Soda for Food StampsFollow

Irrelevant. Did you also, during the time period you received food stamps, continue to pay for your car and insurance? if you had not received food stamps and were forced to choose between paying for your car and starving to death, which would you have chosen? Assuming you would have dropped the car payments prior to actually starving to death, then we can conclude that what the food stamps really did was allow you to both buy food *and* keep your car. Clearly, if you'd just stopped paying for the car, you'd have had $800/month more money. I'm assuming that you could easily have purchased enough food to avoid starvation with that.

It was about a choice for you, not a necessity. Which is what I've been saying all along. The food stamps allowed you to obtain what you needed (food) and what you wanted (a car). You could easily have afforded food if you'd been willing to give up the car. But you didn't. That was a choice.



Yes. A choice. You choose to go hungry rather than give up other things. See how my point about people making irrational choices is valid?



You survived for 4 months without any food? Assuming you didn't, then food stamps were not actually necessary for you to obtain food. Maybe not as much as you would have liked, but then there's that pesky business of $800/month you could have had if you'd sold your car (plus the cash for selling the car).



Ok. Maybe you meant 4 weeks in that earlier sentence then? Either way, you made a choice. I'm assuming you didn't actually eat zero food in that first month (nearly two). You just didn't have as much as you'd have liked. I'll again point out that this was a choice you made. I'm not even saying it was the wrong choice. I'm just saying that it was one.

I'll ask again though. If things had really gotten bad, and you were really hungry and weren't getting enough food, would you have stopped paying for the car, or just allowed yourself to become weak with hunger until you could no longer get out of bed and then die? I'm assuming at some point you'd have made the choice to get rid of the car payment well prior to actually dying from hunger. Which is why I keep saying that it was a choice, and that food stamps enabled you to both buy food *and* keep your car.



I may have missed your question. What was it again?



Huh? Are you claiming that I directly said that food stamps were people? I'm kinda at a loss as to how to even respond to this bit.

Edited, Jan 9th 2013 6:18pm by gbaji

I said question but it was me wanting an answer more then phrasing that as a question.

Instead of quote directly just gonna save space. I spent two months, 8 weeks, paying for food, rent, my car, insurance. At that point the money I arrived with and what I was earning would not have kept me: employeed, with meds, food and a place to sleep. You are an idiot for thinking that me giving up my car would be the smart choice. Explain how a person would get around to earn the money, in my case Montana, to eat and pay bills. I starved, obviously not to death and so assuming starving means you die without question is just genius.

My choice to starve myself before, not just when I moved, was stupid how exactly. Seeing as I helped to take care of three younger siblings and my disabled mother while me and my dad worked our asses off is irrational how. Get your head out of your *** and enter the real world.



You placed the blame on an inanimate object. It can not think, act, speak, do a thing. Living beings can however. You're responces all continue to support that food stamps are people. Food stamps are liable/to blame for people making "irrational" choices.

See sig.

I went from earning roughly 2 grand a month, not on any govt assistance, easily afforded the 1600ish a month in bills I had. Moved across the country, one friend and her husband the only people I knew there and had it rough for a short while. 27 years of being a diabetic, never in the hospital for complications. My health is better then it should be. Blood test always showed I was within the parameters that doctors want for people in general.

As for mental health, can't clarify or deny any of that. I only take insulin for meds. Never had problems, other then extreme low blood sugar, dealing with anything on a mental level. I suffered for short periods of time which were far between and came out of it all.

For what its worth, I never followed a damn diet for my diabeties. I eat candy randomly, stuff myself full of carbs, no greenier as I just don't like it. My eye sight has remained the same and I have no complications related to diabeties. So yeah I am a wreck.

Instead of telling us what you went "from", why not tell us what you went "to"? How much were you earning while still paying $800/month for a car and insurance? And frankly, even when you were making $2k/month, $800/month on a car and insurance is way way way too much. That's about what you should be paying for housing at that income rate (housing ideally being about half or less of your income if you can manage it). It sounds like you were making some really poor spending choices even before this change. But when you moved, you continued to spend money on the least necessary expense and went without on the most important.

You didn't need food stamps. You needed to take a home economics class.

Edited, Jan 9th 2013 7:28pm by gbaji

Now I am back in FL at the job I left. Got a raise and something of a promotion. Work in a warehouse in the office mostly so less hours. I bring home now 2200 a month and bills are about the same 1700. Slightly hirer rent, living in an apartment that allows my gf to ride the bus to and from campus.

I did make alot of stupid choices growing up. Which is why I left everything and everyone I grew up.

.



Did you reread your awesome cite full of facts you used to derive your laughable conclusion from yesterday yet by the way?

When I was 21 or so, the insurance company I was with wanted me to pay about 400 dollars a month for just PLPD (Michigan's term for just Liability and Property Damage, bare bones insurance). It started out high, when I first started driving with them in High School, and increased every year for no reason other than they could. I remained accident free and moving violation free. I didn't even have any parking violations, even though those don't count against you. You act as though insurance companies trying to charge outrageous prices for basic coverage to young drivers is unusual?

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 7:02am by TirithRR

While I do think Gbaji makes a relatively decent point about the high expense of your vehicle, you are absolutely correct that cars in this day and age are pretty much a necessity. If you live somewhere without public transportation anyways

A car, yes, a car that costs you $45,000 over 5 years, somewhat less so.

Sure, you've said you've observed the data, but have never provided any evidence of such. The most recent being the "the election is going to be really close" arguments where your observed data made you absolutely certain how well Romney was doing, regardless of what all the actual data was saying.

This.

A used Lexus.

Lower middle class, Jophiel!.


Edited, Jan 10th 2013 11:56am by Bijou