Yeah, you're right...why would a taxpayer care where the money they bust their ass for goes? The government works so efficently what could possibly go wrong.
If I had internalized every dirty look or condescending slam I received from every cashier while I was on food stamps (for all of two months), then I would probably have just become a bitter and angry person as well. But I tried to steer clear of the temptation to return like with like, and before long I was able to get off of them, and nobody knew the difference. It's funny how, in one day I went from being regarded as "a leech on society" to "an honest, hard-working citizen who is working through college."
Moto and Static, this post represents the end of your circular argument.
Tim, Bri was more or less correct in her assessment about these kids being better off in the system than with their current guardians IMO. However, rather than ask for more information on the original topic, you and moto, oh so typically, began arguing about welfare. Moto has said several times, that he understands welfare as a necessity, however there are plenty of people who abuse the system. Just because you haven't, or don't know how, doesn't mean it isn't easy if you know the right people. As I said in a separate thread, I've seen it myself. $500 a week in money. That doesn't include food stamps, housing assistance, etc. People can do it. That is what makes moto angry, not the people using it for its intended purpose.
Now, back to the topic at hand, Tim. If you will kindly reread the original post. The basics are all there. It was not a special occasion, they live in her grandfather's house, only one works making $200 a week while the other refuses to work, they have $400 phones that they paid cash upfront for, they don't bathe their children, they spend more money on their dogs than their kids, and so on. These people enrage me endlessly. As Llamas said, "Shit stains" whose children should be taken away. You jumped down her throat for nothing.
If we can't be civil, I will close the thread and refrain from ever mentioning welfare again.
unĚcivĚil [uhn-siv-uhl] Show IPA
without good manners; unmannerly; rude; impolite; discourteous.
I'm pretty sure Lost is going with the standard definition.
Can I suggest we all drop it so she isn't forced to close the thread? I would be embarrassed if I directly contributed to a thread having to be closed. You have every right to disagree with anyone's opinions but when you disagree with a moderator regarding an assessment they have made in their capacity as moderator it's generally best to take it up with them privately.
Lost, you gave a story that represents what we have been hearing about this bullshit welfare state we call the USA for years. You could have jumped in at any moment but you enjoyed the banter. This thread was started because you were fed up with what you saw regarding welfare. This thread is on topic and so were each of our posts. We can't know the specifics of your original post but we took it from there and kept it civil and on point. I think we can all agree that SM is full of shit. But to pull this BS close thread flag is reedonkulous. But, do what you want.
Let's take a moment to acknowledge the fact that I have two jobs and a social life that I prioritize above reading the two of you arguing with various members of this forum. Fortunately, there are four of us and I don't have to spend all day every day reading this nonsense. When I read your "banter", I stepped in and said something. You both are on this tiring, long winded, circular thing, where Moto says "People who abuse the system are scum." and Tim saying "So I was on assistance for two months and that makes me scum?" This thread is most definitely about people who are abusing the system. Tim, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who opposes every and all types of assistance when used appropriately.