If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Atlanta Journal Constitution)   Remember that lottery winner that couldn't understand why she should stop collecting welfare? She's about to learn   (ajc.com) divider line 419
    More: Followup, welfare fraud, Lincoln Park, Bay County, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, Zach Braff, public good, state Department of Human Services, felony charges  
•       •       •

36891 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2012 at 4:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



419 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-18 09:37:47 AM  

prjindigo: Lottery winnings are NOT income, they are a gift/prize and have their own taxes. The taxes taken out INCLUDE money that goes to welfare.

I don't think the state in question really understands the law.


What does the classification of the lottery winnings have to do with anything?

I think that you don't really understand, well, much of anything.
 
2012-04-18 09:43:35 AM  

Evil Kirk vs Bad Ash: She collected $5,475 in benefits from the state.
She paid $265,000 in taxes to the state.

I'm not saying she's not a complete and total idiot, but for farks sake, why the outrage? Make her pay it back and be done with it.


Because it seems there is circumstantial evidence that she intentionally committed fraud and/or theft. That would make her a criminal, not just a lass who forgot to call the welfare office.

Also, part of the reason why lottery winners have to go public is so that there can be a big fanfare to entice others to buy tickets. Instead of playing to the rags-to-riches story that would have been nice, the State gets a woman who's either greedy, stupid, or deluded by her sense of entitlement.

/back in my day, people didn't want to be on welfare
//that's why food stamps were goofy colors
 
2012-04-18 10:14:46 AM  

untaken_name: ...And how, exactly, would we go about accomplishing that lofty goal? ... Wal-mart is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.


walmart is a gross offender. while there may be other targets, why go after a simple killer when you can go after a mass murderer?
how can we accomplish this? don't shop at walmart.
if you must because you are on a budget, but only milk and other american made products, or perhaps only foreign products if they are the same thing that is sold elsewhere.


maybe you should watch the walmart movie. the high cost of low price.
 
2012-04-18 11:04:38 AM  
I am 100% certain, without any doubt whatsoever that she will vote for Barack Obama.
 
2012-04-18 11:13:19 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: freetomato: "The charges "are very extreme. ... They arrested her like a vulture," the elder Clayton said."

I've only been to Michigan once. Is this a common turn of phrase up there?

I think she used that phrase because the daughter... looks like a vulture.


Like a vulture...busted for the very first time...like a vulture

/Madonna's from Michigan too
 
2012-04-18 12:39:34 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: davidab: according to DEENA WINTER / Lincoln Journal Star Link (new window) 70% of lotto winners squander the money. I have seen stats that say from 2/3 to 3/4 of big lotto winners go bankrupt.

And other sources say 1 in 3. Meaning 65% are doing just fine. But we never hear about them.

This woman? I give it 3 years.


Ok, even if only 1/3 can't cope with the win, would you agree or disagree that they should be required to spend some time with a financial planner before being unleashed with their new fortune?
 
2012-04-18 12:54:54 PM  

indarwinsshadow: PsiChick: indarwinsshadow: If anyone is interested, there's an excellent book available from Amazon called The Narcissism Epidemic:
Living in the Age of Entitlement. It describes this evil biatch to a T.

From the sound of it, she's hardly a narcissist or evil. She's an idiot. Send her a bill and be done with it.

/I'm all for being tough on crime, but punishing stupid is an exercise in futility.

You might want to take a sec and look at the definition of Narcissistic personality disorder before dismissing it off hand. And yep, she's evil. She also fits into a couple of other categories including charismatic psychopath.
You don't act like she does, and not have a major personality defect.


You do realize my nickname is usually 'Psych Major', right? I'm well aware of what narcassistic personality disorder and charismatic psychopaths look like. I'm also well aware that some people are completely farking retarded. I have no problem believing this woman honestly thought this was within the rules and thought she was being smart to do this. I have neighbors who would do the exact same thing. Personality disorders and evil are not required.
 
2012-04-18 01:43:41 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Not controlling their life. If you ask me to give you money, don't I have a right to make sure you aren't going to go blow it on hookers and crack?


Well, my opinion is no. It seems your opinion is yes. So why are you focused on welfare recipients? Why not all people who take taxpayer dollars. The governor takes taxpayer dollars. Why doesn't he have to piss in a cup?
 
2012-04-18 01:45:28 PM  

kiwimoogle84: jst3p: lennavan: kiwimoogle84: I don't have facts to spout you other than a CSB-

I'd just like to point out to jst3p that kiwi's vote counts just as much as his does.

/boom kick in the nuts

I know, and you know how much that frustrates me.

I aim to please, I guess.


It isn't so much that I disagree with your opinion that I mock. It's that you openly admit you don't base it on facts, you base it on a "CSB." Nothing wrong with voting against Obama. But if you're voting against Obama because you don't like Kenyan Muslims, well BOOM, kick in the nuts.
 
2012-04-18 01:47:07 PM  

umad: lennavan: Why should taxpayers be allowed to require welfare recipients be randomly drug tested but not other recipients of tax dollars?

Because those other recipients of tax dollars actually contribute something to society in exchange for that money. They are the ones managing the big bleeding-heart programs you love so much. Welfare recipients take the money in return for crapping out kids that they can't afford and raising them to become welfare queens themselves.


So if you contribute to society, that makes it okay to blow my tax dollars on illegal drugs? We'll agree to disagree.
 
2012-04-18 01:53:09 PM  
Why cant our legislators work that quickly to close the loopholes that allow corporations and the wealthy to game the system? Hmmmmm?
 
2012-04-18 02:05:50 PM  

prince of peas: mat catastrophe: Next, let's get those farkers who cheat on their taxes by being "unemployed" while maintaining millions of dollars in savings accounts!

So you're saying that anyone who paid taxes on earned income, should pay taxes again because they have the money, which they already paid taxes on, in the bank? Do you keep taxing their already taxed dollars, until they have nothing left?

I'm guessing that you have no understanding of the tax laws, economics or fairness. But keep occupying Wall Street, OK?


Yes. Because I'm a godless farking communist and you're a farking idiot for white knighting for the rich.
 
2012-04-18 02:39:05 PM  

lennavan: umad: lennavan: Why should taxpayers be allowed to require welfare recipients be randomly drug tested but not other recipients of tax dollars?

Because those other recipients of tax dollars actually contribute something to society in exchange for that money. They are the ones managing the big bleeding-heart programs you love so much. Welfare recipients take the money in return for crapping out kids that they can't afford and raising them to become welfare queens themselves.

So if you contribute to society, that makes it okay to blow my tax dollars on illegal drugs? We'll agree to disagree.


How about a compromise then? Let's drug test everyone that receives tax dollars and stop giving tax dollars to those that don't contribute to society. Everybody wins.
 
2012-04-18 03:01:59 PM  

umad: lennavan: umad: lennavan: Why should taxpayers be allowed to require welfare recipients be randomly drug tested but not other recipients of tax dollars?

Because those other recipients of tax dollars actually contribute something to society in exchange for that money. They are the ones managing the big bleeding-heart programs you love so much. Welfare recipients take the money in return for crapping out kids that they can't afford and raising them to become welfare queens themselves.

So if you contribute to society, that makes it okay to blow my tax dollars on illegal drugs? We'll agree to disagree.

How about a compromise then? Let's drug test everyone that receives tax dollars and stop giving tax dollars to those that don't contribute to society. Everybody wins.


Eh, not so sure I can compromise. I'm one of those innocent until proven guilty, the fifth amendment is kinda important, you should have a reason for search/seizure because the other sections of the constitution matter sorta guys.
 
2012-04-18 03:26:15 PM  

lennavan: umad: lennavan: umad: lennavan: Why should taxpayers be allowed to require welfare recipients be randomly drug tested but not other recipients of tax dollars?

Because those other recipients of tax dollars actually contribute something to society in exchange for that money. They are the ones managing the big bleeding-heart programs you love so much. Welfare recipients take the money in return for crapping out kids that they can't afford and raising them to become welfare queens themselves.

So if you contribute to society, that makes it okay to blow my tax dollars on illegal drugs? We'll agree to disagree.

How about a compromise then? Let's drug test everyone that receives tax dollars and stop giving tax dollars to those that don't contribute to society. Everybody wins.

Eh, not so sure I can compromise. I'm one of those innocent until proven guilty, the fifth amendment is kinda important, you should have a reason for search/seizure because the other sections of the constitution matter sorta guys.


Fine. Then let's not drug test anybody and stop giving tax dollars to those that don't contribute to society. Everybody still wins.
 
2012-04-18 03:40:38 PM  

umad: lennavan: umad: lennavan: umad: lennavan: Why should taxpayers be allowed to require welfare recipients be randomly drug tested but not other recipients of tax dollars?

Because those other recipients of tax dollars actually contribute something to society in exchange for that money. They are the ones managing the big bleeding-heart programs you love so much. Welfare recipients take the money in return for crapping out kids that they can't afford and raising them to become welfare queens themselves.

So if you contribute to society, that makes it okay to blow my tax dollars on illegal drugs? We'll agree to disagree.

How about a compromise then? Let's drug test everyone that receives tax dollars and stop giving tax dollars to those that don't contribute to society. Everybody wins.

Eh, not so sure I can compromise. I'm one of those innocent until proven guilty, the fifth amendment is kinda important, you should have a reason for search/seizure because the other sections of the constitution matter sorta guys.

Fine. Then let's not drug test anybody and stop giving tax dollars to those that don't contribute to society. Everybody still wins.


Yeah, I dunno. I kinda liked the show Coach. Shiat wouldn't have existed without it. Turns out, not everyone stays on welfare forever. Also, not so sure we should let the kids of those people starve either. Whatevs.

www.foxnews.com
 
2012-04-18 10:36:25 PM  

ununcle: untaken_name: And how, exactly, would we go about accomplishing that lofty goal? You're talking about getting rid of almost every corporation in America. I don't think most people could live without companies who don't care about America or Americans, because they would starve to death with no food, electricity, or running water. Wal-mart is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

What an absolute load of horseshiat.


Is not. What a good debate this is.
 
2012-04-18 10:39:33 PM  

Popular Opinion: untaken_name: ...And how, exactly, would we go about accomplishing that lofty goal? ... Wal-mart is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

walmart is a gross offender. while there may be other targets, why go after a simple killer when you can go after a mass murderer?
how can we accomplish this? don't shop at walmart.
if you must because you are on a budget, but only milk and other american made products, or perhaps only foreign products if they are the same thing that is sold elsewhere.


maybe you should watch the walmart movie. the high cost of low price.


Because, again, wal-mart is a symptom. When you treat symptoms, the underlying cause is not addressed and invariably causes a recurrence of the same symptoms. The problem is the unholy marriage of government and corporate america, and the problem will not be solved by only addressing the retailers.
 
2012-04-20 12:01:17 AM  

untaken_name: Popular Opinion: untaken_name: ...And how, exactly, would we go about accomplishing that lofty goal? ... Wal-mart is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

walmart is a gross offender. while there may be other targets, why go after a simple killer when you can go after a mass murderer?
how can we accomplish this? don't shop at walmart.
if you must because you are on a budget, but only milk and other american made products, or perhaps only foreign products if they are the same thing that is sold elsewhere.


maybe you should watch the walmart movie. the high cost of low price.

Because, again, wal-mart is a symptom. When you treat symptoms, the underlying cause is not addressed and invariably causes a recurrence of the same symptoms. The problem is the unholy marriage of government and corporate america, and the problem will not be solved by only addressing the retailers.


nope. negative ghostrider.

you've throw up our hands and decided there's nothing we can do.

wrong.

treating the symptoms (as only you would put it), would send a message to "all the others" that you reference but don't name.

walmart isn't a symptom, they are a model or an infection that spreads because everyone else is forced into the same tactics or face extinction.
 
Displayed 19 of 419 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report