BF2S Forums you're a moocher

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Yeah you can call them moochers and it wouldn't be inaccurate but that's what a safety net is all about. I wouldn't look down on them if they were 'mooching' while trying their utmost to obtain gainful employment. I would look down on them if they weren't. I think the safety net is a necessary part of a modern society to deal with the downturns that are an inevitable part of the free market, how effectively it is being run is what I would complain about. And his point about it being a crime if you were to commit this 'plunder' as opposed to the government is a completely moot point. This is what the civilised world has developed over centuries to deal with the relatively few disadvantages of the free market and it is legal, period. The safety net is part of what keeps society from totally unravelling in a deep and prolonged downturn. I'm on a highly taxed salary and have never collected unemployment in my entire life. If something untoward befell me I would collect unemployment to keep me from starving to death while I looked for another job. I believe the social net is a valuable necessity for any modern civlised society. Abuses and mismanagement of it should be roundly condemned however.

Unemployment is not mooching. It is insurance that is paid BY YOU.

Mooching is something for nothing.

Well I suppose to rephrase: if you still haven't found a job by the time unemployment benefits run out I don't agree with casting you to the dogs. I agree with me being taxed to support those people who are still verifiably making a concerted effort to acquire employment in a tough environment if their benefits have run out rather than letting them die. I expect it to be heavily policed to stamp out abuse and believe that community work in return should be a necessity for receipt. I believe in the nation pulling together during tough times.

JohnG@lt wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

So, food stamps can be used to buy pretty much anything but tobacco and alcohol, right?  I think you should be limited to "healthy" foods and approved products.  I think this may lessen the abuse a bit.  Also, it would promote the health of the welfare folks, thus lowering there health care needs, thus making them less of a drain on our tax dollars in the long run.

And lowing...you are kinda right...if people are accepting help, then they should stop being so defensive and a little more thankful. 

Maybe anyone on welfare should have to do some sort of community service...hmmm...then they would be "working" for what they get.

Food stamps can be 'cashed in'. Buy a bag of Dipsy Doodles for $0.25 and pocket the $0.75 in change ad infinitum. Some less than savory grocers will cash in your food stamps for you, for a fee. It's usually around 20% off the top.

lowing wrote:

read this on boortz today... I loved it



"Yup. Got another email yesterday from someone on food stamps. She didn't like the fact that I called people who use food stamps "moochers." She gave me the usual song and dance about how educated she and her husband were, how hard they have worked, how responsible they were, and how unexpected hard times suddenly came upon them. Right, and all of this was supposed to legitimize their mooching.

Look folks .. the food stamps are out there. The program grows every year. If you need them - or you think you need them - to feed your family, then go for it. But while you're at it why don't you admit that you are using the government as an instrument of plunder. You are using the government to do something for you that, if you did it for yourself, would be a criminal act. You are using the government to seize money from someone who earned it and turn it over to you for your personal use. If you're OK with that, well ... what does that say about you? So just do it, stop your whining when you're called out, and enjoy your dinner."


Kinda hard to argue aginst this as the FACT that it is, but  I trust there is some out there that will manage to do it anyway.

lowing wrote:

burnzz wrote:

lowing wrote:

Funny!! what is the difference? Ya forgot to mention govt. healthcare, govt owned PRIVATE companies. A debt quadrupled in one year what Bush did in 8.. we could go on. Plenty of difference.

did Congress do that or the white house? what i'm saying lowing is Congress holds the purse strings, and Obama hasn't changed any of the policies he proclaimed during the election that were 'wrong' under Bush - i.e., Gitmo, wiretapping, etc.

Obama wanted gov.t healthcare, who's going to give it to him? Congress.
GM and the banks wanted a bailout, who's giving it to them? Congress.

honestly, the presidency is not what it once was, the judicial system is hampered by the real obstructionists -  Congress.

I see, so when Bush was in office everything was HIS fault. Now we have Obama and everything is congress' fault. Neh can't find anything wrong with that logic.

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

So, food stamps can be used to buy pretty much anything but tobacco and alcohol, right?  I think you should be limited to "healthy" foods and approved products.  I think this may lessen the abuse a bit.  Also, it would promote the health of the welfare folks, thus lowering there health care needs, thus making them less of a drain on our tax dollars in the long run.

And lowing...you are kinda right...if people are accepting help, then they should stop being so defensive and a little more thankful. 

Maybe anyone on welfare should have to do some sort of community service...hmmm...then they would be "working" for what they get.

Food stamps can be 'cashed in'. Buy a bag of Dipsy Doodles for $0.25 and pocket the $0.75 in change ad infinitum. Some less than savory grocers will cash in your food stamps for you, for a fee. It's usually around 20% off the top.

How do you know?

SEREMAKER wrote:

this quite old but stills applys

gettn paid





sister use to work at the local grocery store after school - she would see ppl using food stamps put back diapers for chips and frozen pizzas

lowing wrote:

Sorry, when Bush was in office, I didn't hear any of you bitching and splitting hairs about what congress did. which was in democratic control by the way. Now when it comes to the direction the country is taking we are gunna blame congress. Sorry if you do not see the inconsistency in this new direction.

Obama is pressuring congress, bribing congress, and congress is trying to extort the whitehouse for votes. So please stop trying to deflect from Obama's influence.

burnzz wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, when Bush was in office, I didn't hear any of you bitching and splitting hairs about what congress did. which was in democratic control by the way. Now when it comes to the direction the country is taking we are gunna blame congress. Sorry if you do not see the inconsistency in this new direction.

Obama is pressuring congress, bribing congress, and congress is trying to extort the whitehouse for votes. So please stop trying to deflect from Obama's influence.

Congress became demo in 2006. about the same time i started checking my stats here for bf2. the other six years of his term? republican.

Obama pressuring Congress? that's his job, although with a demo majority and a demo president, he shouldn't have to work so hard at it.


"congress is trying to extort the whitehouse for votes" what the heck does that even mean? Congress passes law, the presidency enforces law, and the judicial system interprets law.

we have a malignancy in government, and while it's easier to blame one than nine or five hundred thirty-five, the senate and the house is the root of the problem.

vote out Obama and leave congress in. i dare you.

CapnNismo wrote:

Lowing, I would actually contest that it is not Congress that is guilty, so much as the Senate. The House of Representatives recently banned ear marking on bills. The Senate, however, has yet to follow suit. The waste will continue there.

The Bush administration shoved the bail out plans down the throats of Congress. They stirred up fear and forced Congress to vote on a half-assed written bill. Hell, the Treasury Department didn't even think to put a phrase in the policy that would force these companies receiving all this money to report back to the government and show where all of it is going. No oversight whatsoever. You can blame President Bush and his cronies on that one without ever having to bring Congress into the game.

I voted for Obama mainly because of Palin and McCain. McCain and Palin are both so far out of touch with reality. The only benefit is that Palin is funny as hell to laugh at... So if they had won, I would've at least had a smile or two laughing at her idiocy and McCain's senility.

Back to the topic at hand, though:

I don't see food stamp receivers as moochers at all, so long as they are not abusing the system. As CameronPoe said, a well-regulated safety net for citizens should be required in any modern society (I wonder if the US can be classified as a developing country, much like China). Certainly any one that abuses it should be convicted of it, but to have it there should not be bad. Look at it like medical or auto insurance: You gladly pay for both, so what is the real problem there? You are required BY LAW to pay for auto insurance, so what's the problem if the government skims a bit off the top to put into a program that you also have access to if you ever need it? It's not mooching. Mooching implies abuse.

My other point would be to ask you this question: If you identify yourself as a Christian, helping the poor is one of the tenants of the faith. Can you really be against any kind of a welfare program and still call yourself a Christian?

lowing wrote:

ATG wrote:

lowing wrote:

read this on boortz today... I loved it



"Yup. Got another email yesterday from someone on food stamps. She didn't like the fact that I called people who use food stamps "moochers." She gave me the usual song and dance about how educated she and her husband were, how hard they have worked, how responsible they were, and how unexpected hard times suddenly came upon them. Right, and all of this was supposed to legitimize their mooching.

Look folks .. the food stamps are out there. The program grows every year. If you need them - or you think you need them - to feed your family, then go for it. But while you're at it why don't you admit that you are using the government as an instrument of plunder. You are using the government to do something for you that, if you did it for yourself, would be a criminal act. You are using the government to seize money from someone who earned it and turn it over to you for your personal use. If you're OK with that, well ... what does that say about you? So just do it, stop your whining when you're called out, and enjoy your dinner."


Kinda hard to argue aginst this as the FACT that it is, but  I trust there is some out there that will manage to do it anyway.

While I detest those who make a career out of government assistance and disability claims I also detest your blanket statement about ' fact '.

Like for example, I have never drawn one dime in any assistance whatsoever. No unemployment draws while I wasn't working before I started my business. Yet my wife wants to apply for food stamps as we are currently in a world of hurt because of the economy and she figures it will take some pressure off me for a while as I regroup. I haven't told her not to.


Am I gonna be a moocher? I have worked full time for 26 years.

Re-read the OP CAREFULLY. and you will be able to answer your own question. I have worked since I was 12, and I can tell you now, if I take from the govt. ( the people) I am mooching. Just because I might not like the label does not make the FACT any less a fact.

lowing wrote:

I understand all of this, my point being no one is blamed congress for shit during the bush years they blamed bush. Now, we are gunna split hairs and blame congress. Funny thati s all.