No shit? Really? That’s amazing. I’m not sure what in the hell it has to do with what I wrote, which was a sarcastic stereotyping of the poor in response to a moronic stereotyping of, well, the not poor I guess.
Read also, I will look for any excuse not to buy a healthy product. For christ’s sake, people in the fucking third world seem to manage a way to cook rice and beans and water; if you’re that bad off, then I don’t think any amount of state aid is going to help you.
I’m sorry, but you’re really reaching there.
Yeah, could you factor up bananas for me too? By the way, are you getting 100% of your caloric content from apples. Main caloric content is not supposed to come from fruits and vegetables you know? Of course by your metric, you should really be dropping the twinkies and just drinking canola oil straight; I imagine it has a much higher calorie to dollar ratio than twinkies.
Again, excuses.
Factual questions: I was under the (obviously erroneous, if the quote above is correct) impression that everyone on a food welfare program got the same monthly amount. How do they determine what that monthly amount is? Under what circumstances can that amount be reduced? What indicators are required?
I’m really enjoying some of the attitutudes I’m reading here. “I don’t look down on anyone; I treat everyone with respect…but they shouldn’t be able to buy what I can buy.” Yeah, baby, that’s what a free society is all about.
Maybe these mythical lobster and Twinkie buyers (and I’m calling them mythical because I sincerely doubt they’re as common as people are making them out to be) are getting all the rice, pasta, and beans they can stomach at the food shelf and buying other stuff at the grocery store. Maybe they have a garden and are capable of canning. Maybe they’re making poor decisions. Again - say it with me now - It. Doesn’t. Matter. Part of getting out of a hole is being given the power to make one’s own decisions, and making a decision about a fucking grocery list should be the onus of the consumer - not do-gooders who think they know better than the buyer.
I’m still pissed about the “Poverty must suck” comment. Jesus, in order to get anything resembling aid you must not only BE a failure, you have to go to a nice clean office downtown and explain to someone sitting at a desk that you ARE a failure. How much suckier do you want it to be? Maybe caseworkers should hand out hair shirts along with EBT cards. Would that make you happy?
Why do you call that reaching? Who do you think lives in those crappy little pay-by-the-week motels (Hint: It’s not people on vacation.)? Do you think those crappy little motels have cooking facilities?
And you’re wrong about state aid not being able to help them. It’s just that when governors cut things like programs that help people get into apartments they’re pretty much fucked.
The best way to fix poverty is flexibility, but no one wants to do that. A family shouldn’t have to deplete their life savings and go into poverty for medical care, but all too often that happens. A single mother shouldn’t have to go into the system because she can’t afford daycare on her WalMart job, but guess what’s getting cut in the President’s new budget? Absent fathers shouldn’t be able to duck child support payments by taking work that pays under the table, but they do (by the way, this is the largest category of people in need - kids that don’t get child support, I mean). The choice shouldn’t be “welfare or work”, it should be “welfare or education” or, even better, “welfare while you’re gaining an education”. That last program used to be available here in Minnesota, up to a four-year degree. Cut. Nutrition and budgeting classes? Cut. Child care classes? Cut.
Poverty is complicated. People get there for a million reasons, not all of them their fault. Two layoffs (extraordinarily common in company towns) and a kid with leukemia will do it; so will a family history of abuse and addiction. And some here not only want to make them feel worse, they also want to take away one of the few decisions they’re able to make on their own.
Well that comment needs some help to make you look a little less biased.
You need to include a link when you post something like that. What are the raw numbers of deadbeat dads? You were also asked earlier for a cite on selling the debit cards.
We buy nearly all of our produce at a separate store from most of our groceries. The produce is half or less of the price in the grocery store and is much fresher. The grocery store clerks must think we have a lousy diet. We are lucky to have such a store nearby. Most aren’t
What percentage of those are actually paying support but are being reported as not paying support by a jurisdiction who has their head up their asses? I’ve twice been categorized as ‘deadbeat’ as a result of bureaucratic stupidity by child support enforcement agencies. Child support enforcement is mishandled as often as handled correctly when enforcement crosses state lines, and usually it’s the noncustodial parent who gets the short end of the stick when this happens.
Weirddave,
Let me try again, then I quit. The very way you phrased your statement i.e. using the word “stupid” indicated that all you were about was a bit of self-congratulatory pud-cuffing.
Did you try to correlate poverty with lack of numerical skills? No.
Did you try to correlate poverty with lack of economic education? No.
Did you try to correlate poverty with any specific learning disabilities? No.
You drew a connection between people being poor and people being “stupid.” Stupid is an insulting, emotionally loaded term that has no clinical meaning. You might as well have said that some people are poor because they are poopie-heads.
You just wanted to preen and feel that you are superior to poor people intellectually as well as economically.
They’re poor.
You’re not.
Therefore, you must be smarter than they are.
Good day.
Here you go:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html
Missed the earlier request after some breakfast will get right on it.
I want a links for
I mean I can be lazy and not type that into google as well, how hard to type in “deadbeat moms” and find that yourself.
Thats a whole new rant , and yes I have to agree 100% with you.
Thank you.
Well, you’re new here. Get used to hearing “Cite?” And yes, you’re perfectly free to say it too. 
Telling someone to google a claim that you make isn’t going to win you any brownie points, especially when it doesn’t always work. You stated that there were quite a few drug dealers defrauding the government with EBT card scams and that google news would show that. I was actually willing to do the research myself, but it wasn’t effective in producing such a cite. I went to news.google.com and entered “EBT card fraud” (without the parentheses) and got a grand total of 3 hits, which weren’t about drug dealers. I added the term “drug dealers” (again without parentheses) and ended up with zero hits.
Once again, can I have a cite for this big fraud problem with the food stamp’s EBT program? I’ve acknowledged that fraud exists, but I’m guessing it is about as frequent as EBT lobster purchases, which you also thought was pretty rampant.
Since that was my comment, I’ll respond. You really need to complete the sentence: "but they shouldn’t be able to buy what I can buy unless they can afford to pay for it themselves. There’s a ton of things I can’t buy: a 3 million dollar house, a new Mercedes, a yacht, education at a private school for Matt and Jimmy, a Fabrege egg, 5 caret diamond rings, a helicopter, lobster for dinner weekly, the list goes on. Would I like those things? Absolutely. Do I expect society to give me money so I can get them? Absolutely not. Is that somehow a failure of our “free society”? No, just the opposite in fact.
I am greatly amused that all I have suggested is a generous limit on a small portion of the food stamp benefit and I’m getting reactions like I said “Let them eat cake”. Try looking at what I have actually said and then honestly ask yourself this question"If that proposal were enacted, would it really prevent anyone on food stamps from feeding their family healthy, nutritious foods?" I don’t see how anyone can honestly answer anything other than no.
I’ll try this once more as well. You seem to delight in telling me what I’m thinking, and again, you couldn’t be more wrong. I brought up the fact that some people are poor because they are stupid, and thus will remain poor, in response to one of the sub ideas of this thread: The solution to the poverty problem is for the government to give more classes, more education, more training, etc… I agree that these things are needed. However, I also realize that there is a portion of the chronically indigent for whom all the programs in the world are useless. These people are unable to be anything other than welfare cases, and I think that fact needs to be recognized. It’s not because I’m mean, it’s not because I’m smug, it’s not because I’m trying to put other people down, it’s because I recognize that we could spend a trillion dollars feeding, clothing, housing and training 90% of those people getting assistance, moving them on to productive jobs and better lives off the dole, and then spend ten times that amount and still never touch the remaining 10%. (All numbers invented for illustrative purposes) There is no panacea, no cure all, and people need to stop thinking that if we just throw more and more money at a problem, we can solve anything. We can’t.
Scylla, I apologize for calling you evil. I wrongfully based that on the words that you wrote. 
Seems to me like a lot of people responded to it. The problem is not that the poor are living too much of a cushy life, it’s that getting an entry level job often sucks far worse than getting benefits. Abbie had some excellent suggestions on how to fix this, which all involved increasing benefits, not cutting them.
I think you’re proceeding from a false assumption. You seem to think that a person who spends $5 on half a lobster is somehow getting more than a person that spends $5 on rolled oats. And that the lobster person is somehow taking more of your tax dollars. This is just bad math. If a person can live on half a lobster per day, and get more out of it than a bucket of rice and beans, then I say more power to him. He’s using the system to his advantage.
Once again, double check your math. $5 lobster meat is not more expensive than $5 rolled oats. If I am truly needy, and I choose to spend my alloted $5 on stake instead of rice and beans, who exactly have I stolen from?
And here we come to it at last. I can only think of three reasons why anyone would want to restrict food choices. They are:
-
Because it will cost taxpayers less money. Wrong, as we have seen. $5 worth of shellfish costs exactly the same amount as $5 worth of bread.
-
Because it is more compassionate to the poor. Wrong again. While the no-choicers pay bare lip service to compassion, the overwhelming reasons for their position has been to limit the “cheats and frauds.” This is not compassion, it is punitive assholery.
-
You said it yourself – Ethics. Translation, Morals. You want to impose your moral beliefs on others. You want to take the fact that you wield some sort of moral high ground over these people and lord it over them.
If I’m wrong about this, then please let me know. Because after reading this entire thread, that’s the only conclusion I can reach.
At $5 per day, how much lobster do you estimate people are cheating the government out of?
The problem I have is with your objections is the extremes. No one is saying that people on assistance should be able to have exactlythe same spending power as people who work and quite frankly they don’t. No one is saying Mercedes, or yachts, or diamond rings. What’s being said is, if they have $5.00 to spend on food, why do you care if they spend $5.00 on lobster or rice and beans?
Your underlying objection appears to be based on resentment that some guy on assistance can buy the same type foodthat you can buy; which seems incredibly petty to me…based on your inability to purchase a Fabrege egg or a luxury car.
It’s crazy…ask yourself this, If you could right now switch places with a person receiving assistance, with ALL the benefits they receive, would you? This isn’t a question of morality or work ethic or pride, but simply their benefits verus what you have now.
I don’t know about you, but I’ll take my lousy healthcare, commute and house repairs, over free healthcare, government housing and EBT cards any day.
I don’t envy them at all.
I will only site examples that I know from first hand experience. These examples are people that I manage. One individual came to me a few monthes back and told me he would have to quit. He was a good reliable hardworker. When I asked him why
he pulled me into the office and told me in a low whisper that he recieved assistance.
He was very ashamed.
“Please don’t look down on me!” he said.
I told him I didn’t care and asked If could elaborate. He explained that the only thing
he got from the gov. was a voucher for child care so he and his wife could both work.
The little he made part time working for me cancelled out the voucher. It did not pay him to work. the dollars were a wash. He might as well spent the the time with his child
A second Individual had 2 children, a wife and 1 on the way he also worked hard and was reliable. He received full gover. assistance. He got food stamps, wick, section eight housing, the medical card, he even got a car through welfare. I will have to admit that this individual was not very bright in a Forest Gump kinda way. I did what I could to make sure that this individual got the training he needed and recommened him for promotion. He eventually took over my job when I moved on to another division.
I will only site examples that I know from first hand experience. These examples are people that I manage. One individual came to me a few months back and told me he would have to quit. He was a good reliable hard worker. When I asked him why
he pulled me into the office and told me in a low whisper that he received assistance.
He was very ashamed.
“Please don’t look down on me!” he said.
I told him I didn’t care and asked if he could elaborate. He explained that the only thing
he got from the gov. was a voucher for child care so he and his wife could both work.
The little he made part time working for me cancelled out the voucher. It did not pay him to work. The dollars were a wash. He might as well spend the time with his child.
A second individual has 2 children, a wife and 1 on the way. He also worked hard and was reliable. He received full Gov. assistance. He got food stamps, wic, section eight housing, the medical card; he even got a car through welfare. I will have to admit that this individual was not very bright in a Forest Gump kinda way. I did what I could to make sure that this individual got the training he needed and recommended him for promotion. He eventually took over my job when I moved on to another division.
At Thanksgiving time the second individual informed me that his in-laws were coming for Thanksgiving dinner. He asked me if he could open the store and have a few pizzas for dinner. I asked why and he told me that neither he nor his wife knew how to cook. Anything! Being a chef, I offered to help him out. Turkey, dressing and what not is not that hard to prepare. I figured I could show them how and they would get a good meal and learn some valuable skills. Knowing his situation, the next question I asked was how much do you have budgeted for dinner. Even though a Thanksgiving meal can be prepared inexpensively I was prepared to cover some of the cost. I about shit when he informed me he had $350 left to use up before the end of the month. I asked him what they usually ate. He said they pretty much lived off of hamburger helpless and other boxed or prepared foods.
A few months go by and thanks to his hard work and a recommendation from me he receives his promotion. I see him at a meeting and I tell him that I am putting together a computer for him so he can do his scheduling and other office work more easily. My jaw hit the fucking floor when he informed me that he just bought a brand new pc (one that can play first person shooter games), and a digital camera. He also treated the family to a shopping spree at the mall.
Apparently he got his income tax return. Two days later, his piece of shit car blew up. Now his job is in jeopardy due to lack of transportation. He is broke.
Both of these situations piss me off for different reasons. Individual number one, in my opinion, is welcome to yours/my money to help him better his station in life and completely get off the system. I don’t feel his benefits should be unlimited but it doesn’t seem right to offer a drowning man a hand and then pull it away while he is getting in the boat.
Individual number two will never improve his lot in life until he realizes that being an American entitles you to nothing. I don’t want to restrict his choices or tell him what he can and can’t buy with yours/my money. I want him to have more choices. I would like him to be able to buy, say, a cheaper cut of meat because he knows how to prepare it and use the remaining funds for something else. I would like to show him how to perform simple repairs on his automobile so he can use the money he would normally give a mechanic to buy something his family needs or god forbid bank it. I would like to show him that the “Sam’s choice” jacket at wal-mart will keep him just as warm as the Ralph Lauren from the mall. But he wants none of this. His way is “easier”. The sad part is, not only does the system facilitate this, but his three kids will learn by example and in turn help perpetuate the system.
By the way, I worked for several years at a grocery store and I never saw one person on food stamps buy steak or lobster or much meat at all. They mainly bought high priced frozen meals or junk food. And why not. The allotment for food does not “roll over” every month you either use it or loose it.
I don’t want anyone on disability to suffer or live a degrading life style.
I don’t want any mentally challenged person to suffer.
Any person who had shots fired at them in anger for their country can have whatever I got. (and it will never be enough in my opinion)
Scylla was brutally frank. I do agree with everything he said for the most part people need to understand there are no entitlements. It is their responsibility to do whatever they can to improve their station in life and instill that in their children. I can see both sides of the issue. I don’t want anyone to starve but at the end of the day the only person that is looking out for you is you.
Scylla, while I think that I have touched on this, I will go ahead and address it straight on. I have stated that it is a foolish, foolish thing to essentially punish people for working. I 100% agree with you (and have said as much) when you say that given the choice between working 80 hours a week just to have enough money to be broke, and being on the dole and having it better that the choice totally obvious.
Further, I cannot say that I disagree with the basic sentiment that the worst standard of living for those that are working should be better than the standard of living for those that are on the dole. That said, I am curious to see how you would go about making this happen.
As I see it, there really are only two options; either we raise the standard of living for the working poor, or we lower the standard of living for the folks on public assistance. Practically speaking, I don’t see how you can do either. Try to raise minimum wage, or somehow include the working poor in some benefits now exclusive to those that don’t work and the folks on the right will have an aneurysm. Try to lower the standard of living for folks on welfare and the folks on the left will do the same. I am open to suggestions though.
Also, Abbie Carmichael RE: your post #220. I read your post as using Democrat and Liberal synonymously. I just want to take a moment to mention that this is really far from true. As a side note that your post reminded me of, I find it interesting that the Democratic party seems to have taken over the role of being fiscally responsible and yet the Republicans are still somehow managing to make the “tax and spend” label stick. Talk about having a well oiled spin machine.