The Strong Shall Inherit

[PopeJohnPaul_II]

Welfare benefits nobody in the end because the struggling breed children who don't care. Unfortunately, the flaw isn't just in welfare. It lays in the idea of socialism. The idea that if everybody supports the weak, we all win.

Yes... we all win higher taxes to support the weak. We win people who submit resumes to jobs just to satisfy welfare requirements, only to skip the interview. We win junk neighborhoods that degrade the value of our homes.

Do you want that on your conscience? That a strapping young man, one who could be making a decent living, is now using his time to procreate children raised in the poverty of government housing?

Better to burn your money. Earth belongs to the strong.

[a-4-year-old]

too bad your social darwinist crap is outdated and flawed in every respect.

[Farah]

it's more ultra-right fiscal conservative bs

granted this dude is a pretty funny joke account

[LtKillroy]

I remember this guy. He randomly comes back every October and spouts rascist/semi-stupid stuff no one really paid attention to. Sorta funny, kinda not.

[UnknownSniper]

I remember this guy. He randomly comes back every October and spouts rascist/semi-stupid stuff no one really paid attention to. Sorta funny, kinda not.

His black panther avatar kind of gives that away.

Aside from that, he seems to have been a normal poster, though it was long ago. XD

[SadistAtHeart]

As does yours. The difference is you're a douche bag who goes out of his way to make everybody hate you..

EDIT: Well well well, little hypocritical child can click report! I can do the same because your signature is longer than 70 characters in 1 line.

This is how not to post.

[bja888]

Better to burn your money.

That would actually make the rich richer you idiot.

If there where less currency in circulation, the remaining currency becomes worth more. If you wanna make everyone poor, distribute fake money. That can bring down the whole economy.

[SDFilm]

I don't think JohnPaul_II is seriously going to debate this topic. I almost have a mind to lock this unless someone cares to take a stance of why they would agree with him. Otherwise it's just flamebating.

[tehsnipah]

It lays in the idea of socialism. The idea that if everybody supports the weak, we all win.

This is where I think most people get tripped at. Everybody supporting the weak can be meaning that we are right now paying our taxes more and more to support a weak that could be an illegal immigrant or debtor. (Only good examples I could think of) Why should we pay them? Those people should right now, be working their asses off right now, but other people are actually paying taxes for them?

For my opinion, this is rediculous 

[SDFilm]

I'd like to know what he means by "weak". And as I said in the Welfare thread, there are some horrific abuses of the welfare system, but these are not the majority and overall it benefits society much more than it drains from it.

[PopeJohnPaul_II]

Thank you all for your kind welcome. Let's just say I took a much-needed vacation and leave it at that.

I remember this guy. He randomly comes back every October and spouts rascist/semi-stupid stuff no one really paid attention to. Sorta funny, kinda not.

Greetings LtKillroy! Please, be so kind as to explain how any of my posts are racist. This would be news to me, but I try to keep an open mind about such things.

it's more ultra-right fiscal conservative bs

granted this dude is a pretty funny joke account

Shucks Farah, that's below the belt. I expected something worthwhile from you.

I don't think JohnPaul_II is seriously going to debate this topic. I almost have a mind to lock this unless someone cares to take a stance of why they would agree with him. Otherwise it's just flamebating.

Ah! I see we have new staff... and one quick to the draw at that. Well met!

Now what makes you think I wouldn't debate a topic I started? My opinion is as stated. I don't mean to sound overzealous, but I am more than prepared to counter any arguments to the contrary. If indeed nobody cares to agree with me, that would be most unfortunate, but not against any rules.

Better to burn your money.

That would actually make the rich richer you idiot.

If there where less currency in circulation, the remaining currency becomes worth more. If you wanna make everyone poor, distribute fake money. That can bring down the whole economy.

Sorry bja888, but where did I say that I didn't want the rich richer?

Of course, I'd never actually burn my tax money. That would be illegal and stupid. I pay taxes like any decent human being. Although the thought does seem appealing... burning money instead of redistributing it to the poor.

[Smegma]

Do you want that on your conscience? That a strapping young man, one who could be making a decent living, is now using his time to procreate children raised in the poverty of government housing?

Why should this weigh on my conscience?

[PopeJohnPaul_II]

I'd like to know what he means by "weak". And as I said in the Welfare thread, there are some horrific abuses of the welfare system, but these are not the majority and overall it benefits society much more than it drains from it.

The weak choose to disregard their dreams and ambitions. They seek a simple life to replace a life worth living. The weak give up. Would you agree with that definition?

Do you want that on your conscience? That a strapping young man, one who could be making a decent living, is now using his time to procreate children raised in the poverty of government housing?

Why should this weigh on my conscience?

A fit man who could be making a living for himself instead chooses to raise his own children in poverty. He's capable of this because of our tax money. His lazy selfishness is supported by your tax money. That should most certainly weigh on your conscience, Smegma.

[Smegma]

A fit man who could be making a living for himself instead chooses to raise his own children in poverty. He's capable of this because of our tax money. His lazy selfishness is supported by your tax money. That should most certainly weigh on your conscience, Smegma.

This still doesn't get at the heart of the question, it just dances around it through ad infinitum. You state the situation again, more detailed, and say "this should weigh on your conscience".

I do not find this to be adequate proof.

[tehsnipah]

The weak choose to disregard their dreams and ambitions. They seek a simple life to replace a life worth living. The weak give up.

I'll be honest and get all out.

Are you seroius?! Why in the hell should WE give money to people who gave up on their dreams?! If the weak give up, then we shouldn't even give them a penny! And the government's digging our asses for taxes, giving OUR money to those weak? I don't know what you're thinking man.

[Kazuki]

I'd like to know what he means by "weak". And as I said in the Welfare thread, there are some horrific abuses of the welfare system, but these are not the majority and overall it benefits society much more than it drains from it.

The weak choose to disregard their dreams and ambitions. They seek a simple life to replace a life worth living. The weak give up. Would you agree with that definition?

Unless, of course, one's ambition is to lead a simple life.

I apologize for not having anything worth contributing, but I will say that it seems to me, o-mighty Pope, like you're being just a tad condescending.

[SDFilm]

I'd like to know what he means by "weak". And as I said in the Welfare thread, there are some horrific abuses of the welfare system, but these are not the majority and overall it benefits society much more than it drains from it.

The weak choose to disregard their dreams and ambitions. They seek a simple life to replace a life worth living. The weak give up. Would you agree with that definition?

Again, what do you mean by "weak"? Simply saying 'what the weak do' like that doesn't help much either, since those things are very vague and subjective. What would you say is 'simple', what is a live worth living, and what are they giving up?

Give details please. Simply saying that "we give money to weak people" doesn't say much, other than possibly an extreme prejudice against welfare receivers.

[bja888]

Better to burn your money.

That would actually make the rich richer you idiot.

If there where less currency in circulation, the remaining currency becomes worth more. If you wanna make everyone poor, distribute fake money. That can bring down the whole economy.

Sorry bja888, but where did I say that I didn't want the rich richer?

Of course, I'd never actually burn my tax money. That would be illegal and stupid. I pay taxes like any decent human being. Although the thought does seem appealing... burning money instead of redistributing it to the poor.

I see now, your wording is quite confusing. Your sentences at times sound pro socialist.

[STM1993]

What people really want is to lead a simple life. The reason why people are rich and own big businesses is because they wish to earn the money so that they won't have as much problems that are financially related, which makes their lives a bit simpler in this sense (but a bit harder in terms of the amount of work they do). Some people, on the other hand, just work like any common person in a smaller job with decent pay, because it makes their life simple rather than having to end up in a lot of complications.

About people who are "poor", there are only three reasons:
1. They're unable to work themselves - disadvantaged in some sense
2. They want to lead a simpler life, as said before
3. People are out to take advantage of everything

You're obviously stating the extreme end of Number 3 and talking about extreme cases of welfare. Of course there are idiots who would take advantage, so there are definitely measures against them. Although there will always be idiots no matter how many, the essential thing is whether something is truly helping or not. Everything has its pros and cons.

I have stated in another thread, that welfare is actually a good thing - it does help the poorer people worry less about their healthcare knowing that the government will handle it, so they can work to get the money and then be able to be independent, which is basically what the purpose of welfare should be. Of course, at this point of time, the government must also have the money to do so. It is after this period of time do a lot of people take advantage of the system, but just before this happens the system can be abolished and a new one be made, otherwise everything becomes ineffective. See? Everything is situational and has its pros and cons.



We shouldn't help people who don't wish to even work, but think about the people who wish to work but are unable to do so. Why do you want to abolish a system just because of the minority who take advantage of it (unless its really that serious)? If the system indeed is so ineffective, why was it set up in the first place? Why is it ineffective?

Why do you want to make the weak suffer more than they already are? If they are apparently weak, then shouldn't they should get some help so that they can become strong too?