Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How common are "welfare bums"?

Page 4 of 8 [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

24 Nov 2012, 7:57 pm

ruveyn wrote:
blue_moon666 wrote:

Often greedy people do use force, intimidation, and coercion to obtain their wealth. They're called sweatshops for a reason.


No one is forced to take such under the threat of deadly force. Yes, there are businesses with sub-standard working conditions. As long as people work at such places voluntarily, what is your complaint?

ruveyn


That it is morally unsound exploitation. This seems fairly apparent from context, no?



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

24 Nov 2012, 8:06 pm

We get food stamps. Thats the only way we can eat sometimes. It's not like my husband is saying "no no! Don't give me a raise, cause then I won't get food stamps" and I'm sure not turning down jobs left and right to get them.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

24 Nov 2012, 9:16 pm

The term "welfare bum" is frequently used by the right to refer to ANYONE that gets ANY form of government assistance and therefore causes their takes to increase ever so slightly. They say no one should be forced to be charitable, HA! they only take part in private charity as a tax shelter and there would be no charity period if there was no government assistance. Face it, the 1%, both left and right, don't give a crap about the poor man.

There is enough money floating around in the US to make everyone a millionaire, but that would be *GASP* socialism.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Nov 2012, 9:21 pm

adifferentname wrote:

That it is morally unsound exploitation. This seems fairly apparent from context, no?


In other words you don't like it. All of which has zero to do with the legality of the matter.

Your opinions concerning morality and $1.65 will get you a $1.65 cup of coffee.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 Nov 2012, 11:45 pm

MrXxx wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Here is my question: How many people are seriously living on welfare that they don't need? I seriously don't know the answer.


If you're going to ask this, you probably ought to consider an equally, if not more important question.

How do retailers benefit from Food Stamp and TANF?

http://maxkeiser.com/2012/09/09/current ... ood-sales/

http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-cont ... ySimon.pdf

13% of all retail food sales?! That's plenty of bucks to warrant lobbying in favor of these programs.

So who's really at fault for the perpetuation of this system?

It's not as simple as a bunch of lazy good for nothings who just don't want to work. It's a much more complex problem than that.


Not only that. A lot of people who work retail jobs make such low pay that they are on food stamps. That implies that government is subsidizing the retailers. Next thing you know the retail workers who receive minimum wage pay will be replaced with government "work-fare" employees who they get to exploit for free. Pretty sweet deal huh?

You know what? Paying workers at all is such a terrible burden on multinational corporations. They'd rather train monkeys to work for free. What? No no more people to buy their cheap s**t? There's an easy solution for that. Just put everyone on welfare so they can still buy s**t but make sure you let them know they are terrible moochers who should be deeply ashamed for existing, and don't you dare tax anyone a dime to pay for those immoral moochers, that's what the bond market is for. You see, the rest of the world will just love the lovely green papers we print for them to loan back to us. It's like an offer they can't refuse because the minute the US loses it's world monetary hegemony the whole world economy collapses and we're all back to foraging for berries in the bush. That or we just throw a temper tantrum and nuke everyone if we don't get our way. Murka!! ! f**k Yea!! !



Last edited by marshall on 24 Nov 2012, 11:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 Nov 2012, 11:48 pm

blue_moon666 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
blue_moon666 wrote:

I think you just gave me a great example of cognitive dissonance. A society is only as strong as the weakest member. Forcing greedy people to stop their immoral behavior is essential to our survival.


A society is precisely as good as its brightest and best. The weakling and failures are dead weight on the rest of us.

As long as "greedy people" do not use force, threat of force or fraud to become rich, they are morally in the clear.

Apparently you believe that if A has a million dollars and B has only a thousand dollars that A has somehow wronged B. How would you like to live in a society where -everything- is equalized. Not only money and other assets, but talent, intelligence and ambition. We could call it the People's Republic of Mediocracy where the non-outstanding rule and the better folks are punished for being better.

ruveyn


Why do you think the weaklings are failures? Are you suggesting that disabled people are a dead weight to society? I actually do have disabled family members who are receiving government help for very legitimate reasons. That fact that you are calling them "failures" is extremely insulting and rude.


It's actually more awesome than that. Reveyn has an autistic granddaughter. What a failure. :roll:



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Nov 2012, 12:11 am

PM wrote:
The term "welfare bum" is frequently used by the right to refer to ANYONE that gets ANY form of government assistance and therefore causes their takes to increase ever so slightly. They say no one should be forced to be charitable, HA! they only take part in private charity as a tax shelter and there would be no charity period if there was no government assistance. Face it, the 1%, both left and right, don't give a crap about the poor man.

There is enough money floating around in the US to make everyone a millionaire, but that would be *GASP* socialism.


Make everyone a millionaire lol, do you not understand how economics work?



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

25 Nov 2012, 12:19 am

Jacoby wrote:
PM wrote:
The term "welfare bum" is frequently used by the right to refer to ANYONE that gets ANY form of government assistance and therefore causes their takes to increase ever so slightly. They say no one should be forced to be charitable, HA! they only take part in private charity as a tax shelter and there would be no charity period if there was no government assistance. Face it, the 1%, both left and right, don't give a crap about the poor man.

There is enough money floating around in the US to make everyone a millionaire, but that would be *GASP* socialism.


Make everyone a millionaire lol, do you not understand how economics work?


Tell me the reasons it would not work,other than that the people in Washington would not be elected.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


Seabass
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 199

25 Nov 2012, 12:27 am

PM wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
PM wrote:
The term "welfare bum" is frequently used by the right to refer to ANYONE that gets ANY form of government assistance and therefore causes their takes to increase ever so slightly. They say no one should be forced to be charitable, HA! they only take part in private charity as a tax shelter and there would be no charity period if there was no government assistance. Face it, the 1%, both left and right, don't give a crap about the poor man.

There is enough money floating around in the US to make everyone a millionaire, but that would be *GASP* socialism.


Make everyone a millionaire lol, do you not understand how economics work?


Tell me the reasons it would not work,other than that the people in Washington would not be elected.


"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder."

- Bastiat, The Law



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Nov 2012, 12:52 am

PM wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
PM wrote:
The term "welfare bum" is frequently used by the right to refer to ANYONE that gets ANY form of government assistance and therefore causes their takes to increase ever so slightly. They say no one should be forced to be charitable, HA! they only take part in private charity as a tax shelter and there would be no charity period if there was no government assistance. Face it, the 1%, both left and right, don't give a crap about the poor man.

There is enough money floating around in the US to make everyone a millionaire, but that would be *GASP* socialism.


Make everyone a millionaire lol, do you not understand how economics work?


Tell me the reasons it would not work,other than that the people in Washington would not be elected.


If everyone was a millionaire then what do you think would happen to prices? What happens to home values in high income areas? It's a nice fantasy I guess.



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

25 Nov 2012, 12:56 am

Jacoby wrote:
PM wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
PM wrote:
The term "welfare bum" is frequently used by the right to refer to ANYONE that gets ANY form of government assistance and therefore causes their takes to increase ever so slightly. They say no one should be forced to be charitable, HA! they only take part in private charity as a tax shelter and there would be no charity period if there was no government assistance. Face it, the 1%, both left and right, don't give a crap about the poor man.

There is enough money floating around in the US to make everyone a millionaire, but that would be *GASP* socialism.


Make everyone a millionaire lol, do you not understand how economics work?


Tell me the reasons it would not work,other than that the people in Washington would not be elected.


If everyone was a millionaire then what do you think would happen to prices? What happens to home values in high income areas? It's a nice fantasy I guess.


Everybody would be paying the same price, albeit higher, little thing called equality. No, it will not lead to totalitarian communism.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


AspieRogue

25 Nov 2012, 1:21 am

ruveyn wrote:
blue_moon666 wrote:

Often greedy people do use force, intimidation, and coercion to obtain their wealth. They're called sweatshops for a reason.


No one is forced to take such under the threat of deadly force. Yes, there are businesses with sub-standard working conditions. As long as people work at such places voluntarily, what is your complaint?

ruveyn



People work there voluntarily in the first place because they are either unaware of the conditions they will be face OR they are desperate for a job and that's the only thing they can do to earn a living. If you had a choice: Work in a sweatshop, or be homeless which meant eating from dumpsters and sleeping on the streets, what would it be?


Also, the fact that nobody was forced to take those jobs initially does not justify the fact that there have been sweatshops were threats of force were used against employees who planned to quit and were being payed below the minimum wage. You see, there are things called LAWS that require employers to meet basic standards when it comes to working conditions.


@Jacoby: Why shouldn't companies be allowed to hire illegal workers? What ever happened to freedom of choice for those who take the risks and spend their own money on running a business?



Last edited by AspieRogue on 25 Nov 2012, 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Seabass
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 199

25 Nov 2012, 1:28 am

AspieRogue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
blue_moon666 wrote:

Often greedy people do use force, intimidation, and coercion to obtain their wealth. They're called sweatshops for a reason.


No one is forced to take such under the threat of deadly force. Yes, there are businesses with sub-standard working conditions. As long as people work at such places voluntarily, what is your complaint?

ruveyn



People work there voluntarily in the first place because they are either unaware of the conditions they will be face OR they are desperate for a job and that's the only thing they can do to earn a living. If you had a choice: Work in a sweatshop, or be homeless which meant eating from dumpsters and sleeping on the streets, what would it be?


Sweatshops tend to pop up in corporatist type societies, not those of pure capitalism. Case in point, Hong Kong.



AspieRogue

25 Nov 2012, 1:40 am

Seabass wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
blue_moon666 wrote:

Often greedy people do use force, intimidation, and coercion to obtain their wealth. They're called sweatshops for a reason.


No one is forced to take such under the threat of deadly force. Yes, there are businesses with sub-standard working conditions. As long as people work at such places voluntarily, what is your complaint?

ruveyn



People work there voluntarily in the first place because they are either unaware of the conditions they will be face OR they are desperate for a job and that's the only thing they can do to earn a living. If you had a choice: Work in a sweatshop, or be homeless which meant eating from dumpsters and sleeping on the streets, what would it be?


Sweatshops tend to pop up in corporatist type societies, not those of pure capitalism. Case in point, Hong Kong.






And just what exactly is pure capitalism and where can it *actually* be found? America is indeed a corporatist society which has enacted laws against sweatshops. A better case-in-point would be Indonesia, which has one of the highest number of sweatshops of any nation on Earth.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Nov 2012, 2:11 am

AspieRogue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
blue_moon666 wrote:

Often greedy people do use force, intimidation, and coercion to obtain their wealth. They're called sweatshops for a reason.


No one is forced to take such under the threat of deadly force. Yes, there are businesses with sub-standard working conditions. As long as people work at such places voluntarily, what is your complaint?

ruveyn


@Jacoby: Why shouldn't companies be allowed to hire illegal workers? What ever happened to freedom of choice for those who take the risks and spend their own money on running a business?


not sure what this is in reply to



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

25 Nov 2012, 8:10 am

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:

luckily over here that includes taking care of those that cant themselves, i really do think one can judge a society on how it treats the weakest members of it,


I believe helping the needy should be a voluntary and private act.

The government does not compel me to donate blood or platelets. I just do it. The government does not compel me to record books for blind and dyslexic folks. I just do it. Voluntary and private, the way good deeds ought to be done.

ruveyn


still doesnt change my actual point,

any society has a social contract that we as humans have to sacrifice something to be a part of, what we sacrifice differs from country to country but the common theme in the west is that you have a choice about which one you take part in, dont like it where you are and dont feel the political system would allow it to become somewhere you like, leave, simple.

and the fact that there is an implicit choice also means that it per definition isnt theft(if you disregard the blatant ignorance of law, theft is defined by the legal system, something that is done by law and in accordance with the criminal code cannot then be theft itself, it can be likened to it under some circumstances but cannot be it)


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.