Just got back from lifting at the gym. While I was there, I got into a conversation about the state of our culture with one of my conservative friends named Erica. Recall that Edward, Sean and Katie are my other three conservative friends from the gym. Erica is one that I generally don't talk politics with as she has readily admitted that she "hates to read political books and just lets her husband give her the cliff's notes."
We were talking today about overweight children and how their parents seem to enable it. This led to an overall discussion about entitlement which led to her saying the following.
I mean...like...people who are on welfare have diamond rings and flat screen TVs...what's up with that?
When I said that corporate welfare was much worse, she gave me a quizzical look.
Ah yes, another Voice In My Head.
12 comments:
People who are on welfare now may have had jobs in the past when they were able to buy things like TVs and engagement rings. It's not a requirement that you sell all your worldly possessions -- your diamond engagement ring, TVs, a car, a house -- when you go on welfare, is it? That would be counterproductive, completely destroying any semblance of a normal life and making a return to a normal job and supporting and housing a family that much more difficult. It's especially important that kids' lives are not totally disrupted. Does this person really think it important to deny kids on welfare a flat screen TV -- the only kind you can get these days -- that often cost only $100-200?
Does this person even know anyone on welfare? I don't. I bitch about the way the wealthy live all the time, but that's because I have first-hand knowledge of how they work the system to their advantage, using business expenditures (which are deducted from the corporation's taxes) to pay for their personal vacations, travel, cars, commuting, clothing, food and lodging.
The Clinton era federal welfare reform imposed a 60-month limit on welfare benefits, and all but two states have some kind of time limit -- some less than 60 months. Which means that eventually most social welfare recipients will stop receiving benefits. Corporate welfare goes on forever and forever.
I guess none of those people know how to use the Internet or find this blog to speak for themselves.
Yes M that is the very definition of a voice in your head. So what do you expect of anyone here? Are we supposed to defend them? Are we supposed to fall to our knees and beg personal forgiveness from you for their words. What is your fucking point?
M: Hi, I'm Mark! Who do you hate worse?!? Corporate cock-suckers or Michelle Bachmann who just needs a good ass-fucking IMHO!?!
Erica: Ummm.... I let my husband do that kind of thinking. He's a kung-fu instructor for the mafia and runs the local gun club... I gotta go...
M: Oh, yeah... cool.
M:(whispers) Tea Party bitch! I'll bet her pussy stinks.
Does this person really think it important to deny kids on welfare a flat screen TV -- the only kind you can get these days -- that often cost only $100-200?
There are so many things wrong with this question that it makes one's head spin.
Hello McFly - what is your fucking point?
You do have a point, don't you?
Or is this just random poo-flinging? That isn't my first choice for game playing, but I can be a good sport and go along.
Yo, M - still no comment? I guess the random poo-flinging was on the money.
When I said that corporate welfare was much worse, she gave me a quizzical look.
Maybe that's because "corporate welfare" is a phrase liberals constantly use, but hardly ever define.
I have a definition of corporate welfare you, relevant to M and myself. Building football stadiums at public cost and letting the team skim all the profits.
I guess M isn't coming back to this thread.
Agreed, juris. And I'll add on that state and local governments make building a stadium more difficult by insisting on a piece of the pie themselves even if, as is the case with my Vikings, the Wilfs have offered on numerous occasions to pay for all of it themselves. This would be a fine example of how the government does get in the way.
You brat M, you come back to agree about stadiums and don't say a word as to what your fucking point is about this [kind of] post.
Poo-flinging, that really is it, isn't it?
My point is that she looks at welfare only in terms of poor people and not wealthy people i.e. subsidies. This isn't just a voice in my head. It's a real person and she is representative of the conservative mind set in my neck of the (north) woods.
I also agree that we value athletes and sports teams higher than engineers. Why? What a joke.
My point is that she looks
Why do I give a shit how she looks at anything? She isn't anyone I know. She doesn't discuss anything here. And most of all she certainly isn't representative of my thinking (and obviously not yours). So what is your fucking point - other than flinging shit at people that disagree with you? There are a million different kinds of crazy out there - why do you always obsess about one particular kind?
Reflect on that.
Post a Comment