Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

el chupacabra · Mar 9, 2012, 01:36 AM

Michigan $1 Million Lotto Winner No Longer on Food Stamps - ABC News

Typical liberal here. Even when they're rich they still want free welfare money. Oh wait pretty much all liberals are rich. oh well.

Shaddim · Mar 9, 2012, 04:17 AM

Typical white trash EBT-scamming scumbag. We've got tons around here, driving around in $40k SUVs, paying for other goods with a wad of cash that would choke a US Senator, and paying for all their food with a benefits card. Their income? They sell the Roxy and Hydro they get from faking chronic pain. It's an easy way to make $5-10k a month, tax free.

Ω · Mar 9, 2012, 04:21 AM

As a "liberal", I say club her like a baby seal.

gradient · Mar 9, 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Typical liberal here.

Say what?

Liberal | Define Liberal at Dictionary.com

There are abusers in every walk of life. I think you're getting politics confused with human nature.

ghporter · Mar 9, 2012, 07:38 AM

How does "welfare recipient" equate to "liberal?" Frankly, she seems to be what you might call an "entitlement baby" who has received assistance for much of her life (at least her adult life), so her whole experience is that "you just get foodstamps," and thus she thinks of it as a natural thing.

As an Air Force E5 with a wife and toddler, I was a few cents away from qualifying for foodstamps in Mississippi in 1990, and I can tell you that it was humiliating to me and my wife. (My promotion a few months later changed that, putting me way over that income level.) But then, I remember when my family was on "relief" (pre-Welfare; a program that provided surplus food to families with low or no income), and how that affected my parents, so I was brought up significantly differently and with different ideas about public assistance.

I hope that this event doesn't make Michigan establish some sort of income police for all their foodstamp recipients, though I think it would be a good idea for them to have someone scan the lottery winner listings in the news for people who are on their lists and who strike it big. "Mr. Smith, you appear to be the winner of a great big jackpot in the Lotto. You do remember that you're required to inform us of changes in income status within 10 days*, right? Glad to hear it! Can I mail you the form, or will you be coming in to an office to fill it out?"

*The 10 day notification is part of Michigan law, noted in the ABC news story.

ebuddy · Mar 9, 2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ω

As a "liberal", I say club her like a baby seal.

Wiskedjak · Mar 9, 2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Michigan $1 Million Lotto Winner No Longer on Food Stamps - ABC News

Typical liberal here. Even when they're rich they still want free welfare money. Oh wait pretty much all liberals are rich. oh well.

ummmm .... how do you know she's a liberal?

OldManMac · Mar 9, 2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

ummmm .... how do you know she's a liberal?

He doesn't, but it's easier to just grab a handle that's easily accessible than to learn something new.

turtle777 · Mar 9, 2012, 01:34 PM

She's dumb enough to burn through this cash in a heartbeat.

In a year or two, she'll be the same dead-beat that she was before.
She will have squandered her wealth, and then complain about how she's been taken advantage off.
At that point in time, she'll officialy be entitled to collect foodstamps again, and that's what she'll do until the end of her life.

Some people should be sent to work camp, because clearly, they don't have the faintest idea how to run their lives. Let others do it for them.

-t

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 9, 2012, 02:28 PM

Liberal? Probably.

Democrat base? Definitely.

Her problem is PR. She had the misfortune of admitting she needs the money to pay for her two houses.

Now, if she would have said birth control, she'd be up before congress being given a standing ovation. (Ovarian-ation?)

hyteckit · Mar 9, 2012, 04:44 PM

Aren't most welfare recipients conservatives living in conservative states? Isn't Michigan a conservative leaning state? Doesn't Michigan have a Republican government, and a Republican controlled senate and house?

Maybe el chupacabra can go nuts with other possible titles:

Conservatives defend yourselves.
Women defend yourselves.
White people defend yourselves.
Michigan defend yourselves.
Lottery winners defend yourselves.

olePigeon · Mar 9, 2012, 05:13 PM

"I'm not saying it's the right thing to do," Euline Clayton said. "But it's nobody's business if she's not breaking the law."

Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah:

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Who cares? As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" ____ what business is it anyone else?

Answer: none.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 9, 2012, 08:22 PM

^ Yeah, because one thing talking about what people do with their own money that they've earned, and another talking about abusing public funds is the same thing.

I love when people pretend they can't grasp key differences that are blatantly obvious as a smokescreen to not having an actual argument.

olePigeon · Mar 9, 2012, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

^ Yeah, because one thing talking about what people do with their own money that they've earned, and another talking about abusing public funds is the same thing.

You're splitting hairs. The argument is the same, even if the setting is mildly different. Federal Income Taxes are used for public works, be it for defense, construction, job training, various social services, etc. The only reason it seems more prominent in Detroit is because the till she's using is a lot smaller than the Federal Government's.

olePigeon · Mar 9, 2012, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ω

As a "liberal", I say club her like a baby seal.

That's too easy. Have Sarah Palin shoot her from a helicopter.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 9, 2012, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You're splitting hairs. The argument is the same, even if the setting is mildly different.

The setting is completely different. You're just smoke-screening.

Also you missed this:
"DHS relies on clients being forthcoming about their actual financial status. If they are not, and continue to accept benefits, they may face criminal investigation and be required to pay back those benefits."

So the whole 'not breaking the law' likely doesn't apply here.

Why is it so hard for you to admit your nanny state has created a lot of lazy, grubbing people that do things like this without a second thought? Afraid to face the realities of the nanny-state you dream of and how in real life plenty of people abuse the hell out of it?

Ω · Mar 10, 2012, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Why is it so hard for you to admit your nanny state has created a lot of lazy, grubbing people that do things like this without a second thought? Afraid to face the realities of the nanny-state you dream of and how in real life plenty of people abuse the hell out of it?

I don't think you can nail this down to one administration. Even under a Republican, if the opportunity was there they would take it too. It is the "what is in it for me" crowd. where self responsibility and determination are secondary.

"We're a virus with shoes"

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Why is it so hard for you to admit your nanny state has created a lot of lazy, grubbing people that do things like this without a second thought? Afraid to face the realities of the nanny-state you dream of and how in real life plenty of people abuse the hell out of it?

The Republicans have had *more* than ample opportunity to kill the "nanny state". The fact that they haven't means that it's a *Republican* nanny state as well.

In any case, I've yet to see anything to suggest that this woman is a liberal, or any political leaning for that matter. Conservatives are just as likely to seek ways to milk the system as liberals are. One could say that she was just taking advantage of a loop hole.

hyteckit · Mar 10, 2012, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah:

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Who cares? As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" as is guaranteed by our Constitution, what business is it anyone else?

Answer: none.

Haha...

olePigeon · Mar 12, 2012, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Why is it so hard for you to admit your nanny state has created a lot of lazy, grubbing people that do things like this without a second thought? Afraid to face the realities of the nanny-state you dream of and how in real life plenty of people abuse the hell out of it?

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is my nanny state. I'm assuming you're still under the impression that I'm a liberal Democrat despite me stating to the contrary on several occasions, so let me make this clear: I've never in my life voted for a Democrat until Obama, and I've never voted for Boxer or Feinstein as my representatives.

Just because I agree with certain aspects of various social programs, doesn't mean I'm a socialist.

The only reason I posted was to provide counter examples to your blame-all-liberals rhetoric.

besson3c · Mar 12, 2012, 04:10 PM

Regarding the thread title, why is it that one person does something bad and all liberals are supposed to defend themselves? Should I create a "conservatives, defend yourself" thread asking conservatives to defend yourselves against the entire Bush presidency?

Hint: the actions of one person do not reflect an entire population in a monolithic fashion.

Wiskedjak · Mar 12, 2012, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Regarding the thread title, why is it that one person does something bad and all liberals are supposed to defend themselves?

I've yet to see any indication that this person is a "liberal".

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 13, 2012, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

The Republicans have had *more* than ample opportunity to kill the "nanny state". The fact that they haven't means that it's a *Republican* nanny state as well.

Of course Republicans are also to blame- you really thought that was an argument? "B-but Republicans do it tooooooo!"
That seems to be about the only response leftists can come up with whenever the ugly side of what's far more rooted in liberal core-belief than conservative core belief shows up.

Every time we have a discussion where conservatives point out that anyone is capable of success, you libs jump in with the sob story nonsense and the everyone's a victim this, and everyone is helpless that. Mention personal responsibility and you liberals hiss and scamper back into the darkness like someone had just tossed holy water on a vampire.

And sure, let's all pretend that leftists aren't constantly angling to construct bigger/better pipelines into the public til- no pile of debt ever amassed on this planet is big enough for the government you're always screaming at everyone else to fund for you.

The whole current 'contraceptive political theater' is based on the liberal belief that women are helpless victims that can't possible pay for anything themselves- even when they're otherwise somehow able to get into colleges, and hold jobs as teachers, nurses, lawyers, etc.

So sure, I guess it's such a huge stretch that the same self-entitled mentalities couldn't possibly be liberal when you've got a person winning what should be enough to get her by, but hey, still take from the public til anyway because 'I don't have a job'.

Own up- it's far more often the Democrat Party that's selling this type of attitude towards other people's money- that it's just free money that they deserve just because.

No, of course Republicans haven't ended the welfare state- but be honest for two seconds if you're capable of it. If they ever in anyone's wildest dreams managed to- who would be whining the loudest, like stuck pigs about it, the same as they ALWAYS do every time anyone tries to get a handle on the nanny-state free for all spending spree? We all know the answer to that- you liberals would, like raving maniacs.

But sure, keep pretending conservatives are just the same. Some are, but most that are able bodied and actually live by their core values wouldn't be caught dead sucking from the public teat the way you libs push entitlements even to those that are perfectly capable of fending for themselves.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 13, 2012, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is my nanny state.

Just the simple fact that you constantly spout nanny-state arguments.

Like pretending you can't grasp the difference between someone earning their own money and not breaking any laws, vs. someone who has plenty of money yet still abuses the welfare system, and is likely breaking laws.

Your lame attempt to paint two opposites as the same thing in order to defend the nanny-state screw up- yes, that any every other class-envy and big government cheerleader argument of yours leads me to conclude you're a nanny-state supporter.

hyteckit · Mar 13, 2012, 05:30 AM

Neve take CRASH HARDDRIVE's words at face value. It always needs a disclaimer.

Here you go:

Who cares? As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" ____ what business is it anyone else?

Answer: none.*

* Except in cases where public funds are abused.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 13, 2012, 05:47 AM

As with so many things, welfare is oversimplified to make it a left/right issue, it really isn't.

Corporate welfare and subsidies are not something I agree with but if one government doesn't offer them some incentives then another government will and the corporations will follow the money and relocate to wherever its cheapest/most profitable for them to be. Its a wonder none of them have reduced their head offices to a set of PO Boxes and set up shop on a boat or oil rig in international waters, but you can bet if they didn't have other ways to avoid paying taxes thats exactly what many of them would do.

As for social welfare, its a victim of good intentions and entropy. At its core its a necessity: People in a developed nation should not be left to die on the street. You should always be able to go and get some help to get back on your feet. The problem with it is that everything that has been added to it above and beyond basic health and survival has never been thought through properly and none of the mistakes ever get rectified. The system was built and expanded under the impression that people were honest and hard working and it never allowed for those who will put their feet up and scam the system (thats an extreme, there is of course a wide-ranging scale of exactly how much people are prepared to cheat the system). There are still those who don't acknowledge this aspect, certainly in this country they vetoed a benefits cap a few weeks ago but this is mostly people who are filthy rich and have no idea what poor people are like and what some are prepared to do to get a cheap or free ride because they wouldn't do it themselves. Its difficult to criticise this kind of optimism. Except when it costs billions a year.

The main problem is that once you start giving something away to people you rely on to keep/vote you into power, its very difficult to take it away again. Voters are never reasonable when you are asking them to give up anything.

Its all well and good bitching about it and blaming the liberals but neither party is going to do what needs to be done to put it right. Its easy to polarise the issue, I could say that the conservatives would take all that welfare money and give it to arms manufacturers, tobacco companies, oil companies and televangelists instead but what good does it really do?

hyteckit · Mar 13, 2012, 06:10 AM

The lady cheating off the food stamp system is just doing what many mega-corporations and the mega-rich are doing, except a much smaller scale but more obvious.

Look at what Mitt Romney does while he was at Bain capital.

Buy out companies with government-backed, taxpayer-supported money. Pocket millions by bankrupting the company and letting taxpayer's pick up the tab.

Wiskedjak · Mar 13, 2012, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Of course Republicans are also to blame- you really thought that was an argument? "B-but Republicans do it tooooooo!"
That seems to be about the only response leftists can come up with whenever the ugly side of what's far more rooted in liberal core-belief than conservative core belief shows up.

By saying "your nanny" state, it sounds like you're trying to suggest that the responsibility lies elsewhere. Even here, you continue to say that it's rooted in the "liberal core-belief" more than in the conservatives, even while you're mocking me for saying "Republicans do it toooooo!".

The sad reality that you're unwilling to face is that nanny-statism is quite obviously *far* more rooted in the conservative core belief than you are willing to admit.

olePigeon · Mar 13, 2012, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Like pretending you can't grasp the difference between someone earning their own money and not breaking any laws, vs. someone who has plenty of money yet still abuses the welfare system, and is likely breaking laws.

Public funds are usually generated through taxation. This is often through a parcel tax, sales tax, etc. Federal Income Tax is just what it says, it's taxation. This money goes into a public fund.

Whether the money is taken after it's put in the till or before it's put in the till, it's still stealing. Legal or not. Your argument is that it's OK to steal because the money hasn't been collected yet. Oh, but if someone else is doing it after the money's been collected, suddenly it's bad!

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

... that any every other class-envy and big government cheerleader argument of yours leads me to conclude you're a nanny-state supporter.

I've stated as much that I admire Norway's tax structure. I like the idea of larger taxes to support certain things such as education and healthcare, things that help everyone regardless of economic standing. However, what class-envy cheerleading have I ever done?