I meant my last post - I hadn’t had time to post for a few days, you all keep babbling, I say one thing and you freak out. Who is it that is pissing and moaning? :rolleyes:
If you would look at the post you will see that all else being equal - no money, no food, etc - in order to recieve benefits so you don’t starve you have to have children. Starvation tends to make one die.
You are such an idiot.
Well, no, not exactly. In the link you were responding to, it stated that, in order to receive the car, you had to have children. I’m not saying I agree with that program, but not having a car does not mean you starve. You still get your welfare money, your food stamps, etc. You simply do not get the car. So, while starvation DOES tend to make one die, lack of a car does not. Nice straw man, though.
Huh? Me owning a house doesn’t stop my family from being stupid.
You are. I thought I made that clear in my previous couple of posts. Actually, you made it clear, in your last several hundred posts. Don’t let me stop you, though! We might get to 3,000 yet!
And I said that is typical of welfare programs - try to keep up, eh?
You are in no danger of starvation because other peoples kids will pay into social security while you draw out from it.
You are such an idiot.
What I am saying is that you’re ahead of the game in this life, and you’ve got some chip on your shoulder relating to your brother getting something that you didn’t get, it’s silly and it’s childish. Very few 23 year olds are lucky/blessed enough to own their own home.
You were responding to a specific link, which had nothing to do with anyone starving, so you can bullshit all you want, but the fact is, you were spinning some ridiculous hyperbole there. It’s not particularly accurate, and anyway, aren’t you contradicting yourself? I thought people were getting too much out of welfare, and now you say they’re starving unless they have kids. Which is it? I can’t keep up, no, not when you keep changing your story.
It was a comment on welfare over all, not on me specifically. Which would be obvious if you weren’t such an idiot.
My “story” never changes, same with your lack of ability to understand posts. My point has always been that way too much tax money goes to those who choose to have children.
It’s not that he gets things I don’t, it’s that he gets them as a result of being irresponsible. I do everything right and get no reward; he’s an irresponsible dropout and gets everthing handed to him.
Another hilarious post from you, and utterly ironic. You said that poor people without children are left to starve. They are not, because of welfare (which you also oppose, so which is it-- are you worried about poor people starving or aren’t you?). Thus, your comment about starving unless you have children was hyperbole at best and factually unsupported bullshit at worst. In fact, most women only receive about $70 more (varied by state) for additional children, hardly enough to support a child, so, in fact, people with children on welfare are more likely to starve than those without. Clearly my ability to read isn’t the problem here.
Life isn’t fair. Pictures at 11.
But you do get a reward, you own your own house. That’s a reward.
Being able to handle your own shit is a reward that will eventually give you a much happier life if you can eventually just give up on caring that your brother is being coddled.
Uh huh. How about a cite for that $70 being all they get for each child? And remember, we are not talking just a welfare check here.
This is off-topic, but the actual topic is a giant flaming train wreck with no survivors, so I’m OK with going astray a bit. starwarsfreek, I’m going to give you a small piece of advice here, which is: You’re an adult now. It’s time to let this sibling rivalry stuff go, before it eats you up. One of my friends is 40 years old. He spends his life complaining bitterly about how his siblings treated him as a child, and how they all suck now. He is angry because, in his perception, they have not had to work as hard as he has, and yet he has the less fulfilling life, and is less happy. Actually I suspect that he is not fulfilled or happy because he spends most of his time thinking about how unfair life is and how his siblings suck so much. You do not want to be like this. You need to let it go. Be happy with what you have. Forget your brother. So he has stuff handed to him on a plate. So what? You have a house, and presumably you have friends and hobbies and the other makings of a fulfilling lifestyle. Focus on that and not your lame brother.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled train wreck in progress.
It isn’t about being fair, it’s about how society more and more rewards being irresponsible.
Oho, now THIS is rich. You’re actually asking me for a cite? Allow me to refresh your memory about your attitude towards cites when you are being asked for them:
That sting you feel? That’s the recognition of your own hypocrisy. An entirely avoidable pain, but really, it’s up to you to remedy it.
I could provide cites, but am I your dancing monkey? Should I provide cites when you have repeatedly refused to do so? Why don’t you, instead, prove that women with children receive more than an average $70/month (hint: the amount varies by state, being as low as $20 for some and as high as $130 in others)? Once you provide a cite suggesting that they receive more than what I claim, I will counter with my cites. Also, please cite what you mean by “not just a welfare check.” Do you mean WIC, which is only for women with children under 5? Or other things that you might consider welfare but I do not, like tax credits? IOW, do some research of your own for once and I might consider playing this game with you.
And I’d hardly call a welfare payment “coddling.” Welfare ain’t all that.