I'm not...so which one of you five are getting them?

HORSESHIDT this time, ....... you have never thought anyone to be witty on these Forums and thus have never given anyone credit for having a sense of humor.

And you sure as hell wouldn't give me credit for said anymore than you would give Hagdorn credit for his humor.

GEEEZUS, you would rather take poison ......... than give either of us credit for anything relative to a misstatement by you or your ignorance of a subject.

Says you, Sam.

It is all right there in the thread.

I just don't find the preacher Terry funny or witty. Much of what he posts is recycled god-mail (e-mail) anyway.

Like I said, I thought you were being witty. I was wrong. It won't happen again. Why do you get off the subject and into nitpicking?

Is it that your arguments are weak, or is it that you would just rather make it personal?

TerryRC wrote:I think this is no different than affirmative action. The institution itself is highly suspect, but if you qualify, you might as well use it. I think this way particularly because of all of the abuse--if someone is actually going to use WIC on food for mom and the kids, or food stamps on food rather than vodka, then I would rather they do so, whether going hungry or not, given that so many abuse the system.

Sheik, if people that do not really need the system avoid using it, even if they qualify, it frees up money for those that do, no? Even if some of the extra money does go to abusers of the system, the rest of it gets to the needy.

Greed is bad. I don't take things I don't need just because someone offers it to me. That sort of behavior has a way of enslaving a man.

I would say that abuses of the system cost the system more than people using it who "don't really need it."

I'm not saying that social welfare should remain as it is; far from it, in fact. I would replace all social welfare with a negative income tax, and beyond that, it's on the charities. However, I'm saying that as long as the programs exist and that someone actually fits into the category, they might as well use it, no differently than any of us who may cash the rebate check even if we find the rebate unwise.

I'm not saying that social welfare should remain as it is; far from it, in fact. I would replace all social welfare with a negative income tax, and beyond that, it's on the charities. However, I'm saying that as long as the programs exist and that someone actually fits into the category, they might as well use it, no differently than any of us who may cash the rebate check even if we find the rebate unwise.

With a rebate, you are getting back what is yours.

Taking things that are not needed does put a drain on the system, even if it doesn't cost as much as abuses.

It also makes for bad habits... kids see their parents taking unnecessary things and grow up thinking that sort of behavior is acceptable. How many years does it take before they look at this aid as an entitlement?