider that the problem here is the people that stay, not the people that leave.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Maybe it's the standard response when you make baseless assumptions about people you don't know, dumbass.

At some point some of you regulars might want to consider that the problem here is the people that stay, not the people that leave.[/QUOTE]

Get back OT then. If I characterized you wrong, what is your feeling about the unemployment problem. Is it their fault that they are jobless, or are they victims of a bad economy? You know what I think - what do you think?
 
[quote name='camoor']Get back OT then. If I characterized you wrong, what is your feeling about the unemployment problem. Is it their fault that they are jobless, or are they victims of a bad economy? You know what I think - what do you think?[/QUOTE]

There's plenty of reasons. Some people can't find a job in the area where they choose to live. Some people can't find a job they are willing to do for the wage that others are willing to offer or accept. Some people can't keep a job due to illness or family issues. Some people have no skills or lack the intelligence to keep a job in the modern world. Some people have skills and mobility and still can't find someone who needs someone like them. Some are out of work because employers can import an H1b for 1/3 the price and get 2 times the hours of work.

There are all sorts of problems, just raising taxes on people you think can afford it so that we can give more away isn't going to solve all of the problems.

My dad worked 70 hours a week in a job that he hated to try to get his kids ahead. He made a wage that some of you are saying should be taxed much more heavily in order to provide not just for the people that can't work, but for the people that make piss-poor decisions or are too lazy to work. That just doesn't make sense to me. Just because someone has more than someone else doesn't mean they don't deserve it.
 
It's hard to stomach the antipathy of many on this issue. There isn't a job for everyone who wants one. Much less a job that pays a living wage for everyone who wants one. There are always going to be unemployed people on public assistance as there aren't enough jobs, and there will always be people employed full time who still need assitance as there aren't enough good jobs (especially for unskilled/uneducated folks).

There's not a lot that can be done about that. Manufacturing is hugely diminished in the US from past generations, and that was a huge chunk of living wage, blue collar jobs in past generations. Those aren't coming back in any large numbers as big businesses doesn't care about the US, the care about keeping their expenses as low as possible and will always put their factories where ever they can pay workers the least.

Not much that can be done about the living wage either. We can tie minimum wage to inflation more directly, but it will probably never be set at a living wage for family of four (maybe with both parents working in a low cost of living area--IF they have access to free childcare.

Most people couldn't stand the increase in price for goods and services if all employees at Wal-mart, Burger King etc. had to be paid a true living wage. So we'll never see a big wage hike. Not to mention all the lobbying from big business who care about nothing but keeping their expenses as low as possible.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']My dad worked 70 hours a week in a job that he hated to try to get his kids ahead. He made a wage that some of you are saying should be taxed much more heavily in order to provide not just for the people that can't work, but for the people that make piss-poor decisions or are too lazy to work. That just doesn't make sense to me. Just because someone has more than someone else doesn't mean they don't deserve it.[/QUOTE]

What I hear you saying is that you want to provide assistance to only the people that can't work, and not the people that make piss-poor decisions or are too lazy to work.

How are you going to make that work? How much will it cost to enforce? How much savings can we expect to see? Will there be adverse affects in terms of public health, crime, etc?

In short - is this motivated by pragmatic economics or principle?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's hard to stomach the antipathy of many on this issue. There isn't a job for everyone who wants one. Much less a job that pays a living wage for everyone who wants one. There are always going to be unemployed people on public assistance as there aren't enough jobs, and there will always be people employed full time who still need assitance as there aren't enough good jobs (especially for unskilled/uneducated folks).

There's not a lot that can be done about that. Manufacturing is hugely diminished in the US from past generations, and that was a huge chunk of living wage, blue collar jobs in past generations. Those aren't coming back in any large numbers as big businesses doesn't care about the US, the care about keeping their expenses as low as possible and will always put their factories where ever they can pay workers the least.

Not much that can be done about the living wage either. We can tie minimum wage to inflation more directly, but it will probably never be set at a living wage for family of four (maybe with both parents working in a low cost of living area--IF they have access to free childcare.

Most people couldn't stand the increase in price for goods and services if all employees at Wal-mart, Burger King etc. had to be paid a true living wage. So we'll never see a big wage hike. Not to mention all the lobbying from big business who care about nothing but keeping their expenses as low as possible.[/QUOTE]

You forgot this: TLDR Corporate greed
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']That $10 a day was based on the assistance that some family was getting for food.

I understand shit happens. I've been there. I've walked through the grocery store with a calculator trying to come up with meals for the next week because the credit cards are maxed out and the bank account is empty.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you shouldn't have maxed out those credit cards or gone to a cheaper school then. Personal responsibility, right?:roll:

From the sound of it, this isn't a long term weekly occurence anyways.

I know that there are people that legitimately can't find a job. I know that there are people that can't find a job where they want to live. I know that there are people that can't find a job that they are willing to do for the wage offered.
Click to expand...
But yet, you still seem to think that it's something that those people have the magical power to change through sheer force of will. That's what you've been arguing since you've "graced" us with your presence.

I get it, you think that the government should be able to take more from me simply because my wage is higher, even though I am working my ass off to pay off my credit cards and student loans while living in a high cost of living region that I don't like because it is where I can find a good job.
Click to expand...
LOLZ...calm the fuck down. This isn't about you personally. And for someone that waxes about the the necessity for a progressive tax policy, you sure don't seem to understand that it means you pay more taxes when you make more money. Is it because you're obtuse or just cognitive dissonance?

Forgot to mention, I'm driving my old car that I share with my wife to try to lower our expenses, hoping that it will pass inspection and spending the whole weekend working on it since I can't afford to pay someone to fix it. And I'm renting because I don't have the money to buy a house. Right. Tell me about how easy it is for me and for everyone who makes over X per year.

I'd love to own a house again, and to have two cars again, but I can't. Please stop assuming that you know me or my situation.
Click to expand...
There are 3 benchmarks in this thread: $140k, $250k, and $383k. If you can't make any of those amounts work, it's your own damn fault. And if you aren't even making $70k, are you fighting for higher brackets out of principle or something? Cause it sure as hell looks like it.

edit: Looks like you edited this out. Meh...I'll let this stew for now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's hard to stomach the antipathy of many on this issue. There isn't a job for everyone who wants one. Much less a job that pays a living wage for everyone who wants one. There are always going to be unemployed people on public assistance as there aren't enough jobs, and there will always be people employed full time who still need assitance as there aren't enough good jobs (especially for unskilled/uneducated folks).[/QUOTE]

That's what I feel too. It's one thing if someone just hasn't thought much about the issue. But to form the opinion that someone without a job (or a well-paying job) is a deadbeat riding on the coatails of the working class hero requires fantastical levels of contemptuous bullshit
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I say we should pass legislation that makes it a crime to take a job where you cannot support yourself and your family. That should take care of it for you. No one would be allowed to work jobs that pay below what they need to get by. Cool?

I'd hardly say DD hit it out of the park.[/QUOTE]
This is you not calling me retarded, right?:roll:

I'll take that as a win because all you got left are ad homs.:rofl:

[quote name='yourlefthand']There's plenty of reasons. Some people can't find a job in the area where they choose to live. Some people can't find a job they are willing to do for the wage that others are willing to offer or accept. Some people can't keep a job due to illness or family issues. Some people have no skills or lack the intelligence to keep a job in the modern world. Some people have skills and mobility and still can't find someone who needs someone like them. Some are out of work because employers can import an H1b for 1/3 the price and get 2 times the hours of work.

There are all sorts of problems, just raising taxes on people you think can afford it so that we can give more away isn't going to solve all of the problems.

My dad worked 70 hours a week in a job that he hated to try to get his kids ahead. He made a wage that some of you are saying should be taxed much more heavily in order to provide not just for the people that can't work, but for the people that make piss-poor decisions or are too lazy to work. That just doesn't make sense to me. Just because someone has more than someone else doesn't mean they don't deserve it.[/QUOTE]
So he made at least $140k at least 20 years ago for an extended period of time while being the sole source of household income? Cry me a fucking river.

[quote name='camoor']What I hear you saying is that you want to provide assistance to only the people that can't work, and not the people that make piss-poor decisions or are too lazy to work.

How are you going to make that work? How much will it cost to enforce? How much savings can we expect to see? Will there be adverse affects in terms of public health, crime, etc?

In short - is this motivated by pragmatic economics or principle?[/QUOTE]
It's obvious! He's a member of the temporarily embarrassed millionaires club!:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Truth be told, social programs are in some ways also corporate welfare, because it saves companies from having to pay better and offer better benefits. Of course that assumes they actually would do any of that.
 
My dad never made $140k, there are other numbers being mentioned. Glad you know how to read.

Also, it's funny that 2 people asked if this was a principle issue for me. It should be for everyone in this thread. If it's not a principle issue, then it's just begging for a handout.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Also, it's funny that 2 people asked if this was a principle issue for me. It should be for everyone in this thread. If it's not a principle issue, then it's just begging for a handout.[/QUOTE]

Got it - now I really do have you pegged.

The worst decisions in history were made on principle. When people are "standing on principle" it's a nice way of saying they are full of shit.

[quote name='dohdough']It's obvious! He's a member of the temporarily embarrassed millionaires club!:lol:[/QUOTE]

That's awesome :lol:
 
well folks, it's obvious that reasonable discussion of issues is not what you are looking for. Rather than trying to get you to see any other perspective, I'll leave you to your echo chamber.

Best of luck!
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']http://www.couponmom.com/tutorials-416 - it's even accessible through the free computers in the public library![/quote]

You are being childish and this is not a joke.

or, dried beans, pasta, prego, rice, bread, and peanut butter are all pretty cheap. Not the most exciting diet, but people can make it if they want to. Do I want to? No, that's part of the reason why I have a job.
Click to expand...


3 people, 10 dollars a day. Show your work, also people should have the right to avoid scurvy and rickets.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']well folks, it's obvious that reasonable discussion of issues is not what you are looking for. Rather than trying to get you to see any other perspective, I'll leave you to your echo chamber.

Best of luck![/QUOTE]

So, rather than give us the full information, your dad's income for one, to facilitate a full and fair discussion you're going to dance around and then tell us all we're the one's who don't want a "reasonable discussion of issues." :roll:

Thanks for the memories and don't let the door hit you on the ass.
 
[quote name='Msut77']3 people, 10 dollars a day. Show your work, also people should have the right to avoid scurvy and rickets.[/QUOTE]

That would be tough. One person is probably doable but 3? Doubtful. I mean you can get ramen noodles 5/$1 and mac & cheese 3/$1 (but you need milk and butter). You could probably find cans of soup for $1 each. You would have to drink water (or maybe a can of non brand name soda) with every meal. Eggs for breakfast are cheap - a dozen is like $1.29 or something so that's 2-3 mornings worth for 3 people... a loaf of bread for toast isn't much either. Fruits and vegetables are probably out. Same thing with meat although beans are really cheap for protein. This doesn't take into consideration the water, power or gas you might need to prepare the food but that's probably a minimal amount.

I guess if you HAD to do it you can find a way but it wouldn't be pleasant.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are being childish and this is not a joke.




3 people, 10 dollars a day. Show your work, also people should have the right to avoid scurvy and rickets.[/QUOTE]

i2 people could make 10 bucks a day work though i think you end up in the hospital before long doing it LOL

so i get 70 bucks per week right

Monday
box of cereal coupons 2.00
gallon of milk at CVS 1.79
2 Large 3 topping pizzas at pizza hut for 10 bucks (eat half save half) (total 12 bucks)

tuesday
Rest of milk
rest of pizza

weds
REPEAT MONDAY Total 24 bucks

thursday repeat tuesday

Friday Repeat monday (36 bucks)

Saturday repeat tuesday

still have 26 bucks left to buy some stuff thoughout the week..


and by the end of the month you have a heart attack due to all of the cheese you ate LOL




. noone say you have to EAT 3 times a day... hell i just eat some crackers for lunch and dinner
 
When you say it that way, $70/week is not a completely horrible amount. My family of 5 spends around $200/week at the food store and we aren't really on any sort of budget (for food). That includes toiletries and all the non-edible stuff you buy at the store as well.
 
One can eat on a very tight budget.

One cannot eat a very healthy/balanced diet on that tight of a budget. Well maybe one person could if they went with frozen veggies etc. instead of fresh produce, whole grain pasta and bread etc. Healthy meat protein would be the harder part, but beans and tofu are pretty cheap.

But pretty much no way 2+ people can eat healthy on $70 a week. You'd end up with a lot of cheap, processed junk, cheap pizza etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']One can eat on a very tight budget.

One cannot eat a very healthy/balanced diet on that tight of a budget. Well maybe one person could if they went with frozen veggies etc. instead of fresh produce, whole grain pasta and bread etc. Healthy meat protein would be the harder part, but beans and tofu are pretty cheap.

But pretty much no way 2+ people can eat healthy on $70 a week. You'd end up with a lot of cheap, processed junk, cheap pizza etc.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much how I see it, too. At the prices where I live, no way.
 
You can eat healthy on a tight budget. However, it takes a skill set most people don't maintain any more. How many people 24 and under know how to soak and prepare dried beans? What about even something as simple as brown rice? (Not rice-a-roni.)

As for expenses, the amount of meat proteins required in a healthy diet are a matter of contention, but it's nowhere near as high as many Americans believe it to be. If you're trying to eat cheap and healthy, the largest expense will be fresh produce.

Again, the trick to all of it is that it takes time and skills to prepare that most people don't have. It's not particularly demanding once you know, but without that basic skill set, it's a challenge. If you can do it, though, that number ($70 per week per 2 people) is acheivable. That's 5 bucks a head per day. Would it be a boring diet of rice, beans, a little meat, etc.? Yup, but you could do it for $70 a week per pair, that's a lot of dried staples that make up TONS of food once you cook it out (provided access to clean water, free transportation to grocery stores, etc).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']One can eat on a very tight budget.

One cannot eat a very healthy/balanced diet on that tight of a budget. Well maybe one person could if they went with frozen veggies etc. instead of fresh produce, whole grain pasta and bread etc. Healthy meat protein would be the harder part, but beans and tofu are pretty cheap.

But pretty much no way 2+ people can eat healthy on $70 a week. You'd end up with a lot of cheap, processed junk, cheap pizza etc.[/QUOTE]

Under certain conditions, feeding a family of four with healthy food on $100 a month is doable. Obviously not everyone has access to arable land, tools and is willing or able to do some physical labor, but it's possible.
 
I just find it ironic that for every 10 posts about stuff like how little we could give those below the poverty level before they starve, there's maybe 3 about how little the rich pay in taxes after loopholes and exceptions are factored in.

Guess where the big payday in that equation is.
 
[quote name='eLefAdEr']Under certain conditions, feeding a family of four with healthy food on $100 a month is doable. Obviously not everyone has access to arable land, tools and is willing or able to do some physical labor, but it's possible.[/QUOTE]

I grew up with parents who did (and still do) a ton of gardening.

But it's mostly moot to the current discussion as people living in poverty are much less likely to own land and thus gardening isn't an option for the poor. And it's moot for most people in cities where yards are non-existent or tiny, and zoning laws may preclude gardening etc.

Not to mention the risk of drought, insects etc. wiping out your food supply if a family is dependent on their garden to get by.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']The worst decisions in history were made on principle. When people are "standing on principle" it's a nice way of saying they are full of shit.[/QUOTE]

Isn't having a well-funded social safety net a "principles" thing too?
 
[quote name='camoor']I just find it ironic that for every 10 posts about stuff like how little we could give those below the poverty level before they starve, there's maybe 3 about how little the rich pay in taxes after loopholes and exceptions are factored in.

Guess where the big payday in that equation is.[/QUOTE]

my main point is

someone who sits on the ass all day and just keep having children pays NO TAXES AT ALL and then gets a TAX REBATE check at the end of the year...

maybe if these people was not sucking the system dry there would be enough to go around for the rest ..


You see a single mother with one child trying to get by YES i say help them as much as they need

BUT you see a single mother who cant support one child have a 2nd and then a 3rd and then a 4th

NO i say you give them money for the mother and the 1 child Noone forced here to have 3 more children when she could not afford to have the first one ,..... That was in is still MY MAIN POINT


MY CORP pays 1% of 10 million is more then People sitting on the asses all day doing nothing but having kids just to get free money
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Isn't having a well-funded social safety net a "principles" thing too?[/QUOTE]

Not entirely.

It reduces crime. If we all buy a hungry man a loaf of bread, he doesn't have to break a window or door to steal one from the baker.

It improves health. Malnutrition causes disease, and the more disease in the general population, the more we all suffer. Keeping poor people somewhat healthy helps keep all of society healthy.

It really doesn't cost that much extra - heck if you factor in all of the displaced costs it probably saves us money. Simple example: I'd rather have society buy a loaf of bread for a dude then have him faint out of hunger and have to spend a few hours at the emergency room with an glucose IV up his arm.

It doesn't hurt that it's also the right thing to do, but the fact that it's the most pragmatic choice makes it a no-brainer.

What I was getting at was that guys like yourlefthand stand on principle because it's the only card they have left, they feel that it is their unassailable trump card, much like "it's in the bible" or "it's the law". These are not arguments born out of a well-reasoned moral philosophy, they are dogmatic mantras to be retreated to when all else is lost and they have no hope of winning the argument.

I wasn't kidding when I said I knew his type :D
 
[quote name='slidecage']my main point is

someone who sits on the ass all day and just keep having children pays NO TAXES AT ALL and then gets a TAX REBATE check at the end of the year...

maybe if these people was not sucking the system dry there would be enough to go around for the rest ..


You see a single mother with one child trying to get by YES i say help them as much as they need

BUT you see a single mother who cant support one child have a 2nd and then a 3rd and then a 4th

NO i say you give them money for the mother and the 1 child Noone forced here to have 3 more children when she could not afford to have the first one ,..... That was in is still MY MAIN POINT


MY CORP pays 1% of 10 million is more then People sitting on the asses all day doing nothing but having kids just to get free money[/QUOTE]

I think we all 'understand' your main point slidecage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top