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  
•       •       •

34889 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 04:51:25 PM

stiletto_the_wise: 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.


You realize an excluded middle perspective isn't mandatory, even on Fark? It's OK to be outraged by both, I suggest even essential ...
 
2013-01-27 05:07:58 PM

Zasteva: Do you think that it's okay to set children up to fail because of the circumstances of their birth?


The 'circumstances of their birth' are setting them up, not me.
 
2013-01-27 05:13:30 PM

udhq: You obviously feel that you have some sort of intrinsic entitlement to unilaterally divide poor people into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving


en·ti·tle·ment
/enˈtītlmənt/
Noun
The fact of having a right to something.

I think, as you put it, poor people can be divided into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving. I don't think that's something one needs a 'right' to do, however. Does one need a right to appreciate beauty? Does one need a right to make a scientific discovery?
 
2013-01-27 05:17:44 PM

Sum Dum Gai: fredklein: That's poor people logic- buy a portable method of communication... then leave it in one place.

A portable method of communication left in one place that is still cheaper than a non-portable method of communication that has to be left in one place.


[citation needed].
 
2013-01-27 05:33:21 PM

fredklein: Zasteva: Do you think that it's okay to set children up to fail because of the circumstances of their birth?

The 'circumstances of their birth' are setting them up, not me.


Shame. I thought you'd find some way to excuse your lack of compassion for others, and you didn't prove me wrong.

I've got better things to do this Sunday afternoon than try to instruct you on how to be a decent human being. I hope that if you ever find yourself in bad circumstances the people around you will show you the compassion you don't currently feel for others.
 
2013-01-27 05:40:06 PM

Zasteva: Shame. I thought you'd find some way to excuse your lack of compassion for others, and you didn't prove me wrong.


Why have compassion for those who take advantage of the system?

I've got better things to do this Sunday afternoon than try to instruct you on how to be a decent human being.

...which includes giving money to people who don't deserve it, I guess.

I hope that if you ever find yourself in bad circumstances the people around you will show you the compassion you don't currently feel for others.
I hope they show me the exact compassion I have... for people who actually need help, and don't take advantage of the system.
 
2013-01-27 05:51:27 PM

fredklein: ...which includes giving money to people who don't deserve it, I guess.


Again, so much talk about who DESERVES what, and not a peep about all your money that was taken to finance the lavish lifestyles of idly wealthy socialites and well-heeled business owners...
 
2013-01-27 06:03:57 PM

fredklein: Zasteva: Shame. I thought you'd find some way to excuse your lack of compassion for others, and you didn't prove me wrong.

Why have compassion for those who take advantage of the system?


Explain to me how a child can possibly "take advantage of the system"?
 
2013-01-27 06:05:48 PM

udhq: THE GREAT NAME: udhq: In that spirit, so-called "welfare" from the government exists for 2 reasons. 1, it's smart, effective, and and efficient public safety policy. And 2, we, as a society have decided that it's morally wrong to force ANYONE in need to rely on the mere charity of the well-off for their survival. In a word, we have decided that charity is a personal virtue, but as social policy, it is the exact opposite of justice.

"We" decided no such thing. Who do you think you are speaking for? You and other people who think the government is smart, effective and efficient?

I'm speaking for the people who understand that in a democracy, the government is a reflection of the society that elected it.

Show me someone complaining about the competence of his government, and I'll you and incompetent voter.


So you're saying I should agree with your big-government statist politics... or I'm a bad voter? You sound like you fear democracy.
 
2013-01-27 06:06:09 PM
fredklein:

Oh, and just because you don't see it on your W2 doesn't mean it's not happening. The profits from your labor are taken from you and funneled up to the ownership class as regularly as they are funneled to those less fortunate through taxes. This wealth redistribution (to the rich) is as voluntary as your paying taxes. By the very nature of employment, you are being paid less than the value that you deliver to whatever company you work for, and that withheld difference is redistributed directly into the pockets of "investors" and other people who do not work for it.

But somehow you're silent about how deserving these people are of what's rightfully yours.
 
2013-01-27 06:12:06 PM

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: KK is rich because lots of bricklayers choose to give her some of their wealth. You can't stop them doing that and still call it a free country. This is just a case of you being butthurt that others with freedom don't make the choices you think they should.

What in the world are you talking about? Now you're simply not making any sense. Socialites and the idle rich are wealthy because they live on the dole--the only difference is it comes from their (also idle) family and not the government.

In a sense, it doesn't matter if welfare comes from the government or "nepotistically" from rich parents--it all inevitably comes from the rest of us suckers.


I'll have to stop you there. If I build a table why you just proselytise on fark, then I can leave that table to my children. My child now has wealth yours does not, even though nothing "came from" you or your child.

If you think that owning wealth is necessarily theft then you are a sucker, because those that seek power can exploit your sense of justice.
 
2013-01-27 06:17:17 PM

fredklein: I hope they show me the exact compassion I have... for people who actually need help, and don't take advantage of the system.


All I can say is that you must be a man of absolutely unimpeachable moral character if you feel you're qualified to decide which is which.
 
2013-01-27 06:18:13 PM

BigBooper: farkeruk: BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?

In the UK it's not so much that they'd be worse off (the benefits system stops that), it's that there is a benefit withdrawal rate that is the equivalent of a 75-85% tax rate. Someone on the £7/hr minimum wage will end up about £10 better off for a day's work after tax and loss of benefits. Take off say £3/day for bus etc, and you're left with very little for taking 8 hours of crap rather than spending it with your family.

Over here in the U.S. we have people like the family man who lost his $40,000 a year job, and did odd jobs for cash while looking for a new job. His problem is that he reported his $100 a week that he was making mowing lawns and the like. So of course they took away every penny of his unemployment insurance payments.

The biggest problem that we have in our system is that over here we punish those who want to get out and work, while we reward people who are dishonest and find ways to game the system.

Another example is my situation. I got hurt at work. Not just a little hurt, but a serious spinal cord injury that left me temporarily paralyzed, and in the hospital for nearly a month. While I wasn't working, I earning nearly $600 a week for work comp disability. For the last six months, I've put every last bit of energy into my recovery. I've worked through pain unlike anything that I've ever known. All so I can get back my life, and get back to work. So now that I'm back to twenty hours a week of work, I get a ...




This, except my spinal cord injury was car accident. And despite it being degenerative, and involving chronic pain (I was assessed by our notoriously difficult guild lines for disability as never able to work, or category 4), I work part time, which I push to nearly full time, despite coming home in agony, spending weekends in bed recovering, and having to work from home often. And we don't make a lot more than the pension (still get partial pension as part time wage). Husband does kids and house and any care I need, so he is full time family. But I am doing what I can, so I can look my kids in the eyes. And if I have to stop, I did my best. I don't judge anyone honestly on benefits, they are (in Australia) nowhere near luxury levels, but I do wonder what can be done for generational unemployment. Here, single parents have to work once child starts school. But child care is obscene and eats into small wages, so that's almost unsustainable. It's hard, and there is abuse on all sides, including the poverty it traps people into, and the despair. I do know disabled people want more opportunities to work, and am joining the board of a group working towards that. Yeah, copious free time stuff;) gotta push while I can!
 
2013-01-27 06:26:35 PM
I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto seem not to respect the concept of personal freedom. They don't think voters should be able to question the beneficiaries of government redistribution. That voters are bad voters if they distrust government. That people who buy things from businesses are being exploited. That people do not have the right to live in their country of birth, or to enjoy the fruits of their labour. That there is injustice inherent in a person choosing to create something. That people would only support helping the poor if intimidated into doing so. And they lie about their charitable donations.

These people are extreme authoritarian-totalitarians. They literally fear the freedom of others to choose their own destiny. I feel sorry for udhq and stiletto, they live in a world made up only of reflections of their own egos. What an empty life.
 
2013-01-27 06:29:04 PM

fredklein: [citation needed].


Depending on your phone usage (both in terms of minutes used and how those split local/long distance), cell phones can be much cheaper than land lines. The cheapest possible land line in my area is $30/month after taxes & fees (unlimited local calls, 30 minutes long distance free). A prepaid cell phone can be had for as little as $10 per month for 100 minutes of either local or long distance.
 
2013-01-27 06:41:57 PM

THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto seem not to respect the concept of personal freedom. They don't think voters should be able to question the beneficiaries of government redistribution. That voters are bad voters if they distrust government. That people who buy things from businesses are being exploited. That people do not have the right to live in their country of birth, or to enjoy the fruits of their labour. That there is injustice inherent in a person choosing to create something. That people would only support helping the poor if intimidated into doing so. And they lie about their charitable donations.

These people are extreme authoritarian-totalitarians. They literally fear the freedom of others to choose their own destiny. I feel sorry for udhq and stiletto, they live in a world made up only of reflections of their own egos. What an empty life.


***yawn***

Hey, it's the old "You're not really free unless you're free to starve to death or die of an easily treatable disease" trope.

Look, I know you're British, and I don't know how things are over there, but here in the US, we spend more on creating favorable aberrations in our tax code than we do on appropriations. If you look at the ledger of our federal government, about 52% of it goes to tax breaks, cuts and loopholes. Only about 48% of our spending actually goes to spending.

So please, explain to me why the money that goes to give food and medicine to the undeserving poors is "altruistic redistribution", while the majority of our spending, which goes largely to corporations and the wealthy, is not?

Or, you can just be honest and admit what we're all suspecting: that you're really just an actor here to research your next role as a villain in a Charles Dickens play.
 
2013-01-27 06:42:56 PM

Coco LaFemme: I've thoroughly enjoyed the number of people who quoted me, believing I somehow was saying that welfare in this country ISN'T abused.  I was saying that the abuse that happens to the welfare system in the UK is worse than the abuse that happens to the welfare system here.  You know, like saying, "You think it's bad here?  Check out what's going on over there."  That's not the same as saying the welfare system in the United States is not gamed by anyone.

Jesus Christ, people.


I think the point we're trying to make is that we've got the exact same situation going on over here. Not every State (yet), just the ones that have the most out- of- control budgets and the highest taxes.
We all know that this example doesn't represent the majority of cases over there or here, but they do exist. This problem will continue to grow until we stop subsidizing it. After all, why would anybody want to work if it makes more financial sense to sit around?
 
2013-01-27 06:44:48 PM

MyRandomName: 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.


English, motherfarker. Do you speak it?
 
2013-01-27 06:46:36 PM

THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto


I can do that too.

THE GREAT NAME and fredklein

Clearly the few ultra-rich at the very top have successfully programmed you, through propaganda pieces like this article, to channel your sense of self-righteousness against the least fortunate, and to excuse them as they redistribute the wealth of the world into their own pockets.
 
2013-01-27 06:49:08 PM

udhq: THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto seem not to respect the concept of personal freedom. They don't think voters should be able to question the beneficiaries of government redistribution. That voters are bad voters if they distrust government. That people who buy things from businesses are being exploited. That people do not have the right to live in their country of birth, or to enjoy the fruits of their labour. That there is injustice inherent in a person choosing to create something. That people would only support helping the poor if intimidated into doing so. And they lie about their charitable donations.

These people are extreme authoritarian-totalitarians. They literally fear the freedom of others to choose their own destiny. I feel sorry for udhq and stiletto, they live in a world made up only of reflections of their own egos. What an empty life.

***yawn***

Hey, it's the old "You're not really free unless you're free to starve to death or die of an easily treatable disease" trope.

Which is actually true.

Look, I know you're British, and I don't know how things are over there, but here in the US, we spend more on creating favorable aberrations in our tax code than we do on appropriations. If you look at the ledger of our federal government, about 52% of it goes to tax breaks, cuts and loopholes. Only about 48% of our spending actually goes to spending.

Only a socialist sees tax breaks as a form of spending. This is because a socialist sees the state as owner of everything, and any amount not taxed as a gift from the state. Which is ridiculous, because the state does not generate the wealth.

So please, explain to me why the money that goes to give food and medicine to the undeserving poors is "altruistic redistribution", while the majority of our spending, which goes largely to corporations and the wealthy, is not?

Question based on false premise.

Or, you can just be honest and admit what we're all suspecting: that you're really just an actor here to research your next role as a villain in a Charles Dickens play.

...and you seem to be using Fark to test out the script for your planned sequel to Animal Farm.
 
2013-01-27 06:52:30 PM

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto

I can do that too.

THE GREAT NAME and fredklein

Clearly the few ultra-rich at the very top have successfully programmed you, through propaganda pieces like this article, to channel your sense of self-righteousness against the least fortunate, and to excuse them as they redistribute the wealth of the world into their own pockets.


Actually around about now, tche ultra rich, in the form of Al Gore and the rest of the Club of Rome, are trying to program me into believing in Climate Change. It is not working. But I bet it worked on you didn't it.

Now, climate change really is a direct redistribution from poor to rich. And you you don't mention it.
 
2013-01-27 06:57:37 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Only a socialist sees tax breaks as a form of spending. This is because a socialist sees blah blah blah blah blah.


I love how you use that word as if it's an insult.
 
2013-01-27 06:59:26 PM

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: Only a socialist sees tax breaks as a form of spending. This is because a socialist sees blah blah blah blah blah.

I love how you use that word as if it's an insult.


I love how you quietly avoid nailing your colours to any particular mast.
 
2013-01-27 07:03:55 PM

THE GREAT NAME: stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: Only a socialist sees tax breaks as a form of spending. This is because a socialist sees blah blah blah blah blah.

I love how you use that word as if it's an insult.

I love how you quietly avoid nailing your colours to any particular mast.


fasttrack.hk
 
2013-01-27 07:11:24 PM

THE GREAT NAME: stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto

I can do that too.

THE GREAT NAME and fredklein

Clearly the few ultra-rich at the very top have successfully programmed you, through propaganda pieces like this article, to channel your sense of self-righteousness against the least fortunate, and to excuse them as they redistribute the wealth of the world into their own pockets.

Actually around about now, tche ultra rich, in the form of Al Gore and the rest of the Club of Rome, are trying to program me into believing in Climate Change. It is not working. But I bet it worked on you didn't it.

Now, climate change really is a direct redistribution from poor to rich. And you you don't mention it.


Ok, I was going to write out an answer to your "For some reason that I won't explain, tax breaks don't count" face-palmer, but I see that you've gone full retard, so we're done here.
 
2013-01-27 07:14:51 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Actually around about now, tche ultra rich, in the form of Al Gore and the rest of the Club of Rome, are trying to program me into believing in Climate Change. It is not working. But I bet it worked on you didn't it.


Why is it these always end up being the same people? They have the same contempt for the environment as they do for the poor, and no bank bailout, superstorm, record-setting wealth disparity or temperature is going to convince them otherwise.
 
2013-01-27 07:18:42 PM

stiletto_the_wise: fredklein: ...which includes giving money to people who don't deserve it, I guess.

Again, so much talk about who DESERVES what, and not a peep about all your money that was taken to finance the lavish lifestyles of idly wealthy socialites and well-heeled business owners...


Yup. because this thread is about... lets see... 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".

Find a thread about "the lavish lifestyles of idly wealthy socialites and well-heeled business owners", and see what I have to say there.
 
2013-01-27 07:22:22 PM

Zasteva: fredklein: Zasteva: Shame. I thought you'd find some way to excuse your lack of compassion for others, and you didn't prove me wrong.

Why have compassion for those who take advantage of the system?

Explain to me how a child can possibly "take advantage of the system"?


The same way anyone else can.
 
2013-01-27 07:23:44 PM

stiletto_the_wise: fredklein:

Oh, and just because you don't see it on your W2 doesn't mean it's not happening. The profits from your labor are taken from you and funneled up to the ownership class as regularly as they are funneled to those less fortunate through taxes. This wealth redistribution (to the rich) is as voluntary as your paying taxes. By the very nature of employment, you are being paid less than the value that you deliver to whatever company you work for, and that withheld difference is redistributed directly into the pockets of "investors" and other people who do not work for it.

But somehow you're silent about how deserving these people are of what's rightfully yours.


BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. This thread is about people who cheat welfare.

Sheesh.
 
2013-01-27 07:24:41 PM

udhq: fredklein: I hope they show me the exact compassion I have... for people who actually need help, and don't take advantage of the system.

All I can say is that you must be a man of absolutely unimpeachable moral character if you feel you're qualified to decide which is which.


Pretty much. I don't lie, cheat, or steal, which (to be quite frank) puts me pretty high up the list.
 
2013-01-27 07:28:12 PM

fredklein: stiletto_the_wise: fredklein:

Oh, and just because you don't see it on your W2 doesn't mean it's not happening. The profits from your labor are taken from you and funneled up to the ownership class as regularly as they are funneled to those less fortunate through taxes. This wealth redistribution (to the rich) is as voluntary as your paying taxes. By the very nature of employment, you are being paid less than the value that you deliver to whatever company you work for, and that withheld difference is redistributed directly into the pockets of "investors" and other people who do not work for it.

But somehow you're silent about how deserving these people are of what's rightfully yours.

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. This thread is about people who cheat welfare.

Sheesh.


Ok, since you seem to think it's an actual problem, please enlighten us all: how many people actually cheat welfare?
 
2013-01-27 07:28:47 PM

Sum Dum Gai: fredklein: [citation needed].

Depending on your phone usage (both in terms of minutes used and how those split local/long distance), cell phones can be much cheaper than land lines. The cheapest possible land line in my area is $30/month after taxes & fees (unlimited local calls, 30 minutes long distance free). A prepaid cell phone can be had for as little as $10 per month for 100 minutes of either local or long distance.



Anecdotal evidence? And incomplete at that. Where's the cost of the cell phone itself? and, how far will 100 minutes a month go when spread among, say, 4 roommates? 25 min/month each, or about 5/6 of a minute per day. For their primary form of communication while actively looking for work?

Yeeeeeah, right.
 
2013-01-27 07:29:37 PM

fredklein: udhq: fredklein: I hope they show me the exact compassion I have... for people who actually need help, and don't take advantage of the system.

All I can say is that you must be a man of absolutely unimpeachable moral character if you feel you're qualified to decide which is which.

Pretty much. I don't lie, cheat, or steal, which (to be quite frank) puts me pretty high up the list.


Ok, clearly my sarcasm detector's broken.

Carry on.
 
2013-01-27 07:30:02 PM

stiletto_the_wise: Clearly the few ultra-rich at the very top have successfully programmed you, through propaganda pieces like this article, to channel your sense of self-righteousness against the least fortunate, and to excuse them as they redistribute the wealth of the world into their own pockets.


Oh, I don't excuse them. But that's a discussion for a different thread. THIS THREAD is discussing welfare cheats.

Stay on topic.
 
2013-01-27 07:32:41 PM

udhq: Ok, since you seem to think it's an actual problem, please enlighten us all: how many people actually cheat welfare?


I don't have to be able to lay an egg to smell a bad one. And I don't have to answer questions like that. Even ONE person cheating is a problem. And I'm pretty sure there's more than one.
 
2013-01-27 07:55:39 PM

Southern100: jtown: 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.

Except shiat jobs like McD's don't pay enough for a 2 bedroom apartment and all the expenses that come along with kids. A better solution would be to require work but don't cut off benefits entirely when they get a job. Reduce the benefits by the amount of money they get paid.

The trouble is that we've created a system that is incapable of making that sort of adjustment to benefits. It's not possible to say, "You made $1234.56 at your McJob this month so your benefit check will be reduced by that amount." There are half a dozen agencies (if not more), each with their own regulations and bureaucracy. Many of them are either/or scenarios where they either qualify for benefits or they don't qualify. There's no "you qualify for 30%". The whole damn system is out of order!

A 1:1 reduction isn't worth it - if you're still only going to make the same amount of money working instead of not working, then why work at all?

IE., if someone makes $2000 on government assistance, and then gets a job at McDonalds for $1,000 a month and they still get the other $1,000 a month from government assistance, that's still the same $2000 a month. They can sit on their ass at home and get the $2000 a month for doing nothing.


In my scenario, the only way to get assistance is to work (or be mentally and/or physically incapable of working). Even if it's old-school Soviet style stuff like cutting the courthouse lawn with scissors. No workee, no checkee. You can hit the bricks and your kids go to an orphanarium.
 
2013-01-27 07:56:09 PM

fredklein: I don't have to be able to lay an egg to smell a bad one.


He just knows it in his gut. No evidence will ever convince him otherwise. And better a thousand go hungry than one undeserving mouth tasting a morsel!
*yawn*
Just say "I've got mine, fark you." and be done with it. That's all your argument will boil down to.
 
2013-01-27 08:16:34 PM

jtown: In my scenario, the only way to get assistance is to work (or be mentally and/or physically incapable of working). Even if it's old-school Soviet style stuff like cutting the courthouse lawn with scissors. No workee, no checkee. You can hit the bricks and your kids go to an orphanarium.



Well, I, for one, am grateful that I live in America, rather than your Soviet-style feudal serfdom!
 
2013-01-27 08:18:04 PM

fredklein: Anecdotal evidence? And incomplete at that. Where's the cost of the cell phone itself?


Pretty insignificant in the long run - AT&T has cell phones that work with their prepaid plans for as little as $18. You'd pay around $8 for the cheapest corded phone, so it's really just an added $10; the cell phone pays for itself in under a month.

and, how far will 100 minutes a month go when spread among, say, 4 roommates? 25 min/month each, or about 5/6 of a minute per day. For their primary form of communication while actively looking for work?

Again, that depends on usage. If you're making a lot of local calls for long durations, a land line makes sense. Still, you can get 300 minutes / month for the cost of a land line, and if you have four people looking for work, they're likely doing a lot of long distance calling (my last job search, about three years ago, saw me apply for positions in about 15 states), so the unlimited local calling isn't necessarily a great reason to get a land line for a job hunt, especially when I didn't have three roommates at that time.

I also found I wasn't really using the phone much - most of my time spent communicating with prospective employers was online, and most phone calls (apart from a 40 minute phone interview) were pretty brief.
 
2013-01-27 08:21:30 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Just say "I've got mine, fark you." and be done with it. That's all your argument will boil down to.


"I got mine, go get yours instead of taking mine".

How's that?
 
2013-01-27 08:41:10 PM

fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Just say "I've got mine, fark you." and be done with it. That's all your argument will boil down to.

"I got mine, go get yours instead of taking mine".

How's that?


You're doing it wrong.
 
2013-01-27 09:02:34 PM
So as the discussion winds down, nobody is willing to own these kids? Fark it. I'll do it. Here's the reality: They actually *are* trapped.
Not only do they get paid more to sit around than they do to go out and work, but they are actually *punished* for trying.
I know about this because I was there once myself. This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.

I happened to make it out because I had marketable skills (no thanks to them), but it wasn't easy. Most of the people I knew back then are dead and gone.
These days I biatch online about the system. Not because "I'm rich and so fark you", but because it's not what you folks who haven't actually *lived* it think it is.
You think you're supporting a good cause that keeps people from slipping through the cracks, but in reality you're supporting a a morally bankrupt system that traps people into a cycle of dependency that's just as bad as drug addiction.
Link
 
2013-01-27 09:08:21 PM

GoSlash27: This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.


As methods of buying votes go, this is so over-expensive as to be a complete work of fiction. It would be easier for the pols to do their job and actually make people *want* them in power for good reason, than to buy their votes in this manner.
 
2013-01-27 09:29:41 PM

gweilo8888: GoSlash27: This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.

As methods of buying votes go, this is so over-expensive as to be a complete work of fiction. It would be easier for the pols to do their job and actually make people *want* them in power for good reason, than to buy their votes in this manner.


Nobody runs cost analyses when they're not responsible for the spending. It *is* happening and this is why. I know you want to believe that you're supporting something good and egalitarian, but you're not. And if you ever live that existence, you will soon come to realize what I mean.
 
2013-01-27 09:33:31 PM

GoSlash27: So as the discussion winds down, nobody is willing to own these kids? Fark it. I'll do it. Here's the reality: They actually *are* trapped.
Not only do they get paid more to sit around than they do to go out and work, but they are actually *punished* for trying.
I know about this because I was there once myself. This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.

I happened to make it out because I had marketable skills (no thanks to them), but it wasn't easy. Most of the people I knew back then are dead and gone.
These days I biatch online about the system. Not because "I'm rich and so fark you", but because it's not what you folks who haven't actually *lived* it think it is.
You think you're supporting a good cause that keeps people from slipping through the cracks, but in reality you're supporting a a morally bankrupt system that traps people into a cycle of dependency that's just as bad as drug addiction.
Link


I don't disagree with you that we can and need to do more to help people to be able to stand on their own 2 feet.

Unfortunately, what I hear from conservatives is not "Let's teach the man to fish," but rather "Let's take his fish, that'll teach him!"
 
2013-01-27 09:45:40 PM

GoSlash27: Here's the reality: They actually *are* trapped.
Not only do they get paid more to sit around than they do to go out and work, but they are actually *punished* for trying.


I agree so far.

This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.

Here is where I would disagree. I don't think the current system is "designed" to trap people. It's a consequence of having such a hodgepodge of safety nets, all administered by different agencies at different levels of government and with no coordinated goals nor overarching vision.

Ideally, every dollar earned should reduce benefits by less than than one dollar (and certainly never more than one dollar). Plus, there needs to be some consideration for the fact that holding a job often increases expenses (i.e. transportation, day care, etc.) and these should be offset by some additional benefits to help ease the transition to working.
 
2013-01-27 09:47:21 PM

fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Just say "I've got mine, fark you." and be done with it. That's all your argument will boil down to.

"I got mine, go get yours instead of taking mine".

How's that?


You do realize that it stops being your money once you give it to the government, right? Unless you're handing money directly to welfare cheats, they're not actually getting any of "your" money, so you can stop pretending to be a victim now.
 
2013-01-27 10:01:52 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You do realize that it stops being your money once you give it to the government, right? Unless you're handing money directly to welfare cheats, they're not actually getting any of "your" money, so you can stop pretending to be a victim now.


To be fair, all money is inextricably tied to the government. It's not like a piece of paper with "100" written on it has some sort of intrinsic value. It's just a scorecard printed by a bank that we're all convinced is worth something.

If you hate taxes so much, let's move to a system where nobody pays it, but the government simply prints out enough each year to pay the bills and everyone gets hit with inflation. Same shiat, different toilet.
 
2013-01-27 10:10:14 PM
ahhh...SOCIALISM!
 
2013-01-27 11:22:22 PM

GoSlash27: Nobody runs cost analyses when they're not responsible for the spending. It *is* happening and this is why. I know you want to believe that you're supporting something good and egalitarian, but you're not. And if you ever live that existence, you will soon come to realize what I mean.


Loosen the tinfoil, buddy. You're starting to turn a funny color.
 
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