LJ;872926 wrote:Well the problem is, let's say my wife and I both went broke. It would cost $400 to cancel our 2 cell phone lines, or we could pay the cheapest plan at like $55 per month and have the use of 2 phones. Obviously 1 of those choices is the much smarter financial decision.

Sonofanump;873087 wrote:It's a luxury item by both the normal definition and the economic definition.

$400 is how many weeks of food?

O-Trap;873250 wrote: So you're not a fan of people going out and pounding the pavement looking for work? Huh, I would have thought differently.

Scarlet_Buckeye;873303 wrote:But that's what's wrong with this economy... why are we entering ourselves into contracts that we can't afford?! You're saying it would cost you $400 to cancel your two cell phones. Why would you put yourself into that situation if there's even the chance that you might be forced to cancel and you couldn't afford it?

LJ;873339 wrote:It's wrong that I enter a contract that has a fee of $400 to cancel 2 cell phones I will never cancel? So it's also wrong to get a car loan? Or a mortgage? Because you know not many people can pay off their $100,000 mortgage if they lost their job.

Scarlet_Buckeye;873353 wrote:Why would you enter a contract that you're not okay with? I'm not trying to point fingers / push blame.... I'm simply curious as to why you would enter a contract if you're not okay with the $400 cancel fee? These things are hidden at the time you SIGN the contract?!

rydawg5;873368 wrote:if this thread is a reflection of how majority of a chritian society wants to help the poor or views the poor, then this country is going to crumble on itself.

i think the food stamp system is not well run nor is it efficient, but lets error on the side of helping those in need even if a few benefit who shouldnt

Scarlet_Buckeye;873380 wrote:You're bringing in ideals that not everyone shares the same belief in. The validity/realness of religion is debatable. Let's try to solve that issue another day. Today, we are trying to solve something tangible, something real - i.e., people wrongly mooching off of governmental aid programs.

Skyhook79;873388 wrote:I would much rather be part of a society that helps the poor and people who are out of work for whatever reasons vs being in a society, like many other countries, who do not help their poor and separate them from the rest of society. There is fraud and people who "game" the system in a lot of areas not just Food Stamp recipients. I agree efforts should be taken to eliminate as much fraud as you can in ANY Gov't program. Including Medicare, Pell Grants,Medicaid, Social Security and Fema recipients, Income tax etc,etc,etc. But to eliminate helping people totally is just plain wrong.

rydawg5;873393 wrote:You dont think you should regulate if they can have kids without YOUR permission?

Scarlet_Buckeye;873297 wrote:There's a huge difference between the two, and if you can't see it, then I don't know what to tell you.

For one, receiving Pell Grants is usually because the government sees you as a prospect and is trying to help provide you with the education you need to better yourself and make a decent income / wage so that you're not riding the welfare train for the next 10+ years.

HUGE difference, pal.

FatHobbit;873400 wrote:I don't care if someone wants to have kids. They don't need my permission. But if they can't afford the ones they have now, is it crazy to think maybe they shouldn't be popping out anymore? And maybe we shouldn't be rewarding them with more money when they do...

FatHobbit;873400 wrote:I don't care if someone wants to have kids. They don't need my permission. But if they can't afford the ones they have now, is it crazy to think maybe they shouldn't be popping out anymore? And maybe we shouldn't be rewarding them with more money when they do...

Skyhook79;873403 wrote:Maybe both Parents had jobs when they had the children and then found themselves unemployed during the 4 year recession like millons of people did??

FatHobbit;873400 wrote:I don't care if someone wants to have kids. They don't need my permission. But if they can't afford the ones they have now, is it crazy to think maybe they shouldn't be popping out anymore? And maybe we shouldn't be rewarding them with more money when they do...

rydawg5;873382 wrote:so disregard the principles this country was founded on?

Sonofanump;873414 wrote:Please expand. I am pretty sure you have no grasp on the principles this country was founded on.

Tobias Fünke;873254 wrote:No to restricting the use of phones. That's idiotic. While smartphones are ridiculous, so is the idea of cutting someone off from the outside world.

FatHobbit;873410 wrote:I'm fine with that. What many people have a problem with is people having more kids so they get more support. (I don't even know if that's a real or common problem, but that's what I was responding too.)

Sonofanump;873429 wrote:I don't care if they have a cell phone, it's their choice how they spend their money, just don't ask me to pay for their food if they can afford a luxury item.

Skyhook79;873401 wrote:No, receiving a Pell Grant is because you qualified for it because your income level is low. Same as Food Stamps. Should people who receive Pell Grants be allowed to have cell phones? Flatscreen TV's, Have children? Be drug tested?

rydawg5;873422 wrote:okay, Mufasa.