No. The food stamps allowed you to not have to choose between food and a car. The food stamps paid for part of your car and insurance, not the food. If you had not had food stamps, which would you have done: Starved to death? Or sold the car? Assuming you would not have actually starved to death, then the food stamps helped you keep your car.
Which is the point I was making.
Which is the point I was making.
At no point in time do I remember paying my car or insurance with food stamps. I clearly remember them going towards food at the grocery store.
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.
I have starved for weeks at a time. Not the greatest thing for myself but it was the choice I made.
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?
The first four months being in MT I did not have food stamps.
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).
The end of second month/ beginning of third I got them. I ate very little and completely @#%^ed up the bit of stability I had til then.
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.
Also way to avoid directly answering what I asked in the first place.
I may have missed your question. What was it again?
You have, however, clearly shown that you want what you said taken as "this suits my argument" and as such will respond to what you directly said. To be clear: food stamps are not people and so can not choose to be misused or abused. Way to go buddy.
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