Kavekk wrote:
I wonder how many people actually read the things gbaji posts?
Short posts, yes. Long winded ten page long rants like the one above, no.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Soda for Food Stamps
Soda for Food StampsFollow
Short posts, yes. Long winded ten page long rants like the one above, no.
Gbaji wrote:
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.
That's why I brought up this issue. You're kinda proving my point.
No I am not and you know it you tool. Kindly stop being a douche and saying things that I am not saying.
Edit: To put it clear as I can possibly be if I gave Hobo Henry $10 and he proceeds to go into a Q-Mart and buy some booze I wouldn't be angry because I am not stupid enough to think that he will spend <x> money on w/e he might say he needs it for. By giving him the money I am acknowledging that he might spend the money on things that I may not agree with. Why do you hate the freedom of choice? And don't go "it's my money!!" bull response.
Kavekk wrote:
I wonder how many people actually read the things gbaji posts?
Normally I just skim his posts for stupid but actually been reading his posts tonight. I am quickly reminded why I just skim his posts. *grabs tylenol* Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 11:40pm by Criminy
Low middle class buying a lexus, poor folks buying daily vitamins. You Gbaji have no idea what poor is. I read your sad story about having to wear hand me downs, I read your sad story about hot dogs in your food.
Let me ask you some things that I grew up with?
You ever had to share a bath with your entire family with water boiled on the stove top because you couldn't afford gas for hot water? Have you ever had to wear your snow suit indoors because you had no heating, because it was either food on the table or having room temperature. Have you ever had to squat over a hole in the floor because your toilet broke and you couldn't afford to fix it? What about doing dishes in the tub because your pipes froze because your house is to ******* cold.
Have you ever just eaten a potato for dinner with buttered bread? Or had to use powdered milk because the proper **** was out of your budget.
Did you have to give up your entire teenage social life so you could take care of your family while your mother worked her back to back shifts...so she could put food on the table.
I was ******* poor...but I wasn't the poorest you can be.
And I am glad, because it allows me to appreciate my success in life, and my familys success. I have a great job, my mother makes a pile of cash has a nice home, and her own car, my brothers are both doing well.
My mom raised 3 of us on a $6.75/hour part time job, and dead beat Dad, still owes her 60K in backed child support. She worked magic, we had to miss out on a lot....you sir have no idea what it means to be poor.
Also as a Lower middle class person, we don't ******* buy a lexus. We buy **** like Ford Explorers, or Chevy Silverados...maybe some jackasses even buy Dodge Trucks and cars....but most of us buy cheap asian ****...because it is cheap...a ******* lexus give me a break,.
Oh and for the record I have never had vitamin supplements. Can buy a whole ******* meal for half of what a bottle of vits cost...you have no grasp on anything remotely bordering on poor...and me, there was others who had it worse than I did, because my Mom made just a little bit to much money to get government support. To rich to get help, to poor to afford it.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Lived in a car for more than one month - check
Lived in a trailer with no electricity, no running water, no gas - double check, like 4 months.
Lived in a shelter - on at least two occasions
Guv'mint cheese - All the time!!
Did laundry in the bath tub - yep
Stole clothes from Goodwill donation boxes - not to proud to admit it
Jus' saying, is all
Lived in a trailer with no electricity, no running water, no gas - double check, like 4 months.
Lived in a shelter - on at least two occasions
Guv'mint cheese - All the time!!
Did laundry in the bath tub - yep
Stole clothes from Goodwill donation boxes - not to proud to admit it
Jus' saying, is all
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
catwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.
Are you kidding me? Massive excluded middle going on here.
Are you kidding me? Massive excluded middle going on here.
Oh my god, can't stop breathing, laughing so hard...
Even with somewhat different socio-economic boundaries in Oz, can't breathe.
Gbaji:
Poverty is given an absolute measurement by many agencies. While somewhat arbitrary, most agencies put a lot of effort in making poverty-line measurements as meaningful as possible, taking into account that the contexts of different people's lives will mean their material discomfort at living at a specific income will vary. When talking about childhood experiences it's important to take into account inflation. In 1980 the threshold was $8,391 annually for a family of four, and $4,190 per adult. In 1990 the threshold was $13,254, and $6,800 respectively. In 2000 it was $17,463 and $8,959 respectively.
The World Bank poverty line is $456 annual income, which is benchmarked to include developing nations. It's main use for a nation like the USA or Oz is in helping to determine how much to spend on international aid on items and materials acquired in a developing nation.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 3:48am by Aripyanfar
lolwikipedia wrote:
In 2010, in the United States, the poverty threshold for one person under 65 was US$11,344 (annual income); the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$22,133... Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75[/b].
Poverty is given an absolute measurement by many agencies. While somewhat arbitrary, most agencies put a lot of effort in making poverty-line measurements as meaningful as possible, taking into account that the contexts of different people's lives will mean their material discomfort at living at a specific income will vary. When talking about childhood experiences it's important to take into account inflation. In 1980 the threshold was $8,391 annually for a family of four, and $4,190 per adult. In 1990 the threshold was $13,254, and $6,800 respectively. In 2000 it was $17,463 and $8,959 respectively.
The World Bank poverty line is $456 annual income, which is benchmarked to include developing nations. It's main use for a nation like the USA or Oz is in helping to determine how much to spend on international aid on items and materials acquired in a developing nation.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 3:48am by Aripyanfar
Kavekk wrote:
I wonder how many people actually read the things gbaji posts?
I read the parts that others quote in subsequent posts.
......let the youngsters do the hard work.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I was hella sick yesterday and missed out on this thread since page one. Be damned if I can read it now but is there a reason why you're all debating Gbaji's childhood economic status and pulling out your "I was poorer than you" cards?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Oh, he trolled pretty well with his "I was so poor that we only bought used pants!" and "If you're low-middle class, you buy used Lexuses instead of new ones." followed by insistence that he grew up in some sort of poverty. Chaos ensued.
We only bought used underwear.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Didn't read the whole thread so sorry if the FNS SNAP list was already posted. Here is the allowable product list, both generic and name-brand for the Wisconsin FoodShare program (official state designation for SNAP, formerly foodstamps).
Here is the federal list from FNS about what is and is not allowed. The right side of this page has a excel download with the current eligible/ineligible purchases. Interesting to note are regional items. The boldest example being that you can use SNAP benefits for bow/arrows in rural Alaska due to game hunting, wheras the same is not true in other states.
Here is the current argument regarding dietary restrictions and why certain classes of foods are not restricted. Makes an interesting read if you enjoy this type of thing.
I'm withholding my opinion from this argument.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 9:43am by Paskil
Here is the federal list from FNS about what is and is not allowed. The right side of this page has a excel download with the current eligible/ineligible purchases. Interesting to note are regional items. The boldest example being that you can use SNAP benefits for bow/arrows in rural Alaska due to game hunting, wheras the same is not true in other states.
Here is the current argument regarding dietary restrictions and why certain classes of foods are not restricted. Makes an interesting read if you enjoy this type of thing.
I'm withholding my opinion from this argument.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 9:43am by Paskil
Paskil wrote:
I'm withholding my opinion from this argument.
That's no fun.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Since I receive Food Stamps currently and just cut out all sodas from my diet due to being told I have diabetes I could say a lot about the topic, but won't. Still here is a wall of text. Still maybe a few facts from some one who gets food stamps right now is needed to counter Gjabi.
Food Lobbyist aren't about to let the government ban some "food" products over healthier alternatives, so people who depend on food stamps will continue to buy junk food. I see it all the time and I hate to think of the diets of people who won't take the bus to the nearest Giant Food store for fresh fruit and vegetables. The healthier food cost more then most of the prepackage junk I see people buying with their food stamps, so they can feed their families for the whole month. I'm lucky to have Jonwin who can drive to the suburbs and shop for me, while buying food for me, when my food stamps run out. Still we could use some more vegetables and fruit in out diet, since Jonwin is a meat and potato guy.
II didn't have it as easy before I met Jonwin, If it hadn't been for my dad, my daughter's boy friend with a car or the occasional hack, I wouldn't have been able to carry a week worth of food home from the local Safeway which the major work hard to get in an area where the poor and upper class neighbors were side by side. I kept beans and rice in the house and sometimes had to depend on the local food pantry to feed us then the food stamps ran out. I did use my food stamps to buy some candy/gum for myself as I developed dry mouth. My girls understood why we ate pop corn instead of potato chips. BTW saute garlic in butter on pop corn was a treat they look forward to having. I think we ate better then a lot of our neighbors, because I didn't waste our food stamps on junk food. Then I was a creative cook with years of experience on how to stretch my food budget. Some months we were lucky to have enough left over for a nice steak or roast.
As for banning sodas or any junk food, I know would be better for those that receive them, but only if we allow food stamps for soap, toothpaste and toilet paper.
Food Lobbyist aren't about to let the government ban some "food" products over healthier alternatives, so people who depend on food stamps will continue to buy junk food. I see it all the time and I hate to think of the diets of people who won't take the bus to the nearest Giant Food store for fresh fruit and vegetables. The healthier food cost more then most of the prepackage junk I see people buying with their food stamps, so they can feed their families for the whole month. I'm lucky to have Jonwin who can drive to the suburbs and shop for me, while buying food for me, when my food stamps run out. Still we could use some more vegetables and fruit in out diet, since Jonwin is a meat and potato guy.
II didn't have it as easy before I met Jonwin, If it hadn't been for my dad, my daughter's boy friend with a car or the occasional hack, I wouldn't have been able to carry a week worth of food home from the local Safeway which the major work hard to get in an area where the poor and upper class neighbors were side by side. I kept beans and rice in the house and sometimes had to depend on the local food pantry to feed us then the food stamps ran out. I did use my food stamps to buy some candy/gum for myself as I developed dry mouth. My girls understood why we ate pop corn instead of potato chips. BTW saute garlic in butter on pop corn was a treat they look forward to having. I think we ate better then a lot of our neighbors, because I didn't waste our food stamps on junk food. Then I was a creative cook with years of experience on how to stretch my food budget. Some months we were lucky to have enough left over for a nice steak or roast.
As for banning sodas or any junk food, I know would be better for those that receive them, but only if we allow food stamps for soap, toothpaste and toilet paper.
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
I was so poor, I had to buy my own DreamCast.
I'd just like to add that SNAP is not intended to be the sole source of money budgeted towards food in a month (this should be obvious since it's called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Many cases qualify for only the minimum allotment amount per month which is $16 for a household of one or two. Some people that qualify for this have bills to pay and even though they have income that causes them to be reduced to this benefit level, expenses such as support payments, shelter and utility obligations and other factors can tie up all of their income each month, especially as they approach the federal poverty level. Some people buy the junk food out of convenience, but many cannot afford to buy produce and fruit, especially when you factor in the cost of such goods outside of major urban centers where they may not have access to goods priced cheaply in bigger box grocery outlets.
I think better education in areas where purchase of food products with low nutritional value is common is the best approach. $16 may not seem like a lot to most people but buying things like bulk oatmeal, grains, milk, flour etc can ensure that at the very least, you can feed yourself the most important meal of the day for a month.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 4:23pm by Paskil
I think better education in areas where purchase of food products with low nutritional value is common is the best approach. $16 may not seem like a lot to most people but buying things like bulk oatmeal, grains, milk, flour etc can ensure that at the very least, you can feed yourself the most important meal of the day for a month.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 4:23pm by Paskil
A big bag of rice costs like five bucks and can get you through a few weeks by itself. Those giant 20 packs of ramen? Two dollars.
One of my favorite dinners back during the Broke Times just after I finished my undergrad was taking a tube of breakfast sausage purchased on sale for a dollar and mixing it with a fifty cent package of noodles and sauce. If I had it on hand, I'd toss a can of mixed vegetables in. I could get four meals out of that for around two bucks total.
One of my favorite dinners back during the Broke Times just after I finished my undergrad was taking a tube of breakfast sausage purchased on sale for a dollar and mixing it with a fifty cent package of noodles and sauce. If I had it on hand, I'd toss a can of mixed vegetables in. I could get four meals out of that for around two bucks total.
Criminy wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
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.
That's why I brought up this issue. You're kinda proving my point.
No I am not...
Yeah. You kinda are.
Quote:
Edit: To put it clear as I can possibly be if I gave Hobo Henry $10 and he proceeds to go into a Q-Mart and buy some booze I wouldn't be angry because I am not stupid enough to think that he will spend <x> money on w/e he might say he needs it for. By giving him the money I am acknowledging that he might spend the money on things that I may not agree with.
Yes. Which means that you would never give that person money unless you were perfectly ok with him spending it on booze. Put another way, if you only wanted him to buy food and not booze, you wouldn't hand him the money, right? So unless we are all ok with food stamps really just being "money to spend on whatever the recipient wants", then it's reasonable to place limits on what they can buy with food stamps.
That's all I was trying to say. Sheesh!
Quote:
Why do you hate the freedom of choice?
See. It's this kind of statement that makes me wonder what you're really arguing. Why don't we just send people envelopes with money instead of going through all the bother of food stamps, WIC cards, etc? Your argument rests on the premise that we don't care what people spend the money on. But I don't think that's true for most people. Do you? So if we assume that most people do care about what the money is spent on, then it's not wrong at all to limit the choices of what the money is spent on. It's inherent to the purpose of the program in the first place.
I just find it interesting how you can so selectively apply an absolute argument.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Yeah. You kinda are.
Quote:
interesting how you can so selectively apply an absolute argument.
Kinda means it is not absolute
Why don't we just send people envelopes with money instead of going through all the bother of food stamps, WIC cards, etc?
That's exactly what we should do. It would save millions, and have no real negative consequence. It's not like someone who wants to buy scotch with the value of their stamps had any real obstacle now. The whole idea of restricting purchases is largely moral theater.
That's exactly what we should do. It would save millions, and have no real negative consequence. It's not like someone who wants to buy scotch with the value of their stamps had any real obstacle now. The whole idea of restricting purchases is largely moral theater.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Gbaji wrote:
<horse ****>
Oh I am sorry, you will have to excuse me as I didn't bring my work boots and shovel to dig through that pile of crap you call a rebuttal.
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Yeah. You kinda are.
Quote:
interesting how you can so selectively apply an absolute argument.
Kinda means it is not absolute
He's "kinda" proving my point. The selectively applied absolute argument is when he claimed that wanting to limit what people spend their food stamp dollars means that I hate freedom of choice.
It's an absolute argument, because it's presented in all-or-nothing format. I either place no restrictions on what can be purchased or I hate freedom of choice. In the real world, we live in between those two extremes.
It's selective because he's only applying it when he feels like it. Presumably he'd have no problem with someone choosing not to give someone money for food if that person suspected he'd buy booze with it and didn't want him to. Yet, it's a violation of freedom of choice to make the exact same decision when food stamps are involved. So.... Selective.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 4:21pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Smasharoo wrote:
Why don't we just send people envelopes with money instead of going through all the bother of food stamps, WIC cards, etc?
That's exactly what we should do. It would save millions, and have no real negative consequence. It's not like someone who wants to buy scotch with the value of their stamps had any real obstacle now. The whole idea of restricting purchases is largely moral theater.
That's exactly what we should do. It would save millions, and have no real negative consequence. It's not like someone who wants to buy scotch with the value of their stamps had any real obstacle now. The whole idea of restricting purchases is largely moral theater.
Yes. False dilemma (falsely applied anyway), whatever. I'm pretty sure I made this exact point like 3 weeks ago in a different thread about food stamps. Of course, my argument was for why we shouldn't have such programs in the first place because there is no practical way to ensure that said money only addresses the problem we're trying to solve. While we can point to it being theater, the reality is that people support such programs precisely because they assume that the money will (or at least should) only be used for food.
If we were honest, we'd just end the programs and spend the money on food banks, soup kitchens, meals on wheels, etc. So if someone is actually hungry, they can show up and get a meal any time they want for free. Hell. With the money we'd save, we could probably deliver food directly to people's homes. But of course it would be actual food instead of some method which can be used to obtain food, so there's just not enough ability to abuse it, so it will be rejected out of hand by liberals who really do seem to care more about making things as complicated and obtuse as possible in the name of some cause than they do actually dealing with the problem they claim to care about.
But then, you already knew this.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
If we were honest, we'd just end the programs and spend the money on food banks, soup kitchens, meals on wheels, etc. So if someone is actually hungry, they can show up and get a meal any time they want for free.
I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a gubmint cheeseburger today.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 6:33pm by BrownDuck
gbaji wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Yeah. You kinda are.
Quote:
interesting how you can so selectively apply an absolute argument.
Kinda means it is not absolute
He's "kinda" proving my point. The selectively applied absolute argument is when he claimed that wanting to limit what people spend their food stamp dollars means that I hate freedom of choice.
It's an absolute argument, because it's presented in all-or-nothing format. I either place no restrictions on what can be purchased or I hate freedom of choice. In the real world, we live in between those two extremes.
It's selective because he's only applying it when he feels like it. Presumably he'd have no problem with someone choosing not to give someone money for food if that person suspected he'd buy booze with it and didn't want him to. Yet, it's a violation of freedom of choice to make the exact same decision when food stamps are involved. So.... Selective.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 4:21pm by gbaji
Now go to whatever online source and look up the definitions of absolute and and selective. Even a thesaurus. Then provide the link to show that those two words share the same or similar meanings.
Recent Visitors: 353
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (353)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Soda for Food Stamps
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC