First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply On who's side you would be? (Woman in line at Walmart argues with man using food stamps)
18479 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 5/4/16
I wouldn't take either of their side. They're setting a great example for that kid.

I find her very unprofessional staring an argument like that at work with a customer. Had she been my employee i would reprimand her and apologize to the customer. I also can't stand the when people who lable Bernie supporters as lazy. I'm a Bernie supporter and I worked very hard to get into my career.

As for him, again, he needs to stop cussing around the kid. I also don't approve of abusing the system just because you can. If you need some help till you get on your feet, fine. But don't take it if you don't need it.

One Punch Mod
85784 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 5/4/16 , edited 5/4/16

XxNaruTheNarcissistxX wrote:

I wouldn't take either of their side. They're setting a great example for that kid.

I find her very unprofessional staring an argument like that at work with a customer. Had she been my employee i would reprimand her and apologize to the customer.


She wasn't a Walmart employee. She was a customer.
207 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 5/4/16

dragontackle wrote:


MissMimeJr wrote:


dragontackle wrote:

If you need to use food stamps, then you really have no business having children in the first place. Gonna side with the lady on this one.


Yes how dare the dirty peasants reproduce, only the rich may have children.


If dirty peasants cant provide a stable environment for their children, then do you really think its right for them to have kids? Am I the only one that feels that its selfish to have a kid when you can clearly not take care of it?


It is completely unrealistic to think that people will stop having children for that reason. And people accidentally get pregnant all the time and may not want to get an abortion. The dude is obviously taking care of his kid. He said he works 40-50 hours a week and is doing everything possible to feed his child, even though it involves being screamed at by some lady that can't mind her own business. If people need assistance they should be able to get it, and that is taking care of "it." I really hope you never lose a job or have serious health issues that require expensive treatment if you ever already have a child, because shit is not easy and you never know what life is going to throw at you that may make you need things like food stamps to have your family survive.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 5/4/16 , edited 5/4/16

neugenx wrote:

dyme420 wrote:
Lady is a cunt but she's right... This guy looks like a fucking loser taking advantage of the system.

And for the poster with the assinine comment of "you shouldn't have had kids if you couldn't afford it". Ever hear of someone being able to afford something BEFORE they lost their job or business only to not be able to afford it after the fact. We're not all "psychics" like you y'know. We can't predict when our job will be downsized or phased out. About 10 years ago there were over 100 CmpUSA and Computer City locations in my area. All went belly up leaving empty locations that took many years to fill. There were no "miracle" job openings that just "magically" appeared.

MissMimeJr wrote:

dragontackle wrote:
If you need to use food stamps, then you really have no business having children in the first place. Gonna side with the lady on this one.

Yes how dare the dirty peasants reproduce, only the rich may have children.

It is completely unrealistic to think that people will stop having children for that reason. And people accidentally get pregnant all the time and may not want to get an abortion. The dude is obviously taking care of his kid. He said he works 40-50 hours a week and is doing everything possible to feed his child.
Maybe not the rich, but atleast those who know this isn't good enough and should wait... insted of making it early with no..planning, abortion, not the right time for it and so on.
Some should REALLY wait, and fix things before adding "problems".. and how many of them (as some do go on and then you have more kids).
But then again that really depends on how they did and how things are around there.

Also it seems like some of it was going to be used on that papir.. but then she said about just anything in general.
62007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / The stars.. too b...
Offline
Posted 5/4/16 , edited 5/4/16

I find it absolutely a riot that you think any large chunk of the money donated to local charities actually makes it to the people it's intended to go to. Most charities these days are run by heads of the "non-profit" taking huge chunks of the money as their own personal salaries. It's the same way with large charities. Remember the Red Cross scandal a few years back? How about the Priests living in mansions and driving Lincolns and Caddies?


Since this is the only section of your wall of text that actually makes an argument. So the fuck what? Your arguing against a voluntary interaction versus one using violence.

The rest is sophistry bullshit. You quote a sentence I made then don't follow it with the sentence after. You're cherry picking to make me sound like an idiot and it's beyond embarrassing for you. Also, I'm sorry your uncle lost his job but he's an idiot for not having a backup. Learn how to differ gratification and save for a rainy day...


And yes, they shouldn't be having kids they can't afford. The argument that someone can just lose their job from one day to another is ridiculous. No responsible person should be living pay-check to pay-check just because we'll pick up the tab if they fail.


And yes, walk away because you have zero argument but, "You don't know how it is!" I really don't care. Keep arguing in favor of violence and irresponsibility. There is no agree to disagree. We're not arguing favorite colors and their appeal. There is right and wrong. Violent and voluntary participation in the compassion for our fellow man. I'm on the right side of history.


Edit: Just to add, nothing I said points at compassion being a pejorative... This ignorant unconditional compassion on the other hand... Be compassionate, sure. Don't do it with OTHER peoples money/wealth.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1xzDfMyGhkbo3hikZ9FST0z <This
19450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / NYC Metro Area
Offline
Posted 5/4/16
Call it wrong, but I don't get involved with things that don't involve me.
24932 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/4/16
Yeah, ignorant lowlifes not understanding the value of a government protecting its citizens from economic downturn and starvation. There is no shame in taking advantage of your country's privileges. Everyone worked hard to make that possible.
2149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Ocala, Florida
Offline
Posted 5/4/16
I would take the mans side on this. Even though I don't know his situation, he's clearly trying to make sure his child is fed. That woman had no right to start an argument when she doesn't know his situation, she should've thought about if the roles had been switched and she had to use food stamps to make sure her child is fed while he yells at her for it, then she would've seen how much of a bitch she was being. The man is just trying to feed his kid and he gets yelled at for it, no logic in that.
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 5/4/16

dyme420 wrote:

But of course, because I'm against using immoral means to gain assistance, I hate the poor. You might be right. I'm pretty sure I'd hate anyone voting to have people point their guns at me and tell me, "You don't need that wealth, we're going to take it from you and spend it more wisely than you can."


So lets say we cut welfare and stop distributing things such as food stamps and unemployment. How would this change things? Would those changes be for the better? What evidence do you have backing your opinion?
62007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / The stars.. too b...
Offline
Posted 5/4/16 , edited 5/4/16

sundin13 wrote:


dyme420 wrote:

But of course, because I'm against using immoral means to gain assistance, I hate the poor. You might be right. I'm pretty sure I'd hate anyone voting to have people point their guns at me and tell me, "You don't need that wealth, we're going to take it from you and spend it more wisely than you can."


So lets say we cut welfare and stop distributing things such as food stamps and unemployment. How would this change things? Would those changes be for the better? What evidence do you have backing your opinion?


I can't say it isn't a great question. But I will take the high road and say - I don't know.

Maybe people would stop making bad decisions? Maybe they would have to appeal to local charities/churches to gain assistance and the shame that goes with asking for it when you don't have family to help?

But the position stands, it's immoral to use violence to force wealth away from those that have, to those that don't. It's called, "theft" when a private citizen does it and is punishable to the full extent of the law. But yet, when it's, "The state" perpetuating that violence it's somehow moral and okay? I beg to differ.
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 5/4/16 , edited 5/4/16

dyme420 wrote:
I can't say it isn't a great question. But I will take the high road and say - I don't know.

Maybe people would stop making bad decisions? Maybe they would have to appeal to local charities/churches to gain assistance and the shame that goes with asking for it when you don't have family to help?

But the position stands, it's immoral to use violence to force wealth away from those that have, to those that don't. It's called, "theft" when a private citizen does it, and is punishable to the full extent of the law. But yet, when it's, "The state" perpetuating that violence it's somehow moral and okay? I beg to differ.


If you do not wish to argue from an objective standpoint, that is perfectly fine, however I think it is a bit hypocritical to say that others are merely holding their opinion on the basis of compassion (their own personal moral compass) when your position is simply held on the basis of personal responsibility (your own personal moral compass).
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 5/4/16
Guy should have just ignored her.
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/4/16

dragontackle wrote:

If you need to use food stamps, then you really have no business having children in the first place. Gonna side with the lady on this one.


While I sorta agree with you, maybe you should consider he had the kids before needing food stamps. Even trump, the guy vote y for, declared bankruptcy
62007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / The stars.. too b...
Offline
Posted 5/4/16

sundin13 wrote:


dyme420 wrote:
I can't say it isn't a great question. But I will take the high road and say - I don't know.

Maybe people would stop making bad decisions? Maybe they would have to appeal to local charities/churches to gain assistance and the shame that goes with asking for it when you don't have family to help?

But the position stands, it's immoral to use violence to force wealth away from those that have, to those that don't. It's called, "theft" when a private citizen does it, and is punishable to the full extent of the law. But yet, when it's, "The state" perpetuating that violence it's somehow moral and okay? I beg to differ.


If you do not wish to argue from an objective standpoint, that is perfectly fine, however I think it is a bit hypocritical to say that others are merely holding their opinion on the basis of compassion (their own personal moral compass) when your position is simply held on the basis of personal responsibility (your own personal moral compass).


Like I mentioned in another post, be as compassionate and caring to anyone of your choosing as much as you please. Just don't do it with state violence then claim moral ground. Which, is why I said in my first response to OP, "Lady is a cunt, but she's right." and proceeded to side with her. Not because she's a nice person, but because she is correct and entitled to be angry.

Other than what's shown I can only speculate with judgements. I'm not going to dismantle the video piece by piece, discover and investigate the people involved and their situations. I simply replied then got replied to with, "Oh well maybe you just don't know the situation!!" and that's what spawned the discussion about personal responsibility. It doesn't matter how sad the story is, if they were responsible people living within their means with a back up plan and or good people in their lives, there wouldn't be a problem.
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/4/16

dyme420 wrote:

Lady is a cunt but she's right... This guy looks like a fucking loser taking advantage of the system.

Now correct me of I'm wrong but I think I did hear at the start, "Look lady I put in 58 hour weeks..."

Bullshit. Even at minimum wage unless this guy has like 4-5 kids that's 40 hours a week at 7.25(Federal minimum) PLUS 18 hours of overtime/time and a half... That is about $485 dollars a WEEK... What the fuck are you spending that money on if not food and living expenses that you NEED to rely on foodstamps? But the smart money is on him not working at fucking all... Just look at how this man is dressed and trimmed... He's way too fucking skinny for construction ESPECIALLY if he's working 58 hours a week... And no fucking way is a construction labor job paying no $7.25 for hard labor. Anyway, man is healthy and should be working, not living off of that gov'ment cheese.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PArF9k2SbQk


You're usually someone I don't agree with, but in this case I do. First of all, he looks like a dude who isn't making enough money because he's spending it on pot and being high. Second, I feel bad for his son who looks like a good boy. If this guy is making $1900 a month then he has at least $500 extra, so yeah why does he need food stamps?

Here's my breakdown:


$485 per week? That's about $1900 per month.

He's spending $400 on groceries per month if he's buying the bare essentials and healthy food.

He probably doesn't own a house, or maybe he does? In which case he's either paying rent for $600 to 1,000. If he owns a house, the taxes are $6,000 a year (lol and that's being generous, more like $10,000). So that's minimum $500 a month to 1,000 just for living.

His utilities are probably $200 - $300 (again being generous) because heating can be expensive.

Then there's obviously fuel expenses because he's commuting to work (or commuting expenses) which could be anywhere from $60 - $100 a month, and if he has to drive his son/daughter to places. OH and there's mandatory auto insurance, which could be anywhere from $60 - $100 a month too!

And then there's medical insurance, because you know, it's better to be safe than sorry. Especially if you have a kid. So that's another $100 a month.

So he's spending like $1,400 - $1,600 a month with some extra to keep in the bank.

Dude does /not/ need food stamps.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.