WWTBAM Bored

Most here have probably seen this meme on Facebook that comes around every so often from liberal friends and it showed up recently again. It features a puffin and says words to the effect that "I would rather help 1,000 worthless bums rather than see one family go without food and shelter."

That math gets really really bad-really really fast.

If you want to help 1,000 families-you would then end up with 1,000,000 worthless bum.

If you want to help 10,000 Families (not an unreasonable position)-you would be helping 10,000,000 (ten million worthless bums)-

At that point-we start running out of money really, really fast for helping the next 10,000 families and the next 10,000 etc.

In liberal puffin world-why is it necessary to help the 1,000 worthless bums in the first place?-Can't we have a means to weed out those worthless bums from the welfare system and help the truly needy instead?

Spock wrote:"I would rather help 1,000 worthless bums rather than see one family go without food and shelter."

I have trouble seeing the upside of seeing one family go without food and shelter.

smilergrogan wrote:

Spock wrote:"I would rather help 1,000 worthless bums rather than see one family go without food and shelter."

I have trouble seeing the upside of seeing one family go without food and shelter.

Back to my basic question-why is it necessary to help 1,000 worthless bums to help 1 family. You are the big math guy-The math fails at some point here. On this planet, is there enough wealth to help 20,000,000 worthless bums in order to help 20,000 families?-200,000,000 million worthless bums to help 200,000 families?

Is it your position that there should be no attempt made to weed out (from the welfare system) those that are capable of work-but might need a little push? Would not that allow us to make maximum use of available resources to help those truly in need?

Spock wrote:

smilergrogan wrote:

Spock wrote:"I would rather help 1,000 worthless bums rather than see one family go without food and shelter."

I have trouble seeing the upside of seeing one family go without food and shelter.

Back to my basic question-why is it necessary to help 1,000 worthless bums to help 1 family. You are the big math guy-The math fails at some point here. On this planet, is there enough wealth to help 20,000,000 worthless bums in order to help 20,000 families?-200,000,000 million worthless bums to help 200,000 families?

Is it your position that there should be no attempt made to weed out (from the welfare system) those that are capable of work-but might need a little push? Would not that allow us to make maximum use of available resources to help those truly in need?

And that assumes that there are 1,000 worthless bums for every needy family.

It's a good thing Jesus isn't around today. Just think how many worthless bums wound up with some of his loaves and fishes.

The Republicans would tear him to ribbons.

Spock wrote:Most here have probably seen this meme on Facebook that comes around every so often from liberal friends and it showed up recently again. It features a puffin and says words to the effect that "I would rather help 1,000 worthless bums rather than see one family go without food and shelter."

That math gets really really bad-really really fast.

If you want to help 1,000 families-you would then end up with 1,000,000 worthless bum.

If you want to help 10,000 Families (not an unreasonable position)-you would be helping 10,000,000 (ten million worthless bums)-

At that point-we start running out of money really, really fast for helping the next 10,000 families and the next 10,000 etc.

In liberal puffin world-why is it necessary to help the 1,000 worthless bums in the first place?-Can't we have a means to weed out those worthless bums from the welfare system and help the truly needy instead?

It's not "logic" in the sense you're using the word. It's a way of saying that given a choice, the "liberal puffin" would rather help the 1000 than let 1 go without. It's like the argument against capital punishment - "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer" (Blackstone's Formulation). It isn't that there are an actual one thousand "bums" compared to one needy family.

Spock wrote:Most here have probably seen this meme on Facebook that comes around every so often from liberal friends and it showed up recently again. It features a puffin and says words to the effect that "I would rather help 1,000 worthless bums rather than see one family go without food and shelter."

That math gets really really bad-really really fast.

If you want to help 1,000 families-you would then end up with 1,000,000 worthless bum.

If you want to help 10,000 Families (not an unreasonable position)-you would be helping 10,000,000 (ten million worthless bums)-

At that point-we start running out of money really, really fast for helping the next 10,000 families and the next 10,000 etc.

In liberal puffin world-why is it necessary to help the 1,000 worthless bums in the first place?-Can't we have a means to weed out those worthless bums from the welfare system and help the truly needy instead?

Sure. Just like our criminal justice system doesn't need to release 1000 criminals to avoid convicting one innocent. --Bob

I want to use your money to support 1000 worthless bums because my government is not capable of distinguishing between the lazy and the needy.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I want to use your money to support 1000 worthless bums because my government is not capable of distinguishing between the lazy and the needy.

Here's a thought: The government gives welfare as a bribe so its recipients do go out committing crimes (or as many otherwise).

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I want to use your money to support 1000 worthless bums because my government is not capable of distinguishing between the lazy and the needy.

Here's a thought: The government gives welfare as a bribe so its recipients do go out committing crimes (or as many otherwise).

I'm sure that is just a slip up, Freudian or not. But a lot of crime is committed by the welfare collecting lazy no morals never "worked" a day in their life low lifes. Welfare is just another part of their lifestyle of scam and crime.

The mindset of that culture is truly unbelievable.

Relatives Of Killed 17-Year-Old Home Invader: How Else Is He 'Gonna Get His Money'?

BackInTex wrote:The mindset of a few members of that culture is truly unbelievable.

Relatives Of Killed 17-Year-Old Home Invader: How Else Is He 'Gonna Get His Money'?

Fixed that for you.

BackInTex wrote:The mindset of that culture is truly unbelievable.

Relatives Of Killed 17-Year-Old Home Invader: How Else Is He 'Gonna Get His Money'?

I prefer the Washington Post's version https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... e-charged/

We are talking about at least three different cultures here, maybe more. As far as I know, the denizens of the WWTBAM culture don't include any worthless bums, so we tend to look at things from a work for what you get perspective. And if we want to profit from some hard-won education by answering a few trivia/significa questions on a program that's only too happy to have us succeed, well, that's our choice.

But around here, we have a big problem with panhandlers, especially in the summer. In the winter, they generally migrate south to Phoenix or thereabouts. The local powers that be do a good job of separating out the people who really need help from the worthless bums, but that doesn't faze them. Why mess around with a welfare system, where you might have to get an actual job. As it is, their paid-for 2000 Toyota (still runs great) is parked about a block from the spot where they park their sorry carcasses with their "Will work 4 food" signs. They can make between $50 and $100 a day, tax free, plenty to buy a few groceries and gasoline and then drive on up into the national forest and camp free in a non-campground spot. Very bad for the environment, the tax rolls, the perception of safety by our visitors, and the cynicism of the locals.

The veterans with PTSD are a whole different issue and even more complicated. Anyway, this puffin deal is so much more complicated than it appears on its face, it's completely fallacious.