greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 17
th, 2013 at 10:44am:
Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 17
th, 2013 at 10:33am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 17
th, 2013 at 10:22am:
Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 17
th, 2013 at 10:19am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 17
th, 2013 at 9:37am:
Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 17
th, 2013 at 9:32am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 17
th, 2013 at 9:22am:
Quantum wrote on Aug 16
th, 2013 at 8:24pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16
th, 2013 at 6:12pm:
Quantum wrote on Aug 16
th, 2013 at 5:51pm:
Money given is different to money earned. An employer can't tell an employee how to spend their money because they have worked for it. A government can put conditions onto money it gives out.
Really?
And who made this rule?
The government gives the money in a form of a voucher, therefore limiting the spending of the payment to only that which the government has designated the payment for. The government already does that right now for a variety of things.
Vouchers are not money. They have monetary value, however, they are not money.
Same diff.
In that case, you would have no problem at all if your employer paid you in vouchers?
"Same diff", right?
I WORKED, PAID TAX and EARNED my money.If someone GIVES ME A HANDOUT .. then they also have the right to tell me how they want it used. ^^^ 2 very different scenarios.
It's quite sad that you
can't grasp this .. or is it that you just don't
want to?
Yes, 2 very different scenarios: vouchers are
not money.
Glad you finally agree.
Ahh right, so it's
denial AND poor comprehension on YOUR part. By all means .. do carry on.
I'll check back later (to see just how severe your condition is).
Are you still trying to argue that vouchers and money are, as you so wonderfully described it, "
same diff"?
Are you
really, Lisa?
This is why no one bothers to discuss anything with you Greggery, because there is nothing to actually discuss. All you do is try to grab one word and then make an issue out of it. This time it is the case of what is actually money.
Governments help people financially in one of three ways.
1: They give a service at a massively reduced cost or even for free.
2: They put money directly into someone's bank account (or give cash, but I believe this has now stopped for everything now.)
3: They give some form of voucher or cheque that can only be used at certain locations or for certain items/services.
Your entire argument for several pages now is that the third one is not actually money but only something that has monetary value. How is that technicality got anything to do with whether governments can control the financial assistance that they give?
Of course no government can control how someone spends their money. To do so would require hiring someone to follow around the welfare receiver to monitor and control ever cent they spend. It is an impossibility which defies common sense. Of course the control on how people spend their money would have to be in the form of vouchers or through some form of card that has restrictions on it. Whether a government can do that or should do that in regards to the dole has nothing to do with what technically constitutes as "money".
Whenever the discussion about some form of food voucher has been discussed as a way to avoid people on welfare spending their money on things that are not helpful, people such as Kat have argued that the government has no right to tell people how to spend their money. In fact my first post was in reply to this;
"
Why do some people persist with this idea that we should have the right to dictate how they spend their money."
see the highlighted word? "Money". So why didn't you run in and say;
"
Actually Kat, if the government was to control what people spend by changing how they financially assist people it would not technically be money any more. Therefore the government would not actually be telling people how they spend their money, they would just be giving them a different form financial assistance. After all, if they gave them for example food vouchers instead, they would not be controlling how they spend their money. That is because as we all know, a voucher isn't actually money".
But of course you would never do that. It is only when people respond to that position that you have this need to pull the conversation off to avoid actually dealing with the heart of the discussion.
There are some people on this forum that drag conversations off topic because they are idiots. You're not an idiot. You look down at others and treat them like idiots, but you self are clearly not like some of the morons on here who can't understand the simplest of points. Why do you therefore drag topics off over stupid little things that have nothing to do with the point being made? What joy do you get in just smacking up discussions without any goal to achieve? No one but you and a couple of dribbling feet clapping fools ever finds this from of discussion impressive.
Forum
Pages: 
They Are Simply Too Poor To Eat Meat. (Read 22976 times)
