Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If the government paid you $750 per homeless person, per day. How many would you house, feed and clothe? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KCitons
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
Again...room for 3-4. This one is more realistic as I've actually done this before
KCitons
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Then asking people how many homeless people or asylum seekers they would take in, has nothing to do with money?
The Commish
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
I wasn't. I was asking (not necessarily you) if it was the money, or the satisfaction of helping, that made people want to house those in need?That's for the individual to answer. You can't project my actions onto others
The Commish
Footballguy
Glad you clarified. I'd have never guessed this is what you were asking based on what you typed and what you were replying to.
KCitons
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Are you suggesting a "city"? Where all these people would have a safe place to wait while they work through the process?
The Commish
Footballguy
you're guessing wrong. I'd have never guessed you were asking
when you said
in response to my telling you I wasn't paid anything. If the bold was what you wanted to know, its probably much simpler just to ask that.
KCitons
Footballguy
I could have assumed that you didn't get paid. But, I wanted to make sure I didn't overstep. (since you hate when I do that).
Which leads me to my question. It's not about the money. So, the $750 number is irrelevant. Why not make it $7.50 or $75,000?
Once you remove the money from the equation, the poll (in both threads) is flawed. People aren't suggesting they would do it for the money, they would do it to help. If they are doing it just for the money, then it comes down to profit. Who says that a percentage of those people take the $750 a day and still not give their "guests" a toothbrush?
Seems like it's a comparison of compassion and greed. They can't live in the same house.
The Commish
Footballguy
Again....you are projecting onto others my motivations. It might require money from others. So my anecdotal answer is irrelevant to the population as a whole and certainly doesn't negate the poll. It's only "not about the money" in my case. I have no idea where the rest of this post is going even understanding the false premise it's built on.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
I'm not projecting anything. I covered both sides of the equation in my last post. Greed and Compassion.
I didn't say you were doing it out of greed, did I? I didn't say everyone was doing it out of compassion. I said that you can't have it both.
I think you are way too sensitive to have a honest conversation.
Have a nice day.
supermike80
Footballguy
$750/day? That's a lot of $$
KCitons
Footballguy
Is it?
What happens is one of them is ill? Or pregnant?
You would have to pay the medical bills out of that $750 per day.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm going back to answer your question...maybe you'll understand what I am saying if I do that.
You can make the dollar amount whatever you want....it's irrelevant to me other than it being a "bonus" to help out. As in, "I love helping people out the best I can. That you're going to pay me $X is simply the cherry on top and not necessary"
Don't know....doesn't apply to me
Don't know what this means.
Hope that clarifies it.
supermike80
Footballguy
What if they won the lottery? They would give me some I hope right?
Whatever man..If you wanna throw out what if's all day then sure..Not worth it..Ever---for any reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
The poll in both threads is flawed because the key factor in determining if someone would take in a homeless person, or an asylum seeker, is either money or compassion. We don't know which factor is more important to those that are voting yes. (we do know that neither is a factor for those voting zero).
If the money (greed) is the only factor for taking these people in, then you have to assume a sliding scale of service that will be delivered. Because greed can overcome compassion. (we see it all the time). Without a breakdown of the number of voters that are choosing money as the only factor, we don't know if they are any better than the private companies that are running these facilities. We'd be left with 1 compassionate person and 10 greedy people. Good luck taking care of people with that ratio.
If the money (greed) is the only factor for taking these people in, then you have to assume a sliding scale of service that will be delivered. Because greed can overcome compassion. (we see it all the time). Without a breakdown of the number of voters that are choosing money as the only factor, we don't know if they are any better than the private companies that are running these facilities. We'd be left with 1 compassionate person and 10 greedy people. Good luck taking care of people with that ratio.
KCitons
Footballguy
The whole premise of the thread is "what if". The government isn't going to give taxpayers $750 a day to house anyone.
Make sure you stop in to the other thread and tell @Henry Ford to stop the "what ifs" as well.
supermike80
Footballguy
Why?
The whole premise of the thread is "what if". The government isn't going to give taxpayers $750 a day to house anyone.
Make sure you stop in to the other thread and tell @Henry Ford to stop the "what ifs" as well.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
You're saying I would get paid $273,750 a year to take in a homeless person? I think I could afford if they get sick or pregnant on that amount of money. My wife and I could quit working and just help homeless people for a living then.
KCitons
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Because it's nearly the exact same thread/poll. I just changed it to homeless instead of immigrant.
You are complaining about what ifs. The whole thing is a what if.
KCitons
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
Why would I want to go into another thread when this one is an exact same thread/poll?
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Probably because you see a difference between immigrants from another country and homeless people that already live here?
That our you want to argue with me.
I'm guessing a little bit of both.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
For $750 it would mostly be for the money. Being able to help another person would just be a bonus.
supermike80
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Interesting.
@The Commish stated the opposite.
Do you think that someone that does it for money, would try to squeeze as much profit out of the situation as possible?
KCitons
Footballguy
Probably not.
You want to complain about what ifs, when the entire premise of both threads is based on what if.
When you go to a steakhouse, do you complain about there only being steak on the menu?
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
I'm sure some people would. There are a lot of crappy people in the world. I would not. If I'm going to take someone is then I'm going to take care of them.
As for someone dying I think it would be wise to take out an insurance policy to protect yourself from anything like being sued.
supermike80
Footballguy
I want to post that $750 is a good amount of money per day. Then you came up with all your crap just trying to argue. Then you told ME I wanted to argue. Seek help man
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
Of course you do. What the hell kind of steakhouse do you go to that only has steak on the menu. There are always sides and other options.
supermike80
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
You seem to confuse discussion with arguments.
Everyone assumes that there would be no other costs involved. I was pointing those "what ifs" out. I was also trying to show the issue with greed and profits. If you had something happened that cut into your profits, would you need to give less to the next group in order to improve your profits?
For some, we are past the point of not doing this for profit. If that was the case, someone would have said that they would do it for $375, $200, $100 or free. It's a business proposition. Nothing more. And we know businesses screw their customers in the name of profit.
supermike80
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
That is absolutely not true for all businesses.
You seem to confuse discussion with arguments.
Everyone assumes that there would be no other costs involved. I was pointing those "what ifs" out. I was also trying to show the issue with greed and profits. If you had something happened that cut into your profits, would you need to give less to the next group in order to improve your profits?
For some, we are past the point of not doing this for profit. If that was the case, someone would have said that they would do it for $375, $200, $100 or free. It's a business proposition. Nothing more. And we know businesses screw their customers in the name of profit.
Similar threads
