Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
I get the idea of "why the **** am I giving you money when you're buying cigarettes?"

If you're on welfare for years and you're addicted to cigarettes without making an effort to quit, I'm cool with cutting them off.  BUT they should be given the tools and education; they should be given the help to help themselves. 
2/6/2015 11:53 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

What if they're wearing $100 sneakers?    Buying a 12 pack?    Going to see American Sniper?    Taking Fido for a walk?     Having a Snickers bar?

None of that **** is free either.   Let's make sure anyone on welfare isn't doing anything NOT REQUIRED to live.

2/6/2015 12:03 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Why stop at cigarettes? What if they buy Budweiser instead of Keystone Light? What if they buy pot roast instead of rice and beans? What if they buy Gillette razors instead of Vons brand?

We've decided we're going to help poor people. But that doesn't give us the right to decide how they spend the tiny amount of money they do have.
2/6/2015 12:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, yes, I'm being sarcastic.   I just don't understand why moy focuses on cigs.   Every time.
2/6/2015 12:05 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Cigarettes has no benefit, kills people, and is a large, continuing expense.

There should be a line on what's acceptable behavior when the government is paying for you to live. Smoking, with no desire to stop smoking, is unacceptable in my opinion.

2/6/2015 12:06 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Benefits of drinking?  Going to a movie?   Wearing expensive sneakers?   Candy bars?

I won't argue against having a pet.  
2/6/2015 12:10 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
You can make an argument that if a welfare recipient is spending $50 on booze a week that they shouldn't be getting welfare. People need shoes and food.

I  like the idea that those on welfare need to be guided to spend their money correctly. They need to check in to a government office every so often so go over their finances. If you don't, you get cut off. If you spend recklessly month after month, you get cut off. Basically, if you're not attempting to better your life, the government isn't obligated to pay for you to live. Serves the purpose of saving the government money and also betters society.
2/6/2015 12:18 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2015 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2015 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2015 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2015 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Do they have different definitions for any other worlds on your home planet?
LOL. You admitted that this is an indirect government subsidy.
LOL @ yourself, dumbass.  I admitted that some definitions define it as such.  I also added that it's retarded to do so.

Try to keep up with what's being said.

Yes, it is defined as an indirect government subsidy. You wouldn't need to be from another planet to define it that way.
It's a convenient liberal alternate definition that didn't start out that way, much like the oxymoronic corporate welfare (there is a such thing, but most often it's applied incorrectly).   Corporate welfare is not tax breaks for corporations to come and live in your states and pay taxes they would not if they didn't come.  Corporate welfare is subsidy given to corporations by those in power who have a vested interest - again, taking something from someone and giving it to someone else.

The "indirect government subsidy" is a lot like that.  We're not going to take something of yours that we really want to, so we'll call it a gift to you since we didn't take it by force.

It blends in nicely with the liberal mindset that what you own isn't really yours - we can take it anytime we want to.  There are lots of places in the world where you can go to live that way....
2/6/2015 12:41 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
This has nothing to do with liberal/conservative. I'm not talking about corporate welfare.

When you earn income on an investment, income tax is due. This is a fact. It doesn't matter that we used to not tax investment income. Whether or not this tax is a good idea is irrelevant. The tax is due. The tax money due is not yours, it belongs to the government.

If the government agrees not to collect the tax it is due in certain situations, those situations are being subsidized to encourage the behavior.
2/6/2015 12:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 12:19:00 PM (view original):
You can make an argument that if a welfare recipient is spending $50 on booze a week that they shouldn't be getting welfare. People need shoes and food.

I  like the idea that those on welfare need to be guided to spend their money correctly. They need to check in to a government office every so often so go over their finances. If you don't, you get cut off. If you spend recklessly month after month, you get cut off. Basically, if you're not attempting to better your life, the government isn't obligated to pay for you to live. Serves the purpose of saving the government money and also betters society.
You don't need $100 shoes and I hardly call "candy bars" food. 
2/6/2015 1:39 PM
bronxcheer
Posts: 17259 (0)
Hall of Famer
298
Hall of Famer
SNICKERS REALLY SATISFIES
2/6/2015 1:51 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Is smoking more harmful than drinking?    Sugar based foods?   Drunk and fat is no way to go thru life.

2/6/2015 2:06 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Seriously.   I think obesity is worse than smoking.   That said, not that many accidents are caused by sugar highs.   

I personally have no problem with disallowing smoking by those on welfare.   I'm just not sure why that's the "worst" abuse of funds. 
2/6/2015 2:08 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm responding to you.  We have a volunteer military force.  I never hear them complain when they're put in harm's way.   They signed up willingly.  They know the deal.   But people like you object to deployment.    "as an American I'm not going to advocate putting American lives in danger to help out the Ukrainian".   It's not your call, it's not a soldier's call. 
2/6/2015 2:22 PM
◂ Prev 1...307|308|309|310|311...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.