Online Now 3141

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2036
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 2968
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Can we come up with a comparable list of government programs

  • SCirish843 said...

    Nobody in Israel is starving.

    I don't really want to send them a ton of money, but I think being involved with Israel is mutually beneficial. And while I'm not uber-religious, I still believe being on their side is being on the right side. They're our only ally over there, regardless of what anyone over there says.

    I gotta go in a sec, but at a minimum, a country should recriprocate if we are going to help them at all. Most of the places we dump cash, food, and medicine still hate us. Fvk em.

    signature image signature image signature image

    TheT12 ●

  • rms02d said...

    Are you really this dense or is this an act?

    I'm completely serious. Do what it takes to make it and quit relying on the govt

    Jeff4SC

  • Jeff4SC said...

    I'm completely serious. Do what it takes to make it and quit relying on the govt

    So what if a person has a child at a time when he/she can afford to raise the child. Unfortunately, he/she gets laid off. He/She goes and gets the only other full time job he/she can, but it pays significantly less. His/Her choice is - get a second job and never see the child and pay almost all of the money from the second job to full-time child care and still not be able to pay the bills. That person has now worked more, not been able to raise his/her child and still doesn't make enough money to live.

    You honestly think that is a better scenario than just having a full time job, raising his/her kid after and getting assistance from the government? If you do, that's fine, but I can't see any way that overworking a person and depriving a child of seeing his or her parent and vice versa makes sense. You're not only disadvantaging the person, you're also disadvantaging the child, who did nothing wrong in life, just happened to be born into a difficult financial situation.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by shavisimo2 on 3/7/2013 at 4:50 PM

    signature image

    #DicedPineapples

    shavisimo2

  • Go bucky go said...

    Thats easy for you and me and alot of folks to sit here and say but its not reality. shouldn't the ones working be rewarded or have incentive to stay working. Currently most programs are set up for the person to fail. Why bust your ass 60 hours a week and scrape by when you could quit working and be taken care of. You have to make working a priority and stripping someone of all the help the minute they find a job seems foolish. They need to make the people realize working is a good thing. Right now you could argue its the other way around.

    This is hilarious post 1996.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • CMXI said...

    Look at Wal-Mart's business model. They deliberately pay their employees so little that the government is forced into indirectly subsidizing Wal-Mart by providing aid necessary for survival to the employees.

    This is beyond dumb

    signature image signature image signature image

    panic1013

  • shavisimo2 said...

    So what if a person has a child at a time when he/she can afford to raise the child. Unfortunately, he/she gets laid off. He/She goes and gets the only other full time job he/she can, but it pays significantly less. His/Her choice is - get a second job and never see the child and pay almost all of the money from the second job to full-time child care and still not be able to pay the bills. That person has now worked more, not been able to raise his/her child and still doesn't make enough money to live.

    You honestly think that is a better scenario than just having a full time job, raising his/her kid after and getting assistance from the government? If you do, that's fine, but I can't see any way that overworking a person and depriving a child of seeing his or her parent and vice versa makes sense. You're not only disadvantaging the person, you're also disadvantaging the child, who did nothing wrong in life, just happened to be born into a difficult financial situation.

    I assume the person who had the baby in your post is a single woman and the baby daddy is a deadbeat with no job and doesn't pay child support

    Go bucky go

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    This is hilarious post 1996.

    Enlighten me. I must have missed something

    Go bucky go

  • Go bucky go said...

    I assume the person who had the baby in your post is a single woman and the baby daddy is a deadbeat with no job and doesn't pay child support

    I said him or her for a reason. Could be that or could be the parent died and didn't have a life insurance policy or something else. It could be two incomes but both have the same scenario and their combined incomes aren't enough to support three people.

    Either way, it makes no difference. The post I referred to said that a person should just work harder and the government shouldn't help. What difference does it make why the person is struggling if they're working full time?

    Deflecting and blaming it on someone else doesn't solve the problem.

    signature image

    #DicedPineapples

    shavisimo2

  • shavisimo2 said...

    I said him or her for a reason. Could be that or could be the parent died and didn't have a life insurance policy or something else. It could be two incomes but both have the same scenario and their combined incomes aren't enough to support three people.

    Either way, it makes no difference. The post I referred to said that a person should just work harder and the government shouldn't help. What difference does it make why the person is struggling if they're working full time?

    Deflecting and blaming it on someone else doesn't solve the problem.

    I think my scenario is more likely , but I agree with your premise of the working people should be helped first. I disagree that it's the govts job to make sure parents get to see their kids enough.

    Go bucky go

  • Go bucky go said...

    I think my scenario is more likely , but I agree with your premise of the working people should be helped first. I disagree that it's the govts job to make sure parents get to see their kids enough.

    I never said it was? My point was no government help at all and saying "Do what it takes to make it and quit relying on the govt" is crazy through one potential example.

    As for your scenario, you never answered what's the difference? A deadbeat husband who can't pay doesn't make that person undeserving of help. Who cares if the father died, disappeared or doesn't have the money because he's a deadbeat? Honestly, there is no difference, and it sounds like you're just trying to make poor people sound bad and less worthy of help because sometimes they have children with people who can't support them.

    This post was edited by shavisimo2 on 3/7/2013 at 5:28 PM

    signature image

    #DicedPineapples

    shavisimo2

  • shavisimo2 said...

    I never said it was? My point was no government help at all and saying "Do what it takes to make it and quit relying on the govt" is crazy through one potential example.

    As for your scenario, you never answered what's the difference? A deadbeat husband who can't pay doesn't make that person undeserving of help. Who cares if the father died, disappeared or doesn't have the money because he's a deadbeat? Honestly, there is no difference, and it sounds like you're just trying to make poor people sound bad and less worthy of help because sometimes they have children with people who can't support them.

    No, but ill give the dead guy a pass. I just don't think the govt needs to play "dad". If the lady is having kids with deadbeats, how is that anyone else's fault or responsibility

    Go bucky go

  • Go bucky go said...

    No, but ill give the dead guy a pass. I just don't think the govt needs to play "dad". If the lady is having kids with deadbeats, how is that anyone else's fault or responsibility

    She had the means to raise the kid regardless of the father, then she got unexpectedly laid off (and still managed to get another job after, just didn't pay as much). Or maybe she had a child and could afford it, but then her mother got sick and didn't have insurance, so she had to spend all her money there. Or any of an infinite number of situations where it's not a person or people who are trying to get a handout, it's just people who have fallen on hard times.

    I don't see how that means she doesn't deserve help instead of forcing her to work 3 jobs and barely make more than she would have after 1 (since she has to pay ridiculous child care fees) and never seeing her child. The government isn't playing dad, it's helping out a woman who is trying to get on her feet after losing a job and helping out a child who ended up in an unfortunate situation through no fault of his/her own.

    signature image

    #DicedPineapples

    shavisimo2

  • shavisimo2 said...

    She had the means to raise the kid regardless of the father, then she got unexpectedly laid off (and still managed to get another job after, just didn't pay as much). Or maybe she had a child and could afford it, but then her mother got sick and didn't have insurance, so she had to spend all her money there. Or any of an infinite number of situations where it's not a person or people who are trying to get a handout, it's just people who have fallen on hard times.

    I don't see how that means she doesn't deserve help instead of forcing her to work 3 jobs and barely make more than she would have after 1 (since she has to pay ridiculous child care fees) and never seeing her child. The government isn't playing dad, it's helping out a woman who is trying to get on her feet after losing a job and helping out a child who ended up in an unfortunate situation through no fault of his/her own.

    I never said no help at all. I've said help the working people, a couple times, I said if you're a single mom, working or not, who had a kid with a deadbeat, that's a you problem. It's not the govts job, IMO, to step in and subsidize your stupidity. Much different than parents dying or sick mom or any of the other scenarios you gave. Just a difference in opinion as to who should be helped.

    Go bucky go

  • Go bucky go said...

    I never said no help at all. I've said help the working people, a couple times, I said if you're a single mom, working or not, who had a kid with a deadbeat, that's a you problem. It's not the govts job, IMO, to step in and subsidize your stupidity. Much different than parents dying or sick mom or any of the other scenarios you gave. Just a difference in opinion as to who should be helped.

    I understand what you have said, I'm still waiting for the person I originally quoted to weigh in. I've been focusing my responses to you with his post in mind because I find it absurd.

    signature image

    #DicedPineapples

    shavisimo2

  • shavisimo2 said...

    I understand what you have said, I'm still waiting for the person I originally quoted to weigh in. I've been focusing my responses to you with his post in mind because I find it absurd.

    Fair enough

    Go bucky go

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports