Pretty simple, my family was on food stamps while my Dad died from cancer. We were the family that got the box of canned goods at Christmas from the drive at school.
That’s what government assistance is for, not a yuppy who’s temporarily between 6 figure jobs.
People like that are what’s ****ed up about this country.
Boat drinks, Waitress I need 2 more boat drinks!
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do that thing…
In my opinion, for this particular person to take government assistance is completely selfish and in direct opposition to the intent for which these programs were established. If she had a legitimate need, then she’d be completely justified; If she receives the benefits simply because she can, she’s the EXACT SAME person as the guy with the Mercedes living in public housing. It’s the abuse of these programs and the entitlement mentality that have our country a trillion dollars in debt. Why work when I can just take it from you instead?..[:0]
“I’m not a hundred percent in love with your tone right now…”
With that being said… I believe we can close out this thread.
-Albemarle 248xf “Chella”
-Dolphin 18BC Pro
-Miscellaneous boats
So it appears that government assistance is there to help those that have lived irresponsibly and not to assist those that have taken responsibility and saved for their future…
So it appears that government assistance is there to help those that have lived irresponsibly and not to assist those that have taken responsibility and saved for their future…
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
It’s in pretty good shape for the shape it’s in!
So basically, what you’re saying is, EVERYONE who’s on welfare is irresponsible and living off of the government because they have no morals and make poor decisions? And furthermore, that people who DON’T need government assistance should take it anyway? That’s what you’re going with?..[:0]
“I’m not a hundred percent in love with your tone right now…”
So it appears that government assistance is there to help those that have lived irresponsibly and not to assist those that have taken responsibility and saved for their future…
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
It’s in pretty good shape for the shape it’s in!
So basically, what you’re saying is, EVERYONE who’s on welfare is irresponsible and living off of the government because they have no morals and make poor decisions? And furthermore, that people who DON’T need government assistance should take it anyway? That’s what you’re going with?..[:0]
“I’m not a hundred percent in love with your tone right now…”
Of course I’m not comparing EVERYONE that qualifies. I’m only comparing two types of people,responsible and irresponsible that could qualify.
Let’s say twenty years ago Jon and Ted graduate college and get jobs paying the same salary. Jon decided that instead of having a six pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes every day that he would save $100 a week for his kid’s education and/or retirement.
Ted doesn’t care if his kid’s go to college and thinks he’ll die young so why save for retirement.
They both lose their job after twenty years. Jon has over $80,000 in savings. Ted doesn’t have a dime to his name. Is is morally
Yes sir it’s an interesting question. Benefit, entitlement, resource, want, need, moral, immoral, and on and on.
I’ll tell you what. I have Obamacare. I have a really good policy for a very reasonable premium. I lost a good corporate job a few years ago, and was never able to get another good paying job with health benefits like I was accustomed to. My job now pays my bills and obligations. I live comfortably, but frugally. Really watch my nickels and dimes. From the time the economy tanked until two years ago I had no health insurance, period. Now I have a good policy that I can afford. I still wouldn’t vote for Obama, but I’ll take that health insurance anyday.
This is the sticky point about the government being involved in “charity”… We don’t give money to this program out of the goodness of our heart. We do it because it is required by law with the threat of prison if you don’t. That being said, if they want to do a hostile takeover of “charity” and pull this money away from churches and 3rd party organizations who would have a closer relationship to those in need and make better decisions, then it should be up to them to create the proper parameters to identify those in need and those who are not in need. That being said, I don’t necessarily fault those who “protest” by LEGALLY pulling money back out of this taxation system that they have paid in their entire lives. If they do not have to lie or cheat to get this money and they pass the government screening, then it is what it is, and if this system is “broken” in such a way that the government hands out this money to people who don’t need it, then the problem is with the government, not with the people. If they want to manage this process, then let them manage it properly!!!
The only way to “fix” this issue is to get the money back into the hands of organizations who know people individually and can decide to help as needed. Give people a tax CREDIT (not writeoff, but a CREDIT) for every $1 that they donate to charity, and you would see this system go full swing the other way. Not only would you have organizations better make use of this money, but you would also get the moral credit for donating to charity. Unfortunately our government has stolen this privilege from us. It has also institutionalized the basic premise of “love thy neighbor” and makes people apathetic to the needs of individuals because “the government has it taken care of”, and to some extent has turned people very sour (stereotype) against those who actually do need the money… Kind of a sad mess really…
That being said, I would be hard to deny the moral issue of taking the benefits, IF it pulls the benefits away from someone
Very well said and I agree with most things you’ve said. I’ve paid a lot into the system for decades. Totally vested in Social Security since my mid 40’s. I always looked down my nose at people on any kind of public assistance who weren’t handicapped or something of that nature. Now my outlook has changed to “what’s wrong with me getting some help?” Lord knows I feel like I’ve done my part. So, yes, maybe the govt has changed me too, or maybe I’m so disgusted with the whole system that I just figure what the heck, give me mine too.
I’ve thought about joining the 47% team as well. Sooner or later, how could it not cross your mind.
As for Bummmacare - if it was all I could afford, or all that was available, I’d sign up. I’m a bit frustrated with how the system is broken. Yes, more people need medical coverage, and just as importantly, people need to be better / smarter medical consumers. Also, insurance companies need to stop mandating specific treatment protocols that waste money for quite a few people and save money for some.
Here’s an example. I went to the ortho last week to get my shoulder checked out. I know it’s a torn rotator cuff. Doc took X rays and said yep, 95% sure it’s a torn rotator cuff… However, BCBS says before he can do surgery he has to confirm diagnosis with an MRI… But before he can do an MRI he has to either shoot me full of steroids and prescribe simple exercises to strengthen the joint or send me through 6 weeks of PT.
I’ll still end up getting my shoulder scoped, but now it will take 6 weeks and cost more.
Read above ^. We’re in the Obama era. Who get’s denied anything they are eligible for? And therein lies a huge part of the problem. So many who abuse it, and get it just b/c they are simply “here” are the problem. Not those who have paid their way.
I know of one who worked her ass off for 20 plus years and when she needed help she didn’t quality…Life changing treatment was denied over less than $20 bucks a month… That’s all I got to say about that.
You have been a 100k+ a year guy for a lot of years. Your company has been sold and you’re going to be out of a job, but probably not for long. Maybe 3 months. It’s almost like a non payed vacation. Since you’ve been “fired” you’re eligible for unemployment and EBT (food stamps). Money is really the last of your worries but you’ve paid into the system all your life. I say get the unemployment and food stamps. I’d look at the food stamps as a treat and get a few nice things every month until work started back. What do you think?
"but probably not for long" Therin lies the answer to the question. You don't know if you will find a job in 1 day, 1 year, or longer. You do NEED unemployment benefits. You do not yet NEED food stamps until you can't feed yourself/family any more.
I don’t see what is so complex about about this. Seems like there is only 1 correct ethical answer based on the details provided.
