John Galt John Galt

Losers are Losers for a reason Part II

▼

Losers are Losers for a reason Part II

(Draginol did part I)

from JoeUser Forums
Yes, under the losers are losers for a reason file:

Woman on welfare with 3 kids and no husband (dead beat too aparently) finds $40,000 in cash. Turns in money. Gets reward of $2000.00. News media loves it, great Christmas story and all because hey, poor person wins lottery is marginally ethical. (miracle)

Law in Ontario says that whatever you make while on welfare gets deducted from your welfare. Media exposes, boo hiss!!! Government aquiesses and does rowsing speach on rewarding honesty blah blah blah. Woman gets her welfare cheque AND gets the $2000.00.

John Galt prays woman does something useful with the money like buy a business suit and enroll in college courses so that she can get an education and get a job. John Galt doesn't hold breath though, cause he know's what's coming.

Boxing Day, media does follow up story about how the woman spent all $2000 (almost all, I'll get to where the rest is going to go) on toys for her kids. (meanwhile kid breaks one of the toys on national television so you see money flushing down the toliet right there in front of your eyes). Woman brags about how happy her kids were with all of the crap gifts she gave them yada, yada, yada. Then explains that the rest of the money is ear marked for Boxing Day sales for more crap.

Yes, people are losers for a reason. This woman got a free ticket to a self-sufficent life, and long term happiness for her kids where they could have had good clothes, good food and respected themselves instead of leaching off society. But instead, she pisses the money away and buys crap for them that does nothing to help their situation.

Losers are as losers do. They are that way for a reason. We need to stop helping them be losers and let them be losers without the government stealing my money to facilitate them doing it (a gang is still a gang even if they have M16s and F18s that fall from the skys because of not enough memory in their 486 computers on board). It would be amazing how fast most losers would stop being losers as soon as they weren't allowed to be losers by the government writting them a cheque every month (and yes, we'd still have homeless, but I did my own study during university (only thing I learned that was at all usefull) on the subject of homeless and why they're homeless in the first place. I'll share it with you... it's more losers are as losers do though, so get ready.) and they're also there for a reason. Well except for the mentally impaired (God I'm being PC tonight! :) ) but then we try and cut back as much funding as we can for the only people that society should ligitimently work to help... brilliant system eh?
philosophy
14,481 views 44 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is your moral obligation to turn in money that isn't yours, no matter the amount. Why be rewarded for something you should have done, anyways?


I agree. It is or should be a moral obligation but the question of why should someone be rewarded is a bit complicated in this day and age.
As you know not everyone IS a moral person and many if not most, would not have turned in the money especially if they needed it.
I feel that they feel (they being governments) that if a reward were given it would, how should I say it, "inspire" people to return the money. (even though they should've in the first place.) But it does become a Catch 22.



Besides, if any of you Pro-welfare people really had any sense of compassion and justification for the entire system, you'd not only reward the woman in the article with the 2grand, you'd raise money to gurauntee she got into college/invested it for long-term goals for the children's future of college.


Well I thought the whole point of welfare was to gurauntee that the person reciving it would "get back on thier feet" and be more productive members of society. So, in effect, that IS the way we raise the money. It doesnt seem to work that often but it does work and I'll address that at the end.

Welfare is a WASTE. Just one that makes you feel better at night before you go to bed.

Instead, the same children see their mother's behavior and follow suit. Welfare not only enables the current generation, but encourages the next to follow in their parent's footsteps. Wash, rinse, repeat. If a mother has 3 children and on welfare, one makes it into success and the other two remain on welfare, then


A bit of history. When I was a boy my mother divorced my father, remarried and divorced her 2nd husband. She went on welfare and YES it was her fault. However she didn't "ride" the system, she really tried to get up and move on. But it was very hard in that she was a single mother, we had no family to watch me (my father beat her and then took off) and , as others have said, if she did get a job she would not be able to pay for my daycare or her transportation. Loose loose situation.
Eventually we moved back to new england, when she finnaly saved enough money, and she got a job. Now my extended family could watch me so childcare was not an issue and the family was able to transport her to work and back untill she was able to buy a vehicle. She worked very hard to get off of welfare and in so doing she had very little time for me, in fact since she worked third shift, she had praticly NO time for me because I was in school when she was asleep and when I came home she was on her way to her part-time job before going to work at night.
She had no money to send me to collage or to get me a car so I could get a job. ( I rode my bike, hey you gotta do what you gotta do right?)
I went to Army Basic Training my Junior year of High School and then, after the next years graduation I stayed in the Army.
So no welfare is NOT a waste in the end. And NO it did NOT enourage me to follow in her footseps. I lived with Ramen Noodle or Mac and Cheese meals three times a day. Salvation Army (thank God for them) clothes. Torn shoes and so on. Welfare never gave us a free ride, it didn't pay enough to. Now I have uncontrolable seizures due to the removal of a brain tumor ( which manifested during Operation Iraqi Freedom- how I love the army).
So not only can I not work, which makes me feel worthless, I am on disability from the Army AND FROM MY STATE. Does that make a "sub-welfare" looser/
Oh yes, I also get to live with basicly not knowing my mother BECAUSE of what welfare did to her and I.

Ok so many people on welfare don't get back on their feet and some don't care to or try to and that is wrong. But to say that welfare is a waste and that we should not have to pay for the programme is wrong. Were it not for welfare I don't know where I would be right now. Oh yes I do. I WOULD BE HOMELESS and labeled a "looser"
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why do we reward poor choices, Kingbee? When did it become wrong for people to live up to their own mistakes, instead of blaming other people? The government is a body of people, our same people. The Government isn't an Ends all Beats all answer. Many people live within and without the very laws, regulations, and boundaries of the government very well. It just takes a little brainpower and confidence. Both things which are supposedly within each and every person's grasp if they reached for it. That's the American promise. You work for it, you'll get it as opposed to working for nothing


im not sure if youre responding to my first comment (about the mentally ill and homelessness) or the other one (in which i suggested she keep the money).  i dont recall advocating rewarding poor choices in either (unless you qualify mental illness as a poor choice).

ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I appologize for not reading what you wrote carefully about the $2000.00. The statement still stands however because while she is on welfare, the whole thing is essentially subsidized anyhow...

In many cases this is true. But not everyone is born into the privilege you and I were either. Not everyone got the relatively smooth upbringing we got. It is possible to overcome some of the odds that people face from day one of their lives, but I doubt many of us who were born into the middle class or the working class would have reacted any differently if faced with the same difficulties.

This if course is a load of horse shit. I could make excuses for my background (Yes, my parents were teachers, however my father was a bastard, and you can fill in the blanks from there.) but it doesn't matter. I have never, ever used it as an excuse (hence why I'm not a loser and a successful businessman). When I didn't sleep the night before an exam because I was busy defending my mother with a baseball bat against my father, I didn't whine to the teacher, I studied as much as I could, and did well, because I worked hard every other day of the year that I was able to sleep normally and get work done, and thus when it came time for the exam I was prepared and it didn't matter much. Even if I only got 70% on the exam, I had worked hard all year long and was well in good stead even if I got a poor mark on the exam.

This isn't about opertunity, or adversity, it's about planing and thinking. And you don't have to be intelligent to plan ahead for the unknown. But instead, losers plan for the moment and fixate on the "now" and immediate pay back (see the woman's actions as proof of this). This combined with extrordiary laziness of which "but someone did something to me that wasn't fair" is just another way of communicating laziness. Sure, shit happens, it happens on a daily basis. Success happens because you know shit happens, make no excuses, deal with it and overcome it. To put it another way, surviving is not an accomplishment, any idiot can do that. Overcoming whatever life throws at you and constantly bettering yourself, well doing so, that is an accomplishment, and that's the difference between losers and winners. Losers make excuses and stay knocked down, winners do not. And make no mistake, this isn't because of any special ability that losers dont' have. This is because of choice and a work ethic.

And yes, I can say that MOST of the people on welfare have some form of habit that they waste their money on to awe inspiring proprotions to the point of not bothering to feed their kids. (hence all of the school breakfast programs etc.) Why can I say this authoritiatively? Because I was brought up in a town with 80% unemployment. Most of my friends came from families that were unemployed. I got an opertunity to see their lives first hand. Further, my parents worked in that same community as teachers, I got direct regurgitation of all of the crap that happened with these people every day. And we're not talking about 20% of them, or even 50% of them. We're talking ALL of them. The ones that didn't have this crap, weren't on unemployement.

As for your arguement that it's just that some people don't have talents that are workable? That's a joke. You use what you have, and find something that people want. If you have something that you can do marginally well, with work you can make it into something unique and saleable. If you can stand behind a counter and ring through coke cans with a bar code reader, you can be off welfare and living your life on your own instead of leaching off of people that actually put an effort into their lives. There are more unfulfilled jobs than there are unemployeed both in Canada and the US and pretty much everywhere else in the world too. This doesn't take talent. A monkey could do these jobs. These people choose not to. And yes, it's a choice not to, and it's laziness again. It's easier to make money on wellfare than it is to actually do a day's work at something you dont' like to do.

As for your assertion about all of the aid workers etc. and what they're doing? It has nothing to do with the people they're helping and everything to do with them. For various reasons, they feel that they have to do this. When they're completely honest with themselves, none of those real reasons (I mean the real reasons, not the ones that they regurgitate to their friends) are anything other than personal issues they have with themselves, or a horrible complex about having any success at all, as trained into them by either their religion or their socialist parents. (i.e. there is no such thing as a truly selfless act.) That they make elaborate excuses for why they are doing this stuff is mindnumbing. That they actually believe that they have the right to demand (by force of arms through the government) that others aid their cause through money is unconcinable. (spelling) If you want to spend your life helping losers, that is your choice, and go ahead. But you do not have the right to tell me that I also have to help them.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's just balls. You cannot get student loans/OSAP and get welfare at the same time. A full year term at Georgian is not just 2000.oo. You're not even factoring in books, additional fees, childcare costs, transportation, etc,. Hell, there are so many arguements that you have presented in your article that are way off... factoring in population and available employment opportunities is something that you've left out.

Actually if you read what I said I was talking about people not on welfare being able to get student loans. What I said about welfare people is that they get it for free. Yes, that's right, the government will essentially pay your way through college without much effort on your part if you're on welfare. (I know this because I have a "friend" (I wouldn't call him a friend, but I know him well, far more well than I would like if at all possible) that just did this and it pissed me off to no end.

As for books etc. Used ones are great, and when I was at university, I was able to get all of my text books for the entire year for < $200. That's 10 24s of beer, or less than one fith the number of cases that the normal welfare bum goes through in a year (being very generous in suggesting that they only go through one a week, or that they aren't smoking cigarettes or some other addictive chemical, or gambling at Casino Rama or whatever else they do that is collossally stupid and has caused them to still be on welfare after all of this time.) And that's assuming that the government wouldnt' pay for her books, which of course they would.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
would it not have been a total waste of our time (not to mention the world's valuable virtual paper resources) to suggest you look for information to further reinforce your own conclusion?

In Ontario, the NDP's own numbers say that only 1 in 4 homeless are actually mentally ill. (My own observations, living two blocks away from Yonge St. in Toronto back this up.)

Thus the argument that was being flipantly made, is not valid. And yes, I have already stated repeatedly that the mentally ill are the only people that we have an obligation to help in a just society, so it doesn't apply as a rebuff for my argument because I explicitly eliminated the mentally ill from my case study.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Branding the poor as 'losers' is a great way to get your article featured on the front page of JoeUser , but it reflects a childish and illogical outlook. You contradict yourself! In a previous article you say The Gays aren't evil because they are born that way. Same goes for many of our unfortunate citizens; many come from sexually and physically abusive pasts, are mentally ill, or have had challenges that were not of their doing. Nobody is ascribing 'nobility' to the poor, so let's put an end to that strawman argument. Consider yourself fortunate, John Galt, that your mother wasn't a crack whore in Scarborough and you didn't grow up in the 'hood.

Again, I'll remind everyone that I specifically eliminted the mentally and physically ill from my definition of loser. And as for the abusive stuff, been there, done that, and I didn't use it as an excuse and as a result, I'm a successful person in my life. Thus there is no contradiction. A crack whore mother, either means that you're physically and probably mentally ill, or you got lucky and are normal. If you're normal, then there is no further excuse because the rest is a choice to overcome or not. Many people have done it successfully, so not doing so is a choice and a victim's choice at that.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Helix the II

Wow Yummy

BTW, I didn't leave anything out, and she DID spend the entire $2k minus "some left over for stuff on sale after Christmas" on toys and promised that the stuff she bought after Christmas would be more toys for her kids.

Scarry but true.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I also advocate for the elimination of welfare as we know it, it should not be done until a whole slew of other problems are remedied as well. Your statement as to how easy it is to support a family doesn't take into account areas where I was previously located where the average wages are $6-8 an hour, and a 3 bedroom place can cost you upwards of $1100 (because of a land boom, there are VERY few apartments, so apartment living is rarely an option).

THEN MOVE.

As for the "hard luck" that you had. I would say you're pretty damned lucky being that I assume (you don't say really) that the medical bills actually resulted in a positive outcome. As I pointed out to someone today, I would rather have a second mortgage and having to work 5 jobs a day to make ends meet than be dead, or have my wife dead (if I had one!). Dead is dead, being burried in debt has the virtue of being alive. I'd call that lucky.

As for compassion for others. I wouldn't be in a situation where I needed compassion for others, because compassion (to me obviously) is the second most evil word there is right behind "Faith". Thus I don't give it, and don't receive it and don't value it in any way. Life sucks, deal with it and move on. Don't expect or ask for anyone else's help for free, because you're asking for something for nothing. Everything is in fair trade. If you follow this principle, then there is no need for compassion because everything you receive is earned. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
you will see that I do actually give a lot of money to charities and I mostly choose charitieis that are doing things that will help people be able to become self-sufficient.

This IS a case of an Oxymoron BakerStreet!!!!! If you give people money for nothing you aren't teaching them self-reliance, you're teaching them how to take without repayment even more. You can't teach people the be self-suffient all the while handing them money for doing exactly nothing. This is the hypocracy of socialism and the reason that all of these initiatives fail in the long run. (Interestingly, the reason why Habitat for Humanity actually works is because the family has to pay back the money and help in the process of building the house. Thus they don't get something for nothing, they get something for substantially less than it's worth.... which of course is the "third way of socialism" and just makes the payment to the hypocracy longer and further in to the future so that socialists can claim it's a success all the while ignoring that all they did was put off the enevitable a little longer.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Chip:

Could it be one of those, "if you spot it, you got it" scenarios where grandma was on the dole? But, I may be wrong......

You're wrong. Sorry.

As for your admiration of Canadians. Canadians aren't giving people because they want to be giving. They're giving to assage their guilt. Canadians are more about wanting to be left alone and paying whatever it takes TO BE left alone. Since we're a nation of conflict avoiders (me being an obvious exception and I'm generalizing which of course is a stupid thing to do, but hell, it's fun) it's more expedient to pay socialists off so that you don't have to be guilted than it is to argue with them and stop the madness. Make no mistake, what most Canadians want is freedom, and that includes the freedom to be in Canada but not be Canadian. Everything else is just payment for that freedom. What makes us different from Americans is that we do what we say we're going to do, and don't walk in, brag and then fail horribly (Iraq). We say nothing, and then excute at an unparelleled level that no one expected. (WWI, II, etc. etc.)

But regardless of Canadian's motivations, the end result is still the same. If you want to donate to cherity, you are free to do so. What the government doesn't have the right to do is force you to do so.

As for my spelling. You can always tell when I didn't spell check before hand, but you see, spelling is a fixible disease, because we have these wonderful things called computers, so I'm not a victim of my inability to spell no matter how hard I try, or the fact that my school taught "whole word learning" instead of phonics and thus just like most kids that got the "whole word learning" crap, I can't spell. I just deal with it, and when phonics works, it works and I learned it after the fact because I knew it was important. No victim and no possiblity of becoming a loser. But of course when someone trots out the whole spelling thing, you know that they have lost all ability to actually argue the point and are simply trolling....
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I would rather have a second mortgage and having to work 5 jobs a day to make ends meet than be dead, or have my wife dead (if I had one!). Dead is dead, being burried in debt has the virtue of being alive. I'd call that lucky."

Well it's only my opinion but I think you have your priorities way out of whack and I think the biggest problem with Western and some Asian societies is that more and more people are coming to share your whacked out sense of priorities. However, I also would express some scepticism as to whether this would be the case if you were faced with the situation in real life.

"Yes, my parents were teachers, however my father was a bastard, and you can fill in the blanks from there.)"

Yeah yeah yeah, shit happens. I have some similar things in my past and no I don't use them as excusesBut sorry the fact that your parents were employed and you seem to have gotten along with your mother makes your story considerably better than the story of some people you label losers. They don't collect stats on it but I'm willing to bet it's pretty common. I have been teaching in a Year 2 class recently and had one student who is still unable to read. His father is in rehab, his mother lazy and on welfare. He is not given a bedtime and so turns up at school sleepy and unable to learn to read. He is also pretty upset about his home life and the way he expresses this is through a number of ways. He is faced with aggression at home and not surprisingly he deals with this by being agggressive on occasions to other kids. He struggles with work so he tries to steer the lesson away from this to things that will distract us from his non-achievement on the work set. When we are doing a subject he is good at he makes a big show of himself because it is one of his few chances to feel like a success. His teacher spends a lot of time yelling at him very harshly (I found it quite upsetting to watch) for all these things. At a Year 2 level I'm really not surprised that this simply makes him feel worse and so he simply ups the ante. So the cycle continues, he doesn't learn anything and he already has a very negative attitude towards schoolwork and virtually no self-esteem regarding learning, even though he is actually a smart little kid with a very good ability with numbers. But a lot of the maths requires his ability to read. The curriculum marches on, he gets further and further behind and soon enough he becomes the trouble child who pays no attention in class. Why would he? He can't understand anything because he can't read. So he goes through the education system without really learning much that will help him get on in life and he comes out of school with an extremely low opinion of himself. You have not had any problems remotely approaching this as far as I can see. So don't pretend you have. He gets out of school, thinking he's a piece of crap, feeling depressed and having learned from his father that the way to deal with this is to take drugs.

"And you don't have to be intelligent to plan ahead for the unknown. But instead, losers plan for the moment and fixate on the "now" and immediate pay back"

Again I think this is learned behaviour. You and I had parents who thought towards the future. Some people might think it out for themselves, but most of us have to learn it.

"Success happens because you know shit happens, make no excuses, deal with it and overcome it."

This is easier for some than it is for others. Some of us have bigger problems to overcome.

"And yes, I can say that MOST of the people on welfare have some form of habit that they waste their money on to awe inspiring proprotions to the point of not bothering to feed their kids."

Most people, working class, middle class, upper class, have the same thing happening, but I happened to start off with a nest egg so these habits don't hack into my money as much as it does for someone who has little to start with.

" leaching off of people that actually put an effort into their lives."

I presume you are referring to people like James Packer, the son of the richest man in Australia and a whole bunch of other rich people who leach off the workers employed by their multi million dollar companies but who do nothing but play golf themselves.

"It has nothing to do with the people they're helping and everything to do with them. "

I agree that there is no such thing as a purely selfless act, but I like to contribute to charities like Oxfam, who reward African farmers with wages they can actually live off for their coffee. Or The Big Issue magazine which is sold by losers on the streets. This mag is sold by homeless people and long term unemployed people and the mag is set up as a way of helping these people get back on their feet by making a bit of a living. This does not really fit the stereotype you present of lazy bums who won't do anything. It fits the stereotype of people who need extra training, need help getting back on their feet, don't have the skills valued by our society, have depression problems (diagnosed or otherwise), and yes addictive personalities. I have one of these, inherited fro my father's side, but I am lucky enough to have also inhyerited my mother's strong mindedness/stubbornness, which helps keep me on the straight and narrow.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

In Ontario, the NDP's own numbers say that only 1 in 4 homeless are actually mentally ill. (My own observations, living two blocks away from Yonge St. in Toronto back this up.)

Thus the argument that was being flipantly made, is not valid


while its possible only 25% of the homeless in ontario--or more specifically on yonge street in toronto--are mentally ill, the mentally ill comprise a considerably higher percentage (on average about 36%) of america's homeless population.   while ive no doubt you take great comfort in the validity of your observations from your vantage point of 2 blocks away, i trust youll understand my reluctance to invest an equal measure of confidence in them. 


to assist me in resisting my obvious proclivity for indulging myself in flippant arguments, perhaps you can direct me to the peer-review publication in which your landmark study appeared?

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I lived in Toronto myself for well over 30 years. Since you have set the precedent for making wide statements based on nothing more than your proximity to Yonge street, I feel I have the right to continue the practice. I too lived very near Yonge, in two sectons of town. One was Yonge and Carlton (right beside the old Maple Leaf Gardens), and the other was Yonge and Eglington. I also lived just off Yonge at Jarvis and Bloor and for a time on Parlaiment Street and also on Isabella Street. My personal observation was that more like 50% of the homeless, or those on welfare were mentally ill or developmentally challenged. My opinion was formed by living and walking around (I did not have a vehicle then and didn't really like subways or busses), and meeting these people, on a daily basis for all the time I lived in this area.

I've also lived in other areas of Toronto that have an even higher percentage of homeless or welfare recipients. The Jane/Finch corridor was especially horrific and I lived in one of those awful tenaments for over a year. Another area I lived was the financially depressed parts of the West End like Mimico (Superior Ave.) and New Toronto (Lakeshore Blvd.) and parts of Sunnyside (I lived on Roncesvalles for a time). Of the homeless and welfare people I observed there I felt it was more like 60% that were either menally ill or developmentally challenged.

The only area of the city that I lived where I felt your observation of "1 in 4" was apparent was in The Beaches area which was where I lived before I finally moved out of Toronto permanently. This was a fairly affluent area. Lots of yuppies. Lots of shiney, happy people, holding hands.

I did feel it was necessary to offer another perspective of Toronto's welfare situation so that readers of this thread may be able to form a more rounded opinion.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
(hey, the lady could have kept the money and really provided a future for herself and her kids),
Dumbass! no wonder she is a loser.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nice thread!

I still see that people who are poor get blamed for being poor.

It like, somehow, some way, everything you get in life is because you earn it. WRONG
Sometimes you make the 'right' choices and end up on welfare still. Sometime you make the wrong choices and need help to make the right ones.

Between the originator of this thread and some of the comments agreeing with it, you are basically are saying that there is enough money, good jobs, food, homes, clothes to go around. If your poor then too bad. Just work harder and smarter.

This is very similar to telling a school student you should get A's WHEN the very system that you can get A's in is generally set up so that only a few should get A's, more get B's and the average get C's. Your a loser if you get anything lower, but guess what? SOMEONE has to be the loser. Someone has to be the one who does not get the job, does not get the opportunities... Cell it the Bell Curve of life (actual term 'Bell Curve").



For Example Brad could have been on welfare right now if his business failed. Sir Peter Maxwell would have been going to soup kitchens because of a few poor choices and lack of help getting back on his feet.


Blame the welfare Mom for getting 'material things' when we live in a society of material things ALL DAY everyday. Yes she 'could' have gone to a community college... but she is a loser at education (seems to get D's and F's)... ok, how about a certificate in something? CDL license, data entry, security, child care, foster care... maybe I will give you that... not much of a future but maybe she can earn more than what she earns now.

In the end, she still is poor.

But the Mom buys toys and gifts and has a 'normal' lifestyle. Probably something she will never see.
2000 doesn't buy long term anything. You might be able to get a better job, but in order to get paid more, you have to BEAT OUT ALL THE OTHER poor people to get the position of manager.

Me? If I had that money, I would put it toward starting my business (or is that a mistake?) go back to school for a class (because it costs a lot), buy food, get clothes (something I haven't done in 2 years) and continue to look for work.

MY loser move that made me poor?
Had social anxiety
Was with an unstable girlfriend who took more than gave.
Worked for an employer who cares less about the safety of its employees AND the public its entrusted to protect
End up in legal battle just to get unemployment.


Most of the argument here are half truths. There is no 'simple' way to put it. They are losers? So your winners? Life is just that simple, why can't they get it? Everybody gets a piece of the pie I guess, right? No reason why someone can be poor. Just a group of bad decisions, why should I pay for it? Their stupid! Everyone in any country can be well off!!!! Its so simple! Just work hard!

Not that simple. Life is not welfare, nor life styles of the rich and famous. Its all the grey in between. This is why I love programs like WORKfare, Poor Business school, certificate training, skill training, WorkForce USA (mixture of training and DIRECT job connections) and WIBO.org (help small businesses to survive).

Instead of talking about how poor people are losers in a world or winner like yourself, why not come up with REAL programs to help the 'losers' to help themselves? Guess what? Its still going to come out of your pocket.

the main reason why their is govt help for poor is because if they don't, crime increases, health in neighborhood plummets, disease consumes, babies are born (because sex becomes the guilty pleasure), the countries work force shrinks due to less educated, stable, healthy individuals, next generation lost to social cycle, education takes a back seat, disease spreads faster in poor neighborhoods

Just human nature. we are social people and are, in allot of ways, products of our environments. Poor people tend to lack of hope, fall into drug/crime, live in drug/crime infested communities (hey, the lady could have kept the money and really provided a future for herself and her kids), and tend to rear the same like-minded children because of the environment. But they are losers so... besides how does that effect me anyway? (Read the above in bold)

Maybe, just maybe, if I was class valedictorian, I would be ok.... (one liner!!!)
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
John Galt:

How many calories a day do you require in order to do the work that is your livelihood? (BTW, this is a loaded question)
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

the lady could have kept the money and really provided a future for herself and her kids),
Dumbass! no wonder she is a loser


i arrived at the same conclusion somewhere earlier in the thread.  seems to me it would have been at least as ethical as if i, after realizing my oil tool company was tanking, quickly sold most of my stock while it was still worth something--like before my investors got the bad news and were left holding the bag.  if she'd used the money to buy somethin--let's say a major league baseball team--her kids wouldnt have needed any toys.