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.

(NPR)   What happens when you give money with no strings attached to the poor? Do they: A) spend it on hookers and blow; B) burn it to keep warm; or C) start up businesses and buy food for their children?   (npr.org) divider line 13
    More: Obvious, developing world, poor people, return on investments  
•       •       •

10502 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 9:13 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-25 09:17:03 AM
5 votes:
When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.
2013-10-25 09:24:41 AM
2 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).


now we know Sen. Cruz' Fark handle.
2013-10-25 09:23:50 AM
2 votes:
D) Flat screen plasma refrigerators.
2013-10-25 09:18:25 AM
2 votes:
It's almost like poor people immediately spend their money in local economies while rich cocksuckers, they probably all in the Hamptons braggin' about what they make.

fark you and your Hampton house
I fark your Hampton spouse
Came on her Hampton blouse
and in her Hampton mouth
2013-10-25 12:26:42 PM
1 votes:

xalres: BMFPitt: xalres: Because to me it implies you think I pretend others using the coping mechanism I described is, in fact, my own coping mechanism to help me cope with my not helping.

Yes, the second line quote is a subset of that.

You: "You're just pretending that to cope with your own guilt over not helping poor people."
Me: "You're wrong in your assumption. Here's how I've helped in the past."
You: "That's not what I was saying. Keep living in your fantasy world!"

Dafuq?


img01.beijing2008.cn
2013-10-25 10:27:10 AM
1 votes:

New Age Redneck: This reminds me of the old saying, "Give a man a fish. He eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he's drunk every weekend."


Build a man a fire, he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life.
2013-10-25 10:20:59 AM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?


What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.
2013-10-25 09:49:16 AM
1 votes:

RedTank: Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.


Yes, because if you gave away $1000 to 100 people and one of them started a successful business, 10 did something to improve their child's education, 30 used it to pay down debt, 57 used it to feed their family directly and one buys a motorcycle all that anyone will hear about is the last guy, who bought hookers and blow and ended up having a heart attack and dying.

because socialism.
2013-10-25 09:34:15 AM
1 votes:

beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.


Yeah, screw the poor, because of this one guy who knew some other people who told a story that he's now telling on the internet that's totally believable.
2013-10-25 09:31:00 AM
1 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: automagically


imageshack.us
2013-10-25 09:23:09 AM
1 votes:
Let's conduct an experiment. I'm poor. Gimme some money
2013-10-25 09:21:46 AM
1 votes:
No, they'll use my tax dollars to get steak and Lobsters and lottery tickets.

/amirite?
2013-10-25 09:15:00 AM
1 votes:
Gotta have money to make money.  More at 11.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report