Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually the poster asked a question ..... why should others be required/obligated to take care of you?
We've seen posts saying we are obligated to provide birth control for those who can't afford it.
No, the poster missed the exaggeration I was using to emphasize that some people think the poor shouldn't have anything - microwaves! refrigerators! egads, a winter coat!!!
I personally think people are obligated to take care of each other because it's the right thing to do, the human thing to do. I have a heart, I want nothing more in life than to help people have a better life. There are some people would be quite pleased to see all poor people barefoot and begging in the streets because they get what they deserve. Those people are heartless and, usually, hypocrites in some way or another. For instance, if someone claims to be a Christian, their religion obligates them to care for the poor, the orphans, and the widows. But a whole lot of those "Christians" would rather see poor people keep to their place than give them a nickel of their own, which is why the government takes care of people as well. If we all had to rely on each other to voluntarily help those we consider "less than" ourselves, there would be a lot of people dead from starvation in the street, and then people would complain about the bodies.
Actually the poster asked a question ..... why should others be required/obligated to take care of you?
We've seen posts saying we are obligated to provide birth control for those who can't afford it.
I'd rather provide birth control than provide for poorly raised children, and as is too often the case their children. That's just pragmatism though, not because I think people have some sort of ordained right to free birth control.
You make sure you have enough food for the month, until your food stamp benefits become available again.
That means that YOU cannot afford groceries. The taxpayers can, and they are nice enough (or have no choice but) to load more money on your card again next month.
Again, YOU cannot afford to buy shrimp. You don't have enough money to buy your own food without help. That is supposed to mean that you can't even afford Ramen noodles or peanut butter and jelly to last yourself a whole month without any assistance. Therefore, NO, you CANNOT afford shrimp, since shrimp is expensive and does not give you the most bang for your buck.
It means that you should be buying the cheapest nutritional food that you can. Your food stamp benefits SHOULD have an expiration date, so you should be preparing instead of living it up after "budgeting" money that isn't even yours in the first place.
Unfortunately, you will probably be eating shrimp and London broil off of the taxpayers' dime for the rest of your life, when you should be eating tuna, Ramen and PB&J. Or nothing after 6 months, if it were up to me, since it is no one else's responsibility to feed you but your own.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The food stamps go on my card every month. And yes, I make sure I have enough food to last for the month.
It's not any of your business, but I guess I will repeat, I am on state disability. Once I begin to receive federal disability, or I retire, whichever comes first, I will definitely not be receiving as much on my EBT card as I am now, if anything. If you have a problem with the length of time I am on food stamps, perhaps you'd like to take that up with the disability office. My original hearing was more than a year ago. I was turned down because everyone is turned down the first time. So my lawyer appealed, however, after talking to her a month or so ago, I found out no one has even been assigned to my case yet to review it. So, since I am currently living on $200/month state disability, I qualify for the food stamps.
And I worked 35 years paying taxes and paying into the system. At the age of 17, I was on my own, working a job, and supporting myself. Don't you dare tell me that now when I need the help, I can't take advantage of the programs I helped pay for. If you have such a problem with what people buy on food stamps, then get your sorry butt up off the couch and become part of the solution, instead of whining about everything.
You have kids? Well, my tax dollars supported your kids in public schools. My tax dollars supported the roads you drive on. My tax dollars paid into the social security and medicare system your mother may be using. You know what? Why don't you give me back all the money that I paid into taxes to support you and yours, and maybe I wouldn't have to be on food stamps.
And one more thing. Bad things can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Heart attacks, natural disasters, trust me, you aren't immune. And the higher up you place yourself, the longer the fall and the harder you hit. And judging from your attitude, boy, are you gonna hit hard.
Last edited by rodentraiser; 07-28-2015 at 02:04 AM..
Actually the poster asked a question ..... why should others be required/obligated to take care of you?
We've seen posts saying we are obligated to provide birth control for those who can't afford it.
Let's suppose for a moment there was no safety net for anyone. Well, I guess that would make us a third world country then. Instead of being proud of living in the US, a supposedly civilized country, we now have nothing to brag about. All the wars we fought to be free and all the fighting we did for democracy were wasted, and all the people that died in those wars died for absolutely nothing. We have nothing to offer other countries. We have no leg to stand on when we talk about how bad other countries are compared to us. We will be the ones being laughed at and made fun of. How the mighty US has fallen.
In some countries, there are small children that beg outside restaurant doors. In some South American countries, children form gangs and have been known to kill people for food and money. Most people will endure hardship for themselves, but they will not let their children endure hardship. Whether it's riots or revolution, their parents will do whatever it takes to feed their kids, and I mean whatever it takes. You think crime is bad now? You haven't seen anything yet. In addition, you'd be opening the doors real wide, giving the Mafia and the Russian mafia an invitation to come and get it. Lose your country to them and you'll never get it back.
Our child mortality rate will skyrocket, life expectancy will dive. Without a safety net for health, we'll see epidemics and diseases that we thought we'd never see again. The divides you see now between different races, different religions, and different classes, will start a war among us that will make the Balkan war or the Rwandan massacre look like a spat. Our economy will be the first to go, then the jobs, and finally the complete infrastructure. You may as well rip the Constitution up, because it won't mean a thing. It'll be each man for himself.
Aren't we the country that's supposed to have values? What kind of values does a country have when they let their elderly and disabled starve, when they refuse to value their children, or when they turn their backs on the needy? We're supposed to be better than the people who enslave others, or torture people to death, or behead them. Are we really better than them when we get rid of the safety nets for those who need them the most? Or have we just fallen to their levels? And do you really want to live in a country where the only worth a person has is his job and the size of his paycheck?
You do realize that mathematically there are literally not enough jobs in America for "Able bodied working age adults" to all have a job, any kind of job.
What we need is more jobs, more businesses, more industry, more opportunity.
Prove it. This is often said as an excuse for being a deadbeat.
Furthermore, people don't hand you opportunities out of thin air. You have to be willing to work hard for them. Deadbeats don't want to do this and instead live on the public dole while getting upset when working people call them worthless.
Air conditioning is a luxury. Electric lights are a luxury. A car is a luxury. A microwave is a luxury. A tv is a luxury. I guess us poor people should just walk barefoot everywhere and eat rice in the dark with our hands so it will be easier to identify us.
That's right, if this is how you choose to live. Otherwise, get an education/skills and use them to earn a living like the rest of us.
No, the poster missed the exaggeration I was using to emphasize that some people think the poor shouldn't have anything - microwaves! refrigerators! egads, a winter coat!!!
No. I didn't miss your exaggeration. I asked you a different question. That is, I turned your assumption back on you. Dude?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
I personally think people are obligated to take care of each other because it's the right thing to do, the human thing to do.
I believe that it is nice to help others. But, that doesn't answer the question regarding obligation.
I already stated that I think its wonderful when we do help each other and especially those less fortunate. But, I don't see any reason that we should be obligated to help. Rather, I think people, all of us, are obligated to help ourselves and our families to succeed and to not be a burdon on society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
I have a heart, I want nothing more in life than to help people have a better life. There are some people would be quite pleased to see all poor people barefoot and begging in the streets because they get what they deserve.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
Those people are heartless and, usually, hypocrites in some way or another.
Unless you give ALL that you can, you too are likely a hypocrite, perhaps moreso than someone who does not feel an obligation to help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
For instance, if someone claims to be a Christian, their religion obligates them to care for the poor, the orphans, and the widows. But a whole lot of those "Christians" would rather see poor people keep to their place than give them a nickel of their own, which is why the government takes care of people as well. If we all had to rely on each other to voluntarily help those we consider "less than" ourselves, there would be a lot of people dead from starvation in the street, and then people would complain about the bodies.
Oh, please... More exaggeration?
I think you are arguing with strawmen.
I am talking about an ideal, I admit, but, I believe that Government assistance should be given only to those who truly need it and who are legitimately down on their luck and who intend to get out of the rut they find themselves. But, when all assistance is provided by the Government, rather than by communities, we end up with large unaccountable beauracracies that waste resources and hand out aid to people who have no intent on leaving the system and instead game the system because the Government utilizes cookie-cut criteria and doesn't really know who is scamming the system.
I know that my ideal carries the risk that certain communities might discriminate against certain people, and I would accept Government oversight in such instances.
However, entrusting communities rather than the Government to dole out assistance would result in people behaving more civilized and respectful to each other, as they would know that should they ever require assistance from the community, they will want to be known as someone who has fallen on hard times through no fault of his/her own and as a person worthy of assistance. Moreover, communities know who is scamming the system. I remember a gal who lived across the street from me who had 8 kids while she was receiving welfare. The father of those kids was collecting SSI due to some physical handicap, which amazingly never stopped him from playing softball and basketball down at the park. That gal had been originally granted a scholarship to study at the local community college, but, she never went once she got pregnant the first time. She never married the father of her kids, either, as I supose that would have stopped the welfare...
To my thinking, that man and woman have an obligation to society. And they sorely failed in upholding that obligation. Can you provide one good reason why anyone other than the mother and father of those 8 kids should be obligated to assist them? One kid by mistake is still a mistake, but, perhaps understandable. But, why should I be expected to understand 8 mistakes?
I remember this gal and the father of her 8 kids being big into community organizing... every holiday they would hit up the local grocery store and restaurants for turkeys/hams and meals to deliver to some of the elderly people living in the neighborhood... and each time she would end up with one or two turkeys/hams for herself.
Aren't we the country that's supposed to have values?
Our country was established so that free men could stand or fall on their own efforts. Yes, I realize that we had to fight a civil war and have had to fight for political change to realize those goals. However, I believe that in fighting to obtain equality for all men (including women), we threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yes. We are supposed to have values. We originally valued self-reliance and individualism, and we valued communities coming together at local levels to handle problems. We most definitely did not value the idea of an enormous central government telling us how to live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
What kind of values does a country have when they let their elderly and disabled starve, when they refuse to value their children, or when they turn their backs on the needy?
What kind of values does a country have when it allows its people to live irresponsibly?
I certainly am not arguing that we should not help those in need or less fortunate. I am simply stating that we should require people to be more responsible for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
We're supposed to be better than the people who enslave others, or torture people to death, or behead them.
I don't think requiring people to be more responsible for their actions is equal to enslaving others, or torturing people to death, or beheading them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
Are we really better than them when we get rid of the safety nets for those who need them the most?
... I personally think people are obligated to take care of each other because it's the right thing to do, the human thing to do. I have a heart, I want nothing more in life than to help people have a better life.....
Very easy to say this if you are one of the "takers" and never the one who does the "helping".
You want to help others? Then make it a goal to get off the public dole. If you are able bodied there is no excuse for it but laziness. Otherwise, it's yet nothing but another "excuse".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More exaggeration?
I don't think requiring people to be more responsible for their actions is equal to enslaving others, or torturing people to death, or beheading them.
