Update on the OP...this woman has lost her eligibility for food stamps. Apparently it wasn't legal, recipients are required to update the state of any change in financial circumstances. She probably wont be prosecuted but will have to pay back what she received.
PrintSmith wrote: Not greedy archer - entitled. She feels that she is entitled to the money because she doesn't see it as charity that is provided for those in need, she sees herself as entitled to the money because the state gives money to those who are unemployed to help them pay for their food. This is what happens when the charity of others becomes your right as a resident - when all sense of failing or embarrassment associated with being dependent upon the charity of others has been removed and replaced with the belief that you are entitled to their support. That others have an obligation to provide support for you, it is no longer a benevolent gift from them, it is their obligation to you, you have a right to that money.
Perfectly stated. I really don't think this young lady is greedy at all. In her mind she has a right to that benefit, and the fact that she has $500k and two houses means nothing. I believe she is a product of an increasingly egocentric society that continues to distance itself from anything resembling personal resonsibility or common sense.
PrintSmith wrote: Not greedy archer - entitled. She feels that she is entitled to the money because she doesn't see it as charity that is provided for those in need, she sees herself as entitled to the money because the state gives money to those who are unemployed to help them pay for their food. This is what happens when the charity of others becomes your right as a resident - when all sense of failing or embarrassment associated with being dependent upon the charity of others has been removed and replaced with the belief that you are entitled to their support. That others have an obligation to provide support for you, it is no longer a benevolent gift from them, it is their obligation to you, you have a right to that money.
Perfectly stated. I really don't think this young lady is greedy at all. In her mind she has a right to that benefit, and the fact that she has $500k and two houses means nothing. I believe she is a product of an increasingly egocentric society that continues to distance itself from anything resembling personal resonsibility or common sense.
Like I said.....that seems to be the pervasive attitude in this country no matter how much money you have. You can't legislate personal responsibility, and you can't fix greed, selfishness or entitlement. It's human nature, but I do find it very telling that some people can only recognize it in the lower classes who go after welfare, food stamps, and unemployment but fail to recognize it in the wealthy or in themselves.
archer wrote: What ever you want to call it...there are people in every economic circumstance that feel "entitled". The very wealthy who feel entitled to keep all their money and not contribute their fair share to the country that made that collection of wealth possible. There are middle class folks who feel entitled to cheat on their taxes . There are lower class people who feel entitled to take welfare without actively working to improve their circumstances.
And then there are people like you who feel entitled to tell everyone who disagrees with them that they are wrong.
When they are wrong, yes, I will express such without hesitation. Greed is an excessive and selfish desire to acquire something. Money, power, land - whatever it happens to be. I don't think this particular lady was acting out of greed, from all indications she was acting out of a sense of entitlement. When asked, she felt she was still eligible for that subsidy, even though she had just received half a million dollars, because she wasn't working. I don't see her as someone who was attempting to intentionally deceive for her own benefit - she honestly felt that she was still eligible to the subsidy because she wasn't working and that the state would have stopped sending it to her if she wasn't supposed to be getting it. She doesn't view the subsidy as charity from her fellow citizens, or a safety net, she views it as something owed to her by the state because she is unemployed. That is why I said it wasn't greed, it was entitlement. Words have actual meanings instead of invented ones. The two words are not synonymous.
And, truth be told, you feel just as entitled to tell others on this board they are wrong when they don't agree with you as you accuse me of being. That's OK by me - I don't mind reevaluating what it is that I have said when someone points out to me that they believe me to be in error. I am not so illiberal as to think that any opposition to my positions is also an opposition to me as a person.
PrintSmith wrote: And, truth be told, you feel just as entitled to tell others on this board they are wrong when they don't agree with you as you accuse me of being.
