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.

(The Sun)   Cute jobless couple claim £17,680 a year in benefits, don't even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off: "Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn't go down that route" (w/pics)   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 376
    More: Dumbass, housing benefit, child tax credit  
•       •       •

34898 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 5:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 12:11:14 PM  
b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.


What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?
 
2013-01-27 12:16:25 PM  
Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.

If the welfare system pays so well or minimum wage pays so poorly that it actually costs you money in order to work than either welfare needs cut or min wage needs increased.
 
2013-01-27 12:17:19 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Don't think we're quite there, yet.
Instead we're stuck where those ignorant of hardship thinking the poor can be punished and shamed into not being so, all while exacerbating what makes them poor to begin with.


Exactly:

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (takes away pensions)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (freezes pay increases)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (replaces workers with cheaper labor)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (replaces cheap labor with automation)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (fights government benefits programs)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (fights universal medical care)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (funds hit-piece in the news about moochers on benefits)

RICHIE RICH: Waaahhhh the government wastes my tax dollars paying for all these goddamned poor people!!!! Why can't they just stop being so poor????
 
2013-01-27 12:17:34 PM  

LostGuy: LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.


You're an idiot. Those investments provide the capital needed so the company you work for can stay in business and keep giving you money.
 
2013-01-27 12:18:11 PM  

udhq: If I'm desperately poor, and I have to make a choice between my ego and feeding my kids, "self-respect" is going to get thrown out the window every time.

Oh, and if I take a job that sets me back financially, what I'm actually passing along to my kids is called "stupidity" and "a total lack of respect for the value of a dollar."


Exactly. These people are doing what is in their best economic self-interest. They have apparently done the math. Until local businesses start paying a higher (living) wage because it is in those businesses' best economic interest, these two kooky kids are doing the financially smartest thing for themselves.
 
2013-01-27 12:23:28 PM  

farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?


The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.
 
2013-01-27 12:24:09 PM  

farkeruk: What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?


What's the moral argument for you paying for tax subsidies to already profitable industries? What's the moral argument for your tax dollars being funneled into defense contracting companies for unnecessary wars? What's the moral argument for your tax rate being higher than Warren Buffet's?

You're outraged that you're paying for some slacker's cigarettes and beer, but not that your paying for someone's luxury yacht or private island.
 
2013-01-27 12:26:15 PM  
farkeruk

Oops, you're from the UK. Well, there are probably UK-equivilents for all of the above examples I gave of how you also subsidize the rich.
 
2013-01-27 12:29:53 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
Indeed.
/hot, like the show used to be.
 
2013-01-27 12:32:40 PM  

Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.


"Dorm style"...you mean like the projects?
 
2013-01-27 12:33:13 PM  
Working class wages are in the toilet, and they have been for a long time. Meanwhile the top 1% are making out like bandits. But sure, blame "welfare moochers" because they aren't living in utter squalor, totally makes sense. If this shiat keeps up communism will eventually make a comeback, you know, and all the money in the world won't make the kleptocracy bulletproof.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:06 PM  
The mistake that I have seen many people make when deciding to live on benefits instead of taking a low paying job is that they forget to assign a value to being employed. Their calculations only include the hard numbers. When the benefits run out, employers choose the applicant with a solid work history over the unemployed every time. The value of being employable must factor into the equation.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:56 PM  

farkeruk: What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?


As I said before, they're not luxuries. You're not paying for a poor person's yacht, or his country club membership, or his vacation to the Bahamas.
You're paying for basic subsistence, having decided that you'd rather pay taxes than wages to support your country's standard of living. Basic subsistence includes cheap entertainment, and I don't think you'll find much cheaper than TV and booze.
 
2013-01-27 12:37:51 PM  

umad: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.

You're an idiot. Those investments provide the capital needed so the company you work for can stay in business and keep giving you money.


ALL wealth is created through labor.

Appreciation of an investment is ALWAYS a purchased service of someone else's labor.

Labor, on the other hand, has an intrinsic value, no matter who's it is, no matter where they are, and no matter how unskilled it is.

If you ever wonder why we tax investment income at such a lower rate than income earned through labor, take a look at congress and those that lobby congress for a living and tell me how many miners or production workers or farm laborers you see there.
 
2013-01-27 12:38:29 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: As I said before, they're not luxuries. You're not paying for a poor person's yacht, or his country club membership, or his vacation to the Bahamas.
You're paying for basic subsistence, having decided that you'd rather pay taxes than wages to support your country's standard of living. Basic subsistence includes cheap entertainment, and I don't think you'll find much cheaper than TV and booze.


OK, scrub luxuries. What's the moral argument for me to pay for someone else's entertainment?
 
2013-01-27 12:43:06 PM  

oldcub: The value of being employable must factor into the equation.


Considering employers barely value that above an easy screen to toss resumes in the garbage, I don't know why you expect workers to.
What good-wage job is looking for low-wage skills, anyway? Is my work at McDonald's really going to matter the next time I apply for a programming job? 99% of the time, not in the least.
Again we come to one of those weird little hypocrisies of those who've never had to deal with hardship. On the one hand, low-wage work is something any unskilled moron can do, and should be paid like it. On the other hand, low-wage work teaches valuable skills, so you should never stop working.
So which is it? Stuff any moron can do or valuable skills?
 
2013-01-27 12:43:37 PM  
At least he saves money on that haircut by getting a rabid weasel to chew it short.
 
2013-01-27 12:48:39 PM  

udhq: farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.


Yes, I am. These people are living off the taxpayers. I pay taxes from my work, therefore, I'm paying for it. So, actually, it is my goddamn business.

Now, I support benefits for people who are unable to work, the temporarily unemployed and so forth. I'm happy, as a higher earner for lower earners to pay a lower percentage of tax than I do. That, I consider to be part of the social contract. But I don't agree with people who can work living off me at anything more than survival sums. You want to be lazy? You can have rice and beans on the table. If you want steak, then you'd better go to farking work.
 
2013-01-27 12:50:36 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: What's the moral argument for you paying for tax subsidies to already profitable industries? What's the moral argument for your tax dollars being funneled into defense contracting companies for unnecessary wars? What's the moral argument for your tax rate being higher than Warren Buffet's?

You're outraged that you're paying for some slacker's cigarettes and beer, but not that your paying for someone's luxury yacht or private island.


Where did you see me say that I was OK with big, wasteful government?

In case you hadn't grasped what I'm saying, I don't blame these people. They're responding to incentives created by... big, wasteful government.
 
2013-01-27 12:52:30 PM  

farkeruk: What's the moral argument for me to pay for someone else's entertainment?


Entertainment is still a need, a part of basic subsistence.
Funding it is compassionate, cheap, and effective.
You would cause more problems and hardship by denying this basic need.
There's really no good reason not to in an economy of first-world abundance beyond ignorant selfishness and jealousy.

This stuff is cheap. We're not talking about you sacrifice and suffer so your neighbor can live in opulence. We're talking about you giving up a little so your neighbor need not suffer at all. Like I said before, you either use wages or taxes to support your country's standard of living. Lowering it for anyone else ultimately lowers it for you, no matter how much money you might have.
 
2013-01-27 12:53:23 PM  

farkeruk: If you want steak, then you'd better go to farking work.


What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?
 
2013-01-27 01:01:13 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Entertainment is still a need, a part of basic subsistence.


It absolutely is not a part of basic subsistence. We didn't even have games consoles 30 years ago.

Lowering it for anyone else ultimately lowers it for you, no matter how much money you might have.

Go on... explain the math behind that.
 
2013-01-27 01:04:14 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?


At £5/lb? Less than the price of a packet of smokes? Who are these mythical working people who can't afford that?
 
2013-01-27 01:10:21 PM  

farkeruk: It absolutely is not a part of basic subsistence. We didn't even have games consoles 30 years ago.


Sergeant Grumbles: If the TVs are bigger and flashier, it's because technology is better, not because the poor have become better at bilking you out of money.


farkeruk: Go on... explain the math behind that.


Do I really have to explain the underpinnings of civilized society?
Does it benefit you more to personally employ your own security force, purify your own water, build your own transportation, create your own entertainment, respect your own laws, or to have an entire society funding and maintaining those things of their own volition? Your pay for your society either through wages or taxes. If you're going to deny everyone else access to food, housing, entertainment, you'll have to pay that much more for your own as the costs are no longer spread out.
In the U.S., supposed businesspeople wonder why the economy stagnates and recession takes us, never thinking that stagnating and declining wages have anything to do with it...
Ignorant selfishness and jealousy.
 
2013-01-27 01:12:29 PM  

farkeruk: udhq: farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.

Yes, I am. These people are living off the taxpayers. I pay taxes from my work, therefore, I'm paying for it. So, actually, it is my goddamn business.

Now, I support benefits for people who are unable to work, the temporarily unemployed and so forth. I'm happy, as a higher earner for lower earners to pay a lower percentage of tax than I do. That, I consider to be part of the social contract. But I don't agree with people who can work living off me at anything more than survival sums. You want to be lazy? You can have rice and beans on the table. If you want steak, then you'd better go to farking work.


No, it really isn't your money. It's the fee you pay for the service of living in a strong, stable society. The second you turn in over, it ceases to be "your money", and becomes the country's money, the same way if you bought a sandwich with it, it would stop being your money and become Subway's money.

That being said, in return for this fee, you get a vote--a single vote, one of 300million--as to what our values as a society are, i.e. how that money should be spent. The big lie of the last 30 years is that being a "high earner" and paying more in taxes entitles you to a proportionally larger voice in this debate. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that It does not.

So, yes, in a roundabout way, you're right, you do get a vote on whether you think people like those in TFA deserve access to the social safety net. But only 1 vote out of 300million. And if the country should decide otherwise, you are perfectly free to give up the benefits of being an American, if you feel they no longer outweigh the costs. But no, it's still absolutely none of your business how these people, or anyone else chooses to live their lives.
 
2013-01-27 01:13:46 PM  

farkeruk: At £5/lb? Less than the price of a packet of smokes? Who are these mythical working people who can't afford that?


I was using it as an analogy, the same as you.
You want people to work for their rewards. I'm saying that with the way things are, there's little point. Working leaves you tired and broken, no closer to any reward. If you're not outright replaced by a cheaper foreigner, your productivity is sapped by management, investors, and increased prices.
 
2013-01-27 01:14:34 PM  

udhq: That being said, in return for this fee, you get a vote--a single vote, one of 300million--as to what our values as a society are, i.e. how that money should be spent. The big lie of the last 30 years is that being a "high earner" and paying more in taxes entitles you to a proportionally larger voice in this debate. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that It does not.


I think he's British.
 
2013-01-27 01:18:38 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Do I really have to explain the underpinnings of civilized society?


No, just the math of how me giving more money to moochers for entertainment lowers my standard of living.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:43 PM  

farkeruk: No, just the math of how me giving more money to moochers for entertainment lowers my standard of living.


I mean, raises my standard of living.
 
2013-01-27 01:27:01 PM  

clapperton: I work with a Guy that likes to play the system. He has a baby with his batshiat crazy girlfriend (she's 21, its her 3rd kid with her 3rd baby-daddy) . When I say batshiat crazy, I'm talking diagnosed, unmedicated, split personality disorder. One personality even tries to kill him sometimes. Needless to say, she's receiving disability and all sorts of other benefits. So back to him, every January and July he calls in to work at least 2 or 3 times a week because he has to recertify for his handouts so he has to show he doesn't make much money. He even brags about it at work. We all biatch about how much of our paychecks is taken out in taxes, and he brags because he is collecting it.


Now that the NRA is on board with implementing a proper First World health care system (at least as far as mental health is concerned), maybe there's a one in a million chance the girlfriend might get some help? At least until the NRA remembers that proper mental health care is zOMG SOOOOOOOCIALISM! and they're agin' it once more.
 
2013-01-27 01:29:36 PM  

farkeruk: I mean, raises my standard of living.


Wages or taxes. Pick one.
They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living. Skimp on one or the other, and that standard falls, and you'll have to pay more to maintain your own.
 
2013-01-27 01:36:37 PM  

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


No, it's rational. The purpose of employment is income. If being unemployed pulls in a higher income than being employed...why would one choose employment?

I just can't muster much righteous outrage, here. Given the same circumstances, I'd make the same choice.

Meh.
 
2013-01-27 01:54:36 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.


Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?
 
2013-01-27 02:01:23 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: farkeruk: What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

As I said before, they're not luxuries. You're not paying for a poor person's yacht, or his country club membership, or his vacation to the Bahamas.
You're paying for basic subsistence



The point is, a 45" TV is not "basic subsistence". Neither is a cell phone. Neither is Internet access.
 
2013-01-27 02:02:55 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: farkeruk: If you want steak, then you'd better go to farking work.

What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?


Then get a better job.
 
2013-01-27 02:04:37 PM  
They can work at Walmart and collect foodstamps, then both sides of the argument will receive a happy ending.

/surprised nobody has commented on whether the chickie-bird is worth 110 quid an hour.
//Personally, I outsource my shagging to Thailand and the Philippines. But that's just a preference.
 
2013-01-27 02:10:47 PM  

WhippingBoy: It's sad to see that self-respect and dignity are no longer considered to be worth anything.


They are, but you don't get that by working any job. There are jobs out there who are more demeaning and shameful than going on welfare, and in some cases the job itself may actually be fine, but the boss is such a huge coont that he makes the whole experience even more demeaning than having to stand in line for a handout.

And before you say that you can always switch jobs, no. No, you can't.
 
2013-01-27 02:12:31 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: This is wrong and should be addressed. However, corporations take more in government handouts then all the welfare queens combine. Lets go after them first and then figure out what to do about the welfare cheats.


The us spent over 1 trillion in means tested hand outs last year.

Stop farking lying.
 
2013-01-27 02:14:53 PM  

Bucky Katt: There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.


Increasing taxes in the wealthy and upping spending didnt work? Krugman should hear this.
 
2013-01-27 02:17:47 PM  

Bumblefark: Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.

No, it's rational. The purpose of employment is income. If being unemployed pulls in a higher income than being employed...why would one choose employment?

I just can't muster much righteous outrage, here. Given the same circumstances, I'd make the same choice.

Meh.


If the government offered a corporation more money to not make widgets than they would take in by making widgets, and the CEO decided to forgo that money and make the widgets because "hey, we have to maintain our self-respect", that company's shareholders would sue that CEO into the next time zone.

Why people expect businesses to act in their own best-interests, but call it "greed" when people do so is one of the weirdest economic phenomenons out there.
 
2013-01-27 02:17:51 PM  

fredklein: Then get a better job.


What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?
 
2013-01-27 02:19:07 PM  

fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.

Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?


Then go on benefits (or Welfare in the US) if you think it's so great! Do it! Live the life of luxury you're so tired of paying for others to live!
 
2013-01-27 02:20:06 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living.


You can keep saying that, but you're not explaining the math. I'm giving money to moochers, who produce nothing. How does that make me richer?
 
2013-01-27 02:28:02 PM  

farkeruk: You can keep saying that, but you're not explaining the math. I'm giving money to moochers, who produce nothing. How does that make me richer?


I have explained it. You have yet to understand it. You pay to maintain society. Absent society, you'd have to pay for all its trappings by yourself. Which do you think is more expensive?
Why don't you go Galt already? Being so self sufficient, I'm sure that will go well for you.
 
2013-01-27 02:30:55 PM  

fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.

Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?


Your assumption that them being on welfare entitles you to veto power over other peoples' life or spending decisions is not how the real world works. This doesn't just stop being a free country for people when they are in need. That's only true in the magical world of Republican Authoritarian Candyland.

I know, some people just like to scoff at those in need because it makes them feel better about themselves, but remember something my grandma used to tell me: "When you wag your finger at the needy, you're also sticking your dick in Jesus's ear."
 
2013-01-27 02:33:06 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: fredklein: Then get a better job.

What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?


I'd stop buying big-screen tvs, cell phones, tattoos, fancy manicures, etc,etc ,etc until I could afford to feed myself.

It's not hard.
 
2013-01-27 02:33:49 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Then go on benefits (or Welfare in the US) if you think it's so great! Do it! Live the life of luxury you're so tired of paying for others to live!


Sorry, I have my pride.
 
2013-01-27 02:34:48 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: I have explained it. You have yet to understand it. You pay to maintain society.


How does paying 'moochers' "maintain society"??
 
2013-01-27 02:34:55 PM  

fredklein: I'd stop buying big-screen tvs, cell phones, tattoos, fancy manicures, etc,etc ,etc until I could afford to feed myself.


And what if you couldn't? What if, absent all those things, you were still deeper in the hole at the end of a month of work? When is it okay to give up, call bullshiat, stop degrading yourself for the profit of others?
 
2013-01-27 02:37:33 PM  

udhq: Your assumption that them being on welfare entitles you to veto power over other peoples' life or spending decisions is not how the real world works.


So, if you were giving me money because "I need something to eat", you'd not be upset if I wasted that money on, say, lotto tickets instead of food? You happily continue to hand me money (because I still need to eat), and watch me waste it, and not care??

Where do you live? I'm hungry and need to eat....
 
Displayed 50 of 376 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report