Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:38:00 PM (view original):
I eat fast food for lunch many days a week.  Because it's a cheap lunch. Two McChickens at McDonalds for $2. Sound financial decision.
Poor health choice.  
2/6/2015 3:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Movies:   Watch TV.  
Junk food:  No, sorry, at least as bad for you as smoking.  Quit being a fatass.
Pet:   Sorry, you can't feed yourself.   Give the pet a better home.
Is your argument "You can't tell people what to do with their welfare money because we don't know where to draw a line?"
2/6/2015 3:39 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Still missing your point.   You hammer smoking but ignore other bad decisions.   Get some consistency if you're going to restrict welfare purchases.
If Snickers bars were $10, I'd have more of an issue. Smoking is expensive.
So is being fat.
How is being fat expensive?
2/6/2015 3:40 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I fail to understand your point.   Smoking seems to be your focal point whereas, IMO, going to the movies, owning a pet, buying expensive sneakers, eating junk food, etc, etc are just as poor in the financial decision department. 

So shouldn't you be able to afford movies, pets, sneakers, junk food without taxpayer money if you want those things?
If you want me to break down every scenario, fine. The overall point is that people who live on the government's money don't have the right, in my opinion, to do whatever they want with it. Welfare is supposed to be temporary.

Smoking - you have to show you're making an attempt at quitting. You need to be using nicotine gum or patches (can be provided by government) if you can't quit on your own.

Going to the movies - You can have some sort of a life. If you go to a movie every so often, ok. You're allowed to enjoy that. If you go to 4 movies a week, we have an issue.

Buying expensive sneakers - See previous comment on purchasing clothing.

Eating junk food - What did you eat, when? Are you buying 38 snickers bars a week, on top of 3 meals a day? A few every week isn't a big deal, it's a cheap food.

Owning a pet - Did you own the pet beforehand? Ok. You're getting a pet now? No, you need to give it back.
How do you see the logistics of this working out? How do we test them? Who pays for the testing? Is testing even possible considering the fact that nicotine gum is OK but cigarettes aren't?

And to what end would we be doing this? It certainly won't save us money. It probably won't stop people from smoking.

And that's before we get into the discussion of what kind of strings we have the right to attach to welfare. And to what types of welfare. Does this apply to unemployment? Food stamps? Section 8 housing?
2/6/2015 3:41 PM
If someone spent $100 on 3 days worth of healthy organic food, I'd also tell them "you can't do that." This isn't so much about being healthy as much as it is being relatively smart about the money that taxpayers are giving you.
2/6/2015 3:42 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Still missing your point.   You hammer smoking but ignore other bad decisions.   Get some consistency if you're going to restrict welfare purchases.
If Snickers bars were $10, I'd have more of an issue. Smoking is expensive.
So is being fat.
How is being fat expensive?
You eat more, are less healthy, have more medical problems.   Expensive ****.
2/6/2015 3:45 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Movies:   Watch TV.  
Junk food:  No, sorry, at least as bad for you as smoking.  Quit being a fatass.
Pet:   Sorry, you can't feed yourself.   Give the pet a better home.
Is your argument "You can't tell people what to do with their welfare money because we don't know where to draw a line?"
I don't really have an argument.   I'd be very happy to place many restrictions on the use of welfare money.    I just don't think anyone knows how to do it.

I'll skip the movies because I don't want to blow $50 on something I may not like.    I'll buy a $50 pair of sneakers because it's stupid to pay $100.  I don't smoke because I didn't like it when I tried it.   I'll pass on a Snickers bar because it's not healthy.    All of these things make sense to me but, to the next guy, they may not. 

And you and moy seem to think "Stop smoking" is a fine start when I'm saying non-smokers make really stupid financial decisions too. 
2/6/2015 3:49 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2015 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I fail to understand your point.   Smoking seems to be your focal point whereas, IMO, going to the movies, owning a pet, buying expensive sneakers, eating junk food, etc, etc are just as poor in the financial decision department. 

So shouldn't you be able to afford movies, pets, sneakers, junk food without taxpayer money if you want those things?
If you want me to break down every scenario, fine. The overall point is that people who live on the government's money don't have the right, in my opinion, to do whatever they want with it. Welfare is supposed to be temporary.

Smoking - you have to show you're making an attempt at quitting. You need to be using nicotine gum or patches (can be provided by government) if you can't quit on your own.

Going to the movies - You can have some sort of a life. If you go to a movie every so often, ok. You're allowed to enjoy that. If you go to 4 movies a week, we have an issue.

Buying expensive sneakers - See previous comment on purchasing clothing.

Eating junk food - What did you eat, when? Are you buying 38 snickers bars a week, on top of 3 meals a day? A few every week isn't a big deal, it's a cheap food.

Owning a pet - Did you own the pet beforehand? Ok. You're getting a pet now? No, you need to give it back.
How do you see the logistics of this working out? How do we test them? Who pays for the testing? Is testing even possible considering the fact that nicotine gum is OK but cigarettes aren't?

And to what end would we be doing this? It certainly won't save us money. It probably won't stop people from smoking.

And that's before we get into the discussion of what kind of strings we have the right to attach to welfare. And to what types of welfare. Does this apply to unemployment? Food stamps? Section 8 housing?
I've said that we should invest money into this so that less people are on welfare and more people are getting their lives together and contributing to society. 

You have to force people to show receipts for purchases they've made, etc. You need to see your "life adviser" every month to go over your finances and what steps you've taken to try to get out of the ****** situation you're in.

The cigarettes deal is a little tricky, I don't really see how it works out.  Can we drug test for the chemicals aside from nicotine that cigarettes put in your body? Or test for gum or patches? It's a fair question, I'm not sure of the logistics. But if there are "missing receipts" for purchases month after month, it throws up red flags.

2/6/2015 3:51 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Movies:   Watch TV.  
Junk food:  No, sorry, at least as bad for you as smoking.  Quit being a fatass.
Pet:   Sorry, you can't feed yourself.   Give the pet a better home.
Is your argument "You can't tell people what to do with their welfare money because we don't know where to draw a line?"
I don't really have an argument.   I'd be very happy to place many restrictions on the use of welfare money.    I just don't think anyone knows how to do it.

I'll skip the movies because I don't want to blow $50 on something I may not like.    I'll buy a $50 pair of sneakers because it's stupid to pay $100.  I don't smoke because I didn't like it when I tried it.   I'll pass on a Snickers bar because it's not healthy.    All of these things make sense to me but, to the next guy, they may not. 

And you and moy seem to think "Stop smoking" is a fine start when I'm saying non-smokers make really stupid financial decisions too. 
"I don't really have an argument."

Ok, thanks.
2/6/2015 3:53 PM

Matches your lack of solution.    You're welcome. 

2/6/2015 3:54 PM
I just don't agree. I think life is hard enough when you are so poor that you qualify for welfare. Chasing down every dollar spent is a waste of our time and, in all likelihood, changes nothing. There are much bigger fish to fry.
2/6/2015 3:54 PM
Story time.   I worked the midnight shift in a convenience store when I was 19-20.   People would come in with their food stamps and buy whatever.  I had no training but I knew they couldn't buy smokes/beer.   So they'd buy a pack of gum.   Get .40 in change.   Then a candy bar, .35 in change.  And so on until they had enough to buy a pack of smokes.   Eventually, I began to say "Are you going to buy one cheap item until you have enough change for a pack of smokes?"   If their answer was "yes", I'd just take the food stamps and sell them their smokes.    People find a way around the system.
2/6/2015 3:58 PM
We created new jobs by hiring "life advisers!" I don't think it's the most expensive thing in the world to do. I think it saves us money in the long run, and shows an attitude that people need to find a way to contribute to society and live on their own means. There are many people who are poor who don't know how to manage money. This will only help.

That said, let's be clear - I'm absolutely in favor of helping people who need it. We, as a society should be sympathetic to those who worked just as hard as we do, but for whatever reason, haven't had the same results in their lives. But people need to actually reach out and take the hand that's reached out to them, rather than just laying on the floor for the rest of their lives.
2/6/2015 3:59 PM
◂ Prev 1...309|310|311|312|313...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.