Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#102 Jan 03 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Well, this thread got away from me... that was a lot of posting since last I looked. Can't be bothered to follow it anymore.


But that Lexus comment was rich, though.
#103 Jan 03 2013 at 6:44 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,339 posts
gbaji wrote:
You want to debate the mortgage tax deduction, by all means start a thread on that. But that has no bearing on whether or not I should be ok with my tax dollars paying for someone to buy things that are not necessities.
No, we can do this here. See, your tax deduction is supported by my taxes and I think that's ********* You don't need that deduction and others are subsidising it. Get it now?




Screwtape wrote:
Given that the IRS not only did not charge me with any crime, but instead paid me back for all the extra money I paid them, I don't think your opinion really counts.
You screwed up ( or deliberately were fraudulent ) with your taxes. The fact that you wiggled out of it is irrelevant.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#104 Jan 03 2013 at 6:45 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
And it never crossed your mind for two seconds that in order to stretch what food budget they have that sometimes a "meal" for the kids is cheap soda, because it's effective at making the kids feel full?

So does water...just sayin'.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#105 Jan 03 2013 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,339 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Well, this thread got away from me... that was a lot of posting since last I looked. Can't be bothered to follow it anymore.


But that Lexus comment was rich, though.
If Mencia was that funny he'd still have a show.

Kastigir wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
And it never crossed your mind for two seconds that in order to stretch what food budget they have that sometimes a "meal" for the kids is cheap soda, because it's effective at making the kids feel full?

So does water...just sayin'.
Carbonated water does the filling part better and the sugar gives the feeling of actually being fed something...just sayin'
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#106 Jan 03 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
I guess for me the cut off between "working poor" and "lower middle class" was whether you owned the house you lived in. Working poor don't get mortgages.

I didn't understand the concept of landlords until I was seven or eight, and that was because a friend was shocked we didn't have one.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#107 Jan 03 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You want to debate the mortgage tax deduction, by all means start a thread on that. But that has no bearing on whether or not I should be ok with my tax dollars paying for someone to buy things that are not necessities.
No, we can do this here. See, your tax deduction is supported by my taxes and I think that's bullsh*t.


There's a nearly infinite number of variations on this though. I pay a higher tax rate than you do, which subsidizes your lower rate. That's BS! Wait you say! It's fair because if I made more money, I'd pay that higher rate too! Sure. And if you owned a home, you'd get the mortgage deduction. This is a completely pointless exercise. We could discuss the innate unfairness of wheat subsidies if you'd like, but it would also have no bearing on the actual issue at hand.

Quote:
You don't need that deduction and others are subsidising it. Get it now?


Do you? The question of "need" is relevant when discussing what one person should give to another. It is not relevant when discussing what should be taken from someone else. At least, not in a free society. You don't "need" free speech to live, yet we still place great value on not taking it from us. Failing to grasp the difference between taking something someone has and giving them something they don't have means you've failed to grasp the most basic concept of a free society.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Jan 03 2013 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
This thread made me realize that if my husband takes too long to recover, I might be on food stamps. Smiley: frown

Totally off topic but start the SSDI process now if you haven't already. He might get SSI while waiting and when he does get SSDI they will deduct the amount of SSI received from the SSDI settlement which goes back to the point your husband first became disable in his case the day of the stroke.

Yeah, going to be working on that next week. Wheee.
#109 Jan 03 2013 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Nadenu wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
This thread made me realize that if my husband takes too long to recover, I might be on food stamps. Smiley: frown

Totally off topic but start the SSDI process now if you haven't already. He might get SSI while waiting and when he does get SSDI they will deduct the amount of SSI received from the SSDI settlement which goes back to the point your husband first became disable in his case the day of the stroke.

Yeah, going to be working on that next week. Wheee.

Good luck! How is he doing, btw?
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#110 Jan 03 2013 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
And it never crossed your mind for two seconds that in order to stretch what food budget they have that sometimes a "meal" for the kids is cheap soda, because it's effective at making the kids feel full?

So does water...just sayin'.

I used to buy into that "drink water so you're not hungry" crap. It's crap.
#111 Jan 03 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
catwho wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
This thread made me realize that if my husband takes too long to recover, I might be on food stamps. Smiley: frown

Totally off topic but start the SSDI process now if you haven't already. He might get SSI while waiting and when he does get SSDI they will deduct the amount of SSI received from the SSDI settlement which goes back to the point your husband first became disable in his case the day of the stroke.

Yeah, going to be working on that next week. Wheee.

Good luck! How is he doing, btw?

He still can't walk. Can't even stand up. The combination of him being bedridden for 2.5 weeks, the stroke and the brain surgery has just really done a number on him. But his health is much improved. Hopefully in the next day or two he'll be shipped off to in-house therapy at Vanderbilt. Those people will be better equipped to get him out of bed and back on his feet.
#112 Jan 03 2013 at 7:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I used to buy into that "drink water so you're not hungry" crap. It's crap.


No more or less so than "drink soda so you're not hungry". Difference is water is cheaper. Also, said person could buy actual food instead of soda and actually make themselves not be hungry.

I guess what continues to surprise me when it comes to topics like this is the innate desire to defend a government program apparently purely because it's a government program. If someone walked up to you on the street and gave you a sob story about how he hadn't eaten in 2 days and was super hungry, and asked you for money to buy some food, and then 5 minutes after you give some to him, you see him walking out of the store with some beer (or soda) but no food, you'd be pretty ****** off, right? You'd feel stupid for falling for such a thing and resolve to not make the same mistake again. But somehow, if the government forces you to give that person money and they do the same thing, it's just peachy?

I'd think people would be more upset at being forced to pay for such things. At least when you do it yourself, it's your money, your choice, and you're free to make a mistake when giving someone help, and willing to deal with those mistakes when they happen. And most importantly, it only costs you your own money when you make such a mistake. But when the government does it, they're making that mistake with your money. It's like somehow we abrogate our own responsibilities to the government by creating such programs, and then some people feel like they don't need to hold the government responsible because it's no longer my money, or your money, it's the government's money. I just don't see it that way. We should be more concerned about what the government does with our money than with what we do with our own. When we make mistakes, we're the ones who pay. But it's almost like those who support the government programs don't care because it's always "someone else's money" involved.


I just find that incredibly backwards. And frankly, I find the mentality itself somewhat disturbing. If you borrow someone else's car, aren't you extra careful with it because it's not yours? If you crash your car, it's your car and your expense to fix it. If you crash someone else's, it costs them money and we don't want to be responsible for that. But it seems like for some reason, once the money is laundered through the government, that sense of not wasting other people's money disappears for some people. Dunno. I just find it a bit strange.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Jan 03 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
I guess what continues to surprise me when it comes to topics like this is the innate desire to defend a government program apparently purely because it's a government program.


Right now, I'm happy this program exists. I hope I don't have to use it, but it's nice knowing it's there just in case. I guess we should have anticipated this stroke at the age of 42. But since we were lazy and didn't, if I have to, I'll take advantage of this government program.
#114 Jan 03 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Um... No. It's not. The low end of middle class means you have to buy a used Lexus instead of a new one, and you're house in the suburbs only has 2 bathrooms instead of 3. And you don't have a pool.

Wait. We don't have a pool. Sh[it, we're poor. Well, no, lower middle class. Wait again! We only have two bathrooms! Two! Fuck! We are poor! I'd better tell Nexa to get on with finishing her PhD so I can live the lavish life of a University professor's kept man.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#115 Jan 03 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

No more or less so than "drink soda so you're not hungry". Difference is water is cheaper


Well...that...and also the actual caloric content of soda that provides energy to the body and eases hunger. That silly thing where you could drink soda and live unhealthily for years as opposed to drinking water and being dead in weeks..
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#116 Jan 03 2013 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
If someone walked up to you on the street and gave you a sob story about how he hadn't eaten in 2 days and was super hungry, and asked you for money to buy some food, and then 5 minutes after you give some to him, you see him walking out of the store with some beer (or soda) but no food, you'd be pretty ****** off, right?


No I wouldn't. I am not stupid enough to think that when I give some random stranger some cash that he/she will spend it on what they say they will. Spoiler alert, everyone lies.

What I find more disturbing than your view on the subject matter is your simplistic view on the subject at hand. Let's say a mother and daughter don't have enough income to pay for everything they need so they apply for government assistance and are approved for food stamps (or whatever the more modern nomenclature for it is). The mother then uses said food stamps for basic food items they need and then uses a bit of the money she earned from a job and was allocating towards food for a couple luxury items, soft drinks being one of them. What then?

The subject at hand is a very complicated one and there is no way to make everyone happy on the subject. To think of it so narrowly, which you have done time and time again, is delusional at best and pathetic at worst. Don't even get me started on how nice you had it compared to me when I was a kid, your sob story is a **** poor attempt at making yourself seem like you had it rough.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#117 Jan 03 2013 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,905 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

No more or less so than "drink soda so you're not hungry". Difference is water is cheaper


Well...that...and also the actual caloric content of soda that provides energy to the body and eases hunger. That silly thing where you could drink soda and live unhealthily for years as opposed to drinking water and being dead in weeks..


A 20 ounce bottle of Pepsi has just about the same amount of calories as a simple sandwich made with two slices of bread, cheese, slice of meat, and maybe a condiment or two. But hey, it doesn't make you "feel" any less hungry right?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#118 Jan 03 2013 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

No more or less so than "drink soda so you're not hungry". Difference is water is cheaper


Well...that...and also the actual caloric content of soda that provides energy to the body and eases hunger. That silly thing where you could drink soda and live unhealthily for years as opposed to drinking water and being dead in weeks..


Um... No. Our bodies require more than calories to survive. You'd have more energy from the calories, but the (nearly) complete absence of proteins, vitamins, minerals, carbs, etc would make you quite a bit more than "unhealthy" in a relatively short period of time. For the same amount of money, you'd be vastly better off eating the aforementioned sandwich and a glass of water than a soda. We're not really debating this, right?

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 6:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Jan 03 2013 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Criminy wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
If someone walked up to you on the street and gave you a sob story about how he hadn't eaten in 2 days and was super hungry, and asked you for money to buy some food, and then 5 minutes after you give some to him, you see him walking out of the store with some beer (or soda) but no food, you'd be pretty ****** off, right? You'd feel stupid for falling for such a thing and resolve to not make the same mistake again.


No I wouldn't. I am not stupid enough to think that when I give some random stranger some cash that he/she will spend it on what they say they will. Spoiler alert, everyone lies.


Yes, because of the bolded part I originally wrote, but you chose not to quote. The point being that if you do that thinking the person will buy the food he claims he absolutely cannot afford, and he buys something else instead, you are the one who took the risk and you are the one who paid for it. No one else pays for your mistake. When the government does it for you, it's taking the risk, but you are paying for it (along with everyone else who pays taxes). My point is that we know that the person will not spend it on what they say they will, so we'll be really suspicious about the request, yet, we just give a blank check out essentially when it's the government doing it on our behalf with our money. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

Quote:
What I find more disturbing than your view on the subject matter is your simplistic view on the subject at hand. Let's say a mother and daughter don't have enough income to pay for everything they need so they apply for government assistance and are approved for food stamps (or whatever the more modern nomenclature for it is). The mother then uses said food stamps for basic food items they need and then uses a bit of the money she earned from a job and was allocating towards food for a couple luxury items, soft drinks being one of them. What then?


If the condition in bold is true, and the amount allocated is just enough to make up the difference then they should not have extra money to buy luxuries. What you're committing is the "not that money" fallacy. The idea that money given to someone for something they need, doesn't count towards other things as long as what they need is purchased. The classic example is the teenager who asks his dad for $100 to buy school books for the semester. His father gives him the money. Later he's cleaning his sons room and finds $100 worth of pot. When he confronts his son about using the $100 he gave him to buy drugs, his son says "No. I used the $100 you gave me to buy books. I used my own $100 to buy the pot". The point being that the father gave the money to the son on the assumption that if he didn't, the son would not be able to buy school books for the semester. But since the son could have purchased the books, by giving the son $100 for books, he was really giving the son $100 to buy drugs (or whatever else he wanted).

My point isn't simplistic at all. It requires an understanding of the fungible nature of money. If you give food stamps to someone who could have purchased food but would have to have given up other things to do so, you aren't actually buying them food. You're buying them those other things. Now in some cases, this is fine if the other things are also necessities (like housing, transportation, clothing, etc). But if the person has enough money after all is said and done to buy things they don't need at all, then we can reasonably argue that their food stamp allotment should be reduced by the amount of money they had left over. How to do that is complicated, of course, but I'm just trying to make the point that this is the case in the first place.

Quote:
The subject at hand is a very complicated one and there is no way to make everyone happy on the subject. To think of it so narrowly, which you have done time and time again, is delusional at best and pathetic at worst. Don't even get me started on how nice you had it compared to me when I was a kid, your sob story is a **** poor attempt at making yourself seem like you had it rough.


I'm not sure how anyone's condition as a child has any bearing on the correctness of their position on any issue anyway. It's another fallacy that somehow if someone isn't or hasn't been poor, they don't understand and thus can't make good decisions about how to deal with poverty. But it's so strong that people will go to great lengths to dismiss one person's experiences in order to maintain their own delusional assumptions.

You are correct that it's complicated. But that does not change the very simple fact that if people on food stamps are able to buy soda, then they are either receiving more money in food stamps than they need, or they are misspending the money and will come up short on things they actually need. Either one is a bad outcome. Also, either one is something we should attempt to minimize. Remember, for me this isn't about soda so much as waste in general. It's about the idea that if our justification for providing some good or service to someone is based on the assumption that they will go without something they really need if we don't, then just like the guy buying beer after claiming to need money for food, we're being taken advantage of. And instead of just throwing our hands up and saying there's nothing we can do, we can at least look at things we could try.


This somewhat comes back to my earlier comments about what we define as "poor". And it seems as though that definition keeps extending. There's a strange disconnect between our perceptions of what poverty means, and the reality of what qualifies as poverty when assessing the need for social spending programs like food stamps. It's part of what I was trying to get across to Bijou. He attacks my position that we should reduce assistance to people who are able to buy things like soda on the assumption that if they can afford such things, they don't need the extra help, but then also attacks my claim of being "pretty poor" because even though I listed off going without far more things than he'd allow in terms of providing food stamps, it's not good enough to be considered "poor" (or even "pretty poor"). That's a huge disconnect. He'll defend a program which provides for "the poor", while insisting that someone who had less than those on the program do wasn't just not "poor", but was not even close to poor.

So what is "poor' then? Is it just a word we sling around to convince people to support social spending programs? Or does it have an actual quantifiable meaning?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Jan 03 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
A soda only diet also does a number on your teeth. Google "meth mouth" if you want a warning against drinking exclusively soda for months on end. (Warning: graphic.)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#121 Jan 03 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
As one of my friends likes to say


We all have friends, Pigtails. No need to boast.

Be a little more considerate, please.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#122 Jan 03 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,905 posts
catwho wrote:
A soda only diet also does a number on your teeth. Google "meth mouth" if you want a warning against drinking exclusively soda for months on end. (Warning: graphic.)


I can tell you that with proper dental care, drinking soda won't turn your teeth like that.

I drank soda, large amounts, constantly from 7th grade through high school. Talking upwards of six 20 ounces of Mountain Dew daily. My teeth are currently in great shape. Of course my body was another thing. There was a reason why I weighed over 200 lbs for most of my high school career.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#123 Jan 03 2013 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Yes, because of the bolded part I originally wrote, but you chose not to quote.


I didn't quote it because it assumes I would say yes to the question, but any moron could figure that out. I am aware that people spend tax dollars on things that are not intended. The catch is I am not getting my panties in a twist about it. Sure some people buy items with the money that isn't the most benificial to their well being. There is the catch. Either you give them freedom and let them choose what they want to get (within reason) or you set up massive walls of what you can buy and waht you cannot buy. Which then raises the question of are the items you are deciding they pick out best for their health or your wallet? On a side note, are you seriously telling us that you want more governmental oversight and a bigger government? Because in order to not only set up but enforce your ideals on the subject we would need both. Rather amusing.

Gbaji wrote:
If the condition in bold is true, and the amount allocated is just enough to make up the difference then they should not have extra money to buy luxuries


Last I checked they go "ok, you make <x> amount. Here is <y> amount to cover food expenses." They don't look at how you are allocating your budget and determine how much to give you based on how much you spend every week on groceries like they do in Gbaji land. Also I am not making a fallacy with my argument. I am stating that the mother didn't have enough for food, as in the mother and child would starve if they tried to live off what little bit of food they can buy. They get food stamps and they find that they could afford soft drinks with the money she used to spend for food. It isn't like she is going out and buying coke to sniff off her daughters back. She is buying a food item that would be considered a luxury items. Pro tip - instead of looking at the page and guessing what a person wrote it helps to actually read, heaven knows you must know the basics about reading with the walls of text you normally type.

Gbaji wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone's condition as a child has any bearing on the correctness of their position on any issue anyway.


Then may I ask why you tried to use it?

Gbaji wrote:
So what is "poor' then? Is it just a word we sling around to convince people to support social spending programs? Or does it have an actual quantifiable meaning?


According to merriam-webster it is the condition relating to poverty, which is the following.

Quote:
the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions


I will let people who are experts on the matter determine what would be the best way to give things like food stamps to the poor than some guy who thinks a person that has a 2 bath home, pool and a lexus as a lower middle class person.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#124 Jan 03 2013 at 9:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Criminy wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Yes, because of the bolded part I originally wrote, but you chose not to quote.


I didn't quote it because it assumes I would say yes to the question, but any moron could figure that out.


Then why don't we figure it out when it's the government spending our money for us. That's my point.

Quote:
I am aware that people spend tax dollars on things that are not intended. The catch is I am not getting my panties in a twist about it.


Hence my point. We'd never trust that guy to spend the money on food if he asked us directly, but if he asks the government, and the government forces us to give him the money, it's perfectly ok? Isn't that strange?

Quote:
Sure some people buy items with the money that isn't the most benificial to their well being. There is the catch. Either you give them freedom and let them choose what they want to get (within reason) or you set up massive walls of what you can buy and waht you cannot buy.


So you would give the random person claiming to need money for food the money he asked for? I thought you said you wouldn't be stupid enough to do that? So you have no problem at all refusing to give someone the "freedom to choose" what to do with the $5 you gave them for food if it comes from you directly to them, but you take the opposite position if the government forces you to give that person money.

That's why I brought up this issue. You're kinda proving my point.

Quote:
Which then raises the question of are the items you are deciding they pick out best for their health or your wallet? On a side note, are you seriously telling us that you want more governmental oversight and a bigger government? Because in order to not only set up but enforce your ideals on the subject we would need both. Rather amusing.


****. I haven't even gotten to how we solve the problem. I'm still struggling to get some people to even acknowledge that people spending food stamp money on things they don't need is a problem in the first place. One thing at a time.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
If the condition in bold is true, and the amount allocated is just enough to make up the difference then they should not have extra money to buy luxuries


Last I checked they go "ok, you make <x> amount. Here is <y> amount to cover food expenses." They don't look at how you are allocating your budget and determine how much to give you based on how much you spend every week on groceries like they do in Gbaji land.


Yes. But everything else being the same, if adding y to x results in more money than is needed to cover their food expenses, then the value of y can be reduced relative to the value of x until that's no longer the case. We already make an assessment of how much y should be based on x right now, so this is not some additional requirement. I'm simply suggesting that we're either giving people too much money in food stamps, or we're allowing x to be higher than it needs to be when deciding to hand out y. Either way, our calculation is wrong, right?

Quote:
Also I am not making a fallacy with my argument. I am stating that the mother didn't have enough for food, as in the mother and child would starve if they tried to live off what little bit of food they can buy. They get food stamps and they find that they could afford soft drinks with the money she used to spend for food.


Yes. Which means that the amount they received in food stamps was more than they needed. If you have $50, but you need $100 to pay for school books, you need $50 to make up the difference. If your parents give you $100 for school books, they are giving you $50 too much. Similarly, if said mother and daughter are $100 short on money each month, and can't buy enough food, we should only give them $100 to make up the difference. If we give them $200 for food, we're giving them too much. See how that works?

Quote:
It isn't like she is going out and buying coke to sniff off her daughters back. She is buying a food item that would be considered a luxury items. Pro tip - instead of looking at the page and guessing what a person wrote it helps to actually read, heaven knows you must know the basics about reading with the walls of text you normally type.


I read what you wrote perfectly. Perhaps you should take the time to read what I'm writing?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone's condition as a child has any bearing on the correctness of their position on any issue anyway.


Then may I ask why you tried to use it?


I didn't. Not as proof that I understood the issue better at least. Ironically, I used my own experience to argue that not being able to afford soda in the fridge does *not* make you poor, and said absence did not mean you needed food stamps. I said that we went without a lot of things like soda, but we never needed food stamps. So I don't feel sorry for someone on food stamps complaining if they cant use them to buy soda. Other posters went off on some kind of "you weren't really poor; you don't know about poverty" bit.

Quote:
[quote]
Gbaji wrote:
So what is "poor' then? Is it just a word we sling around to convince people to support social spending programs? Or does it have an actual quantifiable meaning?


According to merriam-webster it is the condition relating to poverty, which is the following.

[quote]the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions


I will let people who are experts on the matter determine what would be the best way to give things like food stamps to the poor than some guy who thinks a person that has a 2 bath home, pool and a lexus as a lower middle class person. [/quote]


So just not be involved at all in the political decisions around you? Kinda defeating the whole point of living in a democracy IMO. If the experts consistently get it wrong, perhaps us non-experts ought to point it out to them. Additionally, if we voters don't apply pressure to those experts, they have no incentive to get it right in the first place. Experts are not magical beings. Blindly trusting them to do the right thing is just as stupid as trusting that guy to buy a sandwich instead of beer.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 7:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Jan 03 2013 at 9:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I wonder how many people actually read the things gbaji posts?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#126 Jan 03 2013 at 9:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
TirithRR wrote:
catwho wrote:
A soda only diet also does a number on your teeth. Google "meth mouth" if you want a warning against drinking exclusively soda for months on end. (Warning: graphic.)


I can tell you that with proper dental care, drinking soda won't turn your teeth like that.

I drank soda, large amounts, constantly from 7th grade through high school. Talking upwards of six 20 ounces of Mountain Dew daily. My teeth are currently in great shape. Of course my body was another thing. There was a reason why I weighed over 200 lbs for most of my high school career.


Oh, I know. Meth mouth is caused by a combination of lifestyle problems, including poor hygiene practices (e,g. not brushing), poor nutrition (drinking soda exclusively for calories to stay alive), and the chemical crap that crystal meth does (causes dry mouth, bruxism, etc.) My dentist had to treat someone with it once they'd gotten clean again, and she blamed the soda more than anything else.

Back on topic: I actually voted "yes" to the ban in the poll for that reason. Soda pop has acids in it that eat away at the teeth in addition to the sugar. Poor people are far less likely to have access to dental care. Poor kids have died from abscessed teeth, even in recent years. Citrus juices also have that problem, but not some other fruit juices, so that gets into gray areas.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)