Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/6/2014 12:33:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2014 12:37:31 PM EST by crashburnrepeat]
I am not against tattoos, I think a lot of them look great and if someone wants tattoos, good on em. I also would hire an inky over a non-inky if their qualifications stood up

but this thread: Tattooed Trailer Trash is Murder Suspect got me thinking.

I also personally know about 6 people on welfare who have all manner of un-hide-able facial and neck tattoos. they are more, or less not good candidates for a normal position due to all the ink on their faces.


If you elect to make yourself un-employable, are you opting for a life of public assistance and should you be eligible?


Edited to add: assuming welfare exists at all. I agree no welfare is a better option. But assume under our current system.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:35:12 PM EST
Actually, the opposite should be true.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:36:01 PM EST
Just remove welfare all together and then you won't have these issues.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:36:27 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fatcat4620:
Actually, the opposite should be true.
View Quote



So no tattoos would DQ you from welfare? But a face full of ink and you're g2g?

I don't get it.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:36:45 PM EST
There are many things that might be good cause to disqualify a person form welfare. Which ignores the debate over amount and role of welfare in the first place. Un-hidable tattoos are not one of them in my opinion. It is possible to economically support yourself with such tattoos. Maybe not likely to as high of a level as without, but enough to avoid welfare.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:39:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:
There are many things that might be good cause to disqualify a person form welfare. Which ignores the debate over amount and role of welfare in the first place. Un-hidable tattoos are not one of them in my opinion. It is possible to economically support yourself with such tattoos. Maybe not likely to as high of a level as without, but enough to avoid welfare.
View Quote



well, this sort of makes my point. If you have facial tattoos, and are employable, nobody cares. But if you are covered in facial tats, and keep getting passed for jobs, I suspect at that point you have probably volunteered to not ever have a job.


and to your point, there are many conditions that might fall into this same category. Not showering, being hugely obese, never shaving, etc....
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:40:29 PM EST
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:43:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.
View Quote

How much do tattoos cost?
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:45:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.
View Quote


This.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:45:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fatcat4620:

How much do tattoos cost?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fatcat4620:
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.

How much do tattoos cost?



my feeling is this guy did not pay a lot for those tattoos.....

Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:45:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.
View Quote


Tattoos are an indicator of disposable income; someone receiving welfare (SNAP, EBT) should not have disposable income.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:45:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By crashburnrepeat:



well, this sort of makes my point. If you have facial tattoos, and are employable, nobody cares. But if you are covered in facial tats, and keep getting passed for jobs, I suspect at that point you have probably volunteered to not ever have a job.


and to your point, there are many conditions that might fall into this same category. Not showering, being hugely obese, never shaving, etc....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By crashburnrepeat:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
There are many things that might be good cause to disqualify a person form welfare. Which ignores the debate over amount and role of welfare in the first place. Un-hidable tattoos are not one of them in my opinion. It is possible to economically support yourself with such tattoos. Maybe not likely to as high of a level as without, but enough to avoid welfare.



well, this sort of makes my point. If you have facial tattoos, and are employable, nobody cares. But if you are covered in facial tats, and keep getting passed for jobs, I suspect at that point you have probably volunteered to not ever have a job.


and to your point, there are many conditions that might fall into this same category. Not showering, being hugely obese, never shaving, etc....


The face tats may be a manifestation in many cases. But they are not the cause. The refusal to get a job is he cause of not getting a job. Not the face tats.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:46:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fatcat4620:

How much do tattoos cost?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fatcat4620:
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.

How much do tattoos cost?


Really expensive. I bet trailer trash boy has $5,000 invested in his tattoos. A small, somewhat complicated tattoo with multiple colors can cost hundreds of dollars.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:46:03 PM EST
Things I think should disqualify people from welfare...

Citizenship, not born here no welfair for you.
Drug use
Turning down a real job.
Welfare fraud

Someone chooses to ink their face that's not not reason to disqualifie them
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:49:35 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.
View Quote


Tattoos don't have to cost a lot.


Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:58:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CDW4ME:


Tattoos are an indicator of disposable income; someone receiving welfare (SNAP, EBT) should not have disposable income.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CDW4ME:
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.


Tattoos are an indicator of disposable income; someone receiving welfare (SNAP, EBT) should not have disposable income.


For the most part. Never as easy as that though.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:02:56 PM EST
< neck ink, knuckle/hand ink.

Have an associates and I am currently working on my bachelor's degree.
Work full time, good salaried job not in food service, paying for school out of pocket.
No student loan debt.

Having said that, if you get your face tattooed, you're a f*cking idiot.

No job for you, no welfare for you.. go join the prison circus.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:04:02 PM EST
I'm not totally against tattoos. But I have a policy about face and neck tattoos if there is a total breakdown in law and order with no hope of recovery.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:10:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2014 1:10:54 PM EST by Pony151515]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By damcv62:


For the most part. Never as easy as that though.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By damcv62:
Originally Posted By CDW4ME:
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.


Tattoos are an indicator of disposable income; someone receiving welfare (SNAP, EBT) should not have disposable income.


For the most part. Never as easy as that though.


When I did sprint cs many moons ago there was a guy that would give himself tattoos on break with a homemade gun rigged from an ink pen.

I wonder if he is still alive. He was really smart at one point but then got into hard drugs like they were going out of style.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:13:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Just remove welfare all together and then you won't have these issues.
View Quote


I will go with this. Taxpayers shouldn't endlessly subsidize failure.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:17:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Just remove welfare all together and then you won't have these issues.
View Quote

Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:19:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By crashburnrepeat:
I am not against tattoos, I think a lot of them look great and if someone wants tattoos, good on em. I also would hire an inky over a non-inky if their qualifications stood up

but this thread: Tattooed Trailer Trash is Murder Suspect got me thinking.

I also personally know about 6 people on welfare who have all manner of un-hide-able facial and neck tattoos. they are more, or less not good candidates for a normal position due to all the ink on their faces.


If you elect to make yourself un-employable, are you opting for a life of public assistance and should you be eligible?


Edited to add: assuming welfare exists at all. I agree no welfare is a better option. But assume under our current system.
View Quote


This poll is FAIL.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:21:44 PM EST
OP, your really putting the cart before the horse here. Face tats are a symptom of poor decision making. They aren't unemployed because their face is inked, they are unemployed because they make bad choices.

Trust me, of the unemployed people I know with their face inked, their tattoos are the least of their worries. Irresponsibility, inability to deal with authority in a mature manner, not being able to following directions...ink or no ink, if you can't do that your not getting a job.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:24:09 PM EST
No even on America you have the right to be a Fuck head. I would be down for other reasons to DQ some of the freeloaders.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:27:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.
View Quote


QFT
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:42:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Just remove welfare all together and then you won't have these issues.
View Quote

Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:43:27 PM EST
I think some people add ink for emotional reasons like passing of a family memeber or birth of a new one, some as badge of honor, some are just for cosmetic and artistically done... And some are just stupid and never take on consideration the consequences, I have meet a couple o persons with tattoos on their neck and face and if I was the owner of a business I will never hire them because their appearance it's not up to what I want to show to my customers (unless you are running a freak show or a goth underground music store, then that will make my customers feel comfortable)...

People like that should don't qualify for any government funded assistance program, because deliberately they have modified their body on a manner that make them unfit for employment. (inappropriate tattoos, tattoos on large areas of the body that can't be cover, any excessive piercing or intentional scarring on face or hands that don't correspond to cultural, ethnic or religious reason).

Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:44:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By douglasmorris99:

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By douglasmorris99:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Just remove welfare all together and then you won't have these issues.


The FSA have voted their leader into office - and they will not tolerate anyone proposing to shut off the liberal flow of free money and benefits at the expense of those who work and pay taxes.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:00:16 PM EST
It should disqualify them. Presence or absence of a pulse should also be a disqualifier.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:01:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:04:54 PM EST
They give it to fat bitches and drug dealers. Why not dirty stinky inkies?
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:10:04 PM EST
I'm wondering how someone on welfare has the money to waste on new tattoos.

Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:17:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
All tattoos should disqualify inkies for all forms of government services and access, including voting.

... except of course for the free housing and meals available in the federal prison system.
View Quote


lol
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:21:31 PM EST
I am gonna get shit for this but I have a neck tattoo. I take xrays for a living. I own my home. Have cars and had some guns before I lost them in a tragic boating accident. Served 16 years in the army and guard. Never felt my ink got in the way of my success.

Shitbags are shitbags with or with out ink
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:23:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Riley1980:
< neck ink, knuckle/hand ink.
View Quote

Same here. No problem finding a job if I wanted one.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:24:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
All tattoos should disqualify inkies for all forms of government services and access, including voting.

... except of course for the free housing and meals available in the federal prison system.
View Quote

[head nodding] makes sense to me...




...but we working folk would still be paying for them ...
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:25:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Just remove welfare all together and then you won't have these issues.
View Quote



/thread
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:33:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:35:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CWO:


QFT
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CWO:
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.


QFT



I would do away with welfare completely, but...

By that logic, why not ban anyone that's ever eaten at a nice restaurant, smoked a cigarette, been to a movie theater or amusement park, or bought fireworks?
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:37:34 PM EST
I would vote "no", but the "everyone should get help, no matter what" keeps me from doing so.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:39:55 PM EST
Theres probably a direct relationship between facial tats and welfare.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:43:43 PM EST
You can have all the tattos you want and still collect Workfare which is what I would change the welfare system to for anyone that is able bodied.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:47:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CDW4ME:


Tattoos are an indicator of disposable income; someone receiving welfare (SNAP, EBT) should not have disposable income.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CDW4ME:
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.


Tattoos are an indicator of disposable income; someone receiving welfare (SNAP, EBT) should not have disposable income.


Absolutely.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:48:00 PM EST
The OP is well intended, but it's never a good thing to allow government to increase its Big Brother oversight even regarding people on unemployment.

Let's not forget that many people use unemployment for brief period of time during their lives for good purposes. It's not all dead beats, and if you've paid into the system for a LONG time and then find yourself laid off due to downsizing or something else I have zero issue with that person collecting unemployment while they look for another job. I'd rather you be allowed to put your money toward other things than have Big Brother force you to pay into unemployment and social security, but it is what it is.

Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:49:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2014 2:49:46 PM EST by jestice75]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Superq7:
No even on America you have the right to be a Fuck head. I would be down for other reasons to DQ some of the freeloaders.
View Quote


In America, you have the right to free shit because you're a fuck head?
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:50:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By vdub90vw:
Theres probably a direct relationship between facial tats and welfare.
View Quote



Correlation or causation?
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:50:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SilentType:
The OP is well intended, but it's never a good thing to allow government to increase its Big Brother oversight even regarding people on unemployment.

Let's not forget that many people use unemployment for brief period of time during their lives for good purposes. It's not all dead beats, and if you've paid into the system for a LONG time and then find yourself laid off due to downsizing or something else I have zero issue with that person collecting unemployment while they look for another job. I'd rather you be allowed to put your money toward other things than have Big Brother force you to pay into unemployment and social security, but it is what it is.

View Quote

Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:56:09 PM EST
Put drug testing in the welfare system then go into a more strict approach.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 2:58:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


The REAL problem with inkies is that their ink makes it harder to estimate how many "leather" briefcases you can get out of an average-sized person. After all, if you buying a nice expensive leather briefcase, you don't want a flaming skull or an ICP logo on it. A big back piece means that you pretty much have to only make wallets from that guy.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By RIP-Yataski:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
All tattoos should disqualify inkies for all forms of government services and access, including voting.

... except of course for the free housing and meals available in the federal prison system.

[head nodding] makes sense to me...

...but we working folk would still be paying for them ...


The REAL problem with inkies is that their ink makes it harder to estimate how many "leather" briefcases you can get out of an average-sized person. After all, if you buying a nice expensive leather briefcase, you don't want a flaming skull or an ICP logo on it. A big back piece means that you pretty much have to only make wallets from that guy.

I...um...ahh...wouldn't think the demand for these "leather" goods would be very high except probably to another inkie. What other tangents do you want to take this topic toward? I am curious...
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 3:02:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2014 3:10:55 PM EST by AR45fan]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Just remove welfare all together and then you won't have these issues.
View Quote


This.

In any case, tattoos aren't much of a problem when it comes to employment anymore. The public acceptance of ink has really changed in the past 20 years. Once up a time a neck or face tattoo meant the dude was a banger or something. Now suburban moms have their kids names on their necks. It just isn't a big deal anymore. Face tattoos are still somewhat taboo but you see them behind the counter sometimes.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 3:03:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By d16man:
People that can afford tattoos should not be on welfare.
View Quote


Tattoos are permanent. The economy fluctuates.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top