Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#52 Jan 03 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
As one of my friends likes to say, what other people think of you is none of your business

Smart friend.
____________________________
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.

#53 Jan 03 2013 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
I'm kind of hoping we get to see the snack cake puppet show, to be honest.
____________________________
Banh
#54 Jan 03 2013 at 2:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...my family grew up pretty poor. We never were on food stamps...
Then you weren't "pretty poor".

Or, y'know, your definition of "poor" is different than everybody else's.


So your definition of poor is based on whether or not your family receives food stamps? You get how circular that definition is, right?

So in your mind no poverty existed until the US created its food stamp programs? Interesting. I see an easy way to end poverty right now!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jan 03 2013 at 3:04 PM Rating: Default
******
21,718 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
blah blah blah


Yeah, go make me a snack cake puppet. At least then you'll be of some use.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#56 Jan 03 2013 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
11,358 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
blah blah blah


Yeah, go make me a snack cake puppet. At least then you'll be of some use.


You want a puppet made out of snack cakes, or did you forget a comma? Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#57 Jan 03 2013 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
You want a puppet made out of snack cakes, or did you forget a comma? Smiley: tongue


smash wrote:
and I'll see if I can film some sort of snack cake puppet show
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#58 Jan 03 2013 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,358 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
You want a puppet made out of snack cakes, or did you forget a comma? Smiley: tongue


smash wrote:
and I'll see if I can film some sort of snack cake puppet show


Meh, I only watch the Live View sparingly, and only go back through threads if I have a complete interest in the post.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#59 Jan 03 2013 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...my family grew up pretty poor. We never were on food stamps...
Then you weren't "pretty poor".

Or, y'know, your definition of "poor" is different than everybody else's.


So your definition of poor is based on whether or not your family receives food stamps? You get how circular that definition is, right?

So in your mind no poverty existed until the US created its food stamp programs? Interesting. I see an easy way to end poverty right now!


You really are ******* retarded.



ALSO: The whole "I was starveling child whose bedroom was a cardboard box" story is pretty retarded, so. No one believes it.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#60 Jan 03 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...my family grew up pretty poor. We never were on food stamps...
Then you weren't "pretty poor".

Or, y'know, your definition of "poor" is different than everybody else's.


So your definition of poor is based on whether or not your family receives food stamps? You get how circular that definition is, right?

So in your mind no poverty existed until the US created its food stamp programs? Interesting. I see an easy way to end poverty right now!


You really are @#%^ing retarded.


You're the one claiming that if someone wasn't on food stamps then they couldn't have been "pretty poor". Perhaps you should think such things through before posting them?

I understand that being on food stamps doesn't make you poor, and being poor doesn't require being on food stamps. Is there a problem with that you'd like to take up beyond just tossing out epithets? Some of us grew up in families who did not go on food stamps at the first sign of tough times, not because we wouldn't have benefited but because the principle of being as self reliant as possible is important to us. Some of us actually believe that it's wrong to take from others to provide for ourselves. Some of us actually believe that accepting public assistance is a trap which makes it harder to become self reliant down the road. And some of us formed those opinions, not because we were greedy and rich, but because we were poor, but believed that it was our responsibility to do something about it, and that sitting on our butts waiting for a government check wasn't the correct solution.


Quote:
ALSO: The whole "I was starveling child whose bedroom was a cardboard box" story is pretty retarded, so. No one believes it.


Neither do I. Good thing I never said that. I'm curious what you would accept as evidence of being "pretty poor"? Wearing hand me downs and goodwill clothes? Check. One black and white TV in the house until sometime around 1990? Check. Parent working multiple jobs and long hours? Check. Cabbage and hot dog slices a common meal? Check. I'm honestly curious at what point someone is acceptably "pretty poor" in your eyes?

You know how we got along without food stamps? We volunteered at a local food service (called "Share" IIRC). Yes, us kids as well. Once a month, we'd spend the weekend packing boxes with food and loading/unloading pallets and trucks. In return, we got a number of boxes based on the number of hours we helped out (usually a couple boxes). Rice, beans, and canned foods were in the boxes, along with some other assorted food items. On holiday's you'd get a small turkey or ham. That's why we weren't on food stamps. Because we choose to do something to help ourselves and others instead of just waiting for the government to step in and hand us something for free.


So forgive me if I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who complain that they can't buy soda or other completely unnecessary things with the free food stamps the government gives them.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 1:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Jan 03 2013 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Wearing hand me downs and goodwill clothes? Check. One black and white TV in the house until sometime around 1990? Check. Parent working multiple jobs and long hours? Check. Cabbage and hot dog slices a common meal? Check. I'm honestly curious at what point someone is acceptably "pretty poor" in your eyes?


You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid. I can cross all those off my list, and we were middle class, at worst.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#62 Jan 03 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
I'm curious what you would accept as evidence of being "pretty poor"?
No running water or flush toilet. No vehicle. Burning clothes (rejects from thrift stores) to heat your home. That's life on Pine Ridge Reservation; that's poor. You have never been even remotely acquainted with being poor.

Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wearing hand me downs and goodwill clothes? Check. One black and white TV in the house until sometime around 1990? Check. Parent working multiple jobs and long hours? Check. Cabbage and hot dog slices a common meal? Check. I'm honestly curious at what point someone is acceptably "pretty poor" in your eyes?


You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid. I can cross all those off my list, and we were middle class, at worst.
What Eske said.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#63 Jan 03 2013 at 4:24 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I wrote:

ALSO: The whole "I was starveling child whose bedroom was a cardboard box" story is pretty retarded, so. No one believes it.


Neither do I. Good thing I never said that.


Right. You never typed those exact words in any forum here that I'm aware of.


Take two seconds to think why I'd say such a thing, though, would you?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#64gbaji, Posted: Jan 03 2013 at 4:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And you did those things, not by choice but because you couldn't afford anything better? I'm pretty sure that someone growing up in a middle class household in the 80s could afford new clothes and a color TV. I don't think you understand. I never owned a new pair of pants until I was an adult and had my own job and bought them for myself. I doubt that someone who grew up in the middle class could say that.
#65 Jan 03 2013 at 4:29 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
I was the fourth girl. Some of my clothes were hand me downs to the power of two. Smiley: lol

The first time I got a coat that was brand new was 7th grade, when my mother found a Charlotte Hornet's starter jacket on clearance, which was my Christmas present that year.

We still weren't poor. Lower middle class is where we sat. No food stamps either - although we did have access to cheap, tax free food via the commissary.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#66 Jan 03 2013 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
To me, being "pretty poor" means that while you weren't starving or homeless, you regularly had to go without any real luxuries. You didn't go out to eat, or have soda in the fridge. If you owned a car, it was a cheap one. You couldn't afford special activities. What else would you think this means? If someone has some other definition, I'd love to hear it.
Holy crap; called that one.

And that isn't "pretty poor", It's the low end of middle class but not "poor".

And the pants story is plumb idiotic.

ALSO: A lie.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#67 Jan 03 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm curious what you would accept as evidence of being "pretty poor"?
No running water or flush toilet. No vehicle. Burning clothes (rejects from thrift stores) to heat your home. That's life on Pine Ridge Reservation; that's poor. You have never been even remotely acquainted with being poor.


I said "pretty poor". WTF? I'm sure there's some range between "living in a mud hut" and "able to afford anything you want" that we can safely label as "pretty poor" within the US context.

I'm curious if that's the criteria for poverty before someone can receive food stamps then? No? Then it's meaningless isn't it? My point is that there was a period of time in which my family was easily as poor as a large percentage of the people who receive public assistance today. But we managed to get by, and didn't care that we didn't have soda in the fridge. Try to stay on topic.

Quote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm honestly curious at what point someone is acceptably "pretty poor" in your eyes?


You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid. I can cross all those off my list, and we were middle class, at worst.
What Eske said.


Then answer the question I asked. Not "abject poverty", but "pretty poor". What do you think that is? And if you can't define it, then how do we decide who gets public assistance in this country? Because clearly, if people on food stamps have enough food to be buying soda, then do they still qualify as "pretty poor" either?


It's just funny because your use of "poor" seems to change based on whether you're assessing my poverty as a child (teen really), versus whether some person on welfare is poor. Strange isn't it? You'll defend with your dying breath the utter necessity of funding assistance for people who are living much more comfortable lives than I did on the grounds that they're poor, but then turn around and insist that I wasn't poor. How the **** does that work in your own head?

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 2:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68gbaji, Posted: Jan 03 2013 at 4:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. It's not. Is it really so hard for you to grasp that someone who is not poor today might actually have been pretty poor at a point in his life while growing up? Why do you have such a mental block about this. You accept that some black kid from the inner city can be poor, but not a white kid from a working poor neighborhood? Or is it because I'm a conservative? I can't know what being in need is because it doesn't fit the Strawman narrative you've been taught about the evil motivations of greedy conservatives? You're so afraid of anyone succeeding on their own because it might damage the argument for big government social services that you just have to reject even the possibility itself?
#69 Jan 03 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
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.


Oh my god, can't stop breathing, laughing so hard... Smiley: lol
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#70 Jan 03 2013 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
You'll defend with your dying breath the utter necessity of funding assistance for people who are living much more comfortable lives than I did on the grounds that they're poor
Really? Please link to me saying that. At all.

For what it's worth I have had times in my life where I could have easily gotten food stamps, but didn't bother. I just spent what little I had at the time on food and rent.

Single moms with little babies don't get that happy option. And, before you go off, sometimes mommies are single because their man died or divorced them. It's not their evil, liberal life choices that put them in that position. **** happens.

Of course, you'd have to be the type of person who cares for the welfare (there's that word!) of little children; sadly, you are not.



ALSO:I'm curious about the standards to get food stamps where you live. Around here the income cutoff is something like $600/mo for a single person. Is it drastically higher in California?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#71 Jan 03 2013 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Frugality is a poor way to measure wealth. You might be forced to buy only second-hand clothing because you are poor, but buying second-hand clothing in and of itself is not an accurate indicator of one's wealth level. So sure, gbaji, you might have come up being "pretty poor" but not owning fancy things doesn't make you poor. However, being on food stamps can be used as a measure of one's economic class, since in order to receive them, your family has to be at or below a certain income level. You could be a millionaire and only have a single black-and-white television; there's no low-income requirement for that. Throwing all that **** out there as a way of saying "hey, I was poor" is kind of dumb.
____________________________
Banh
#72gbaji, Posted: Jan 03 2013 at 4:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm just curious where he squeezes in the working class. Apparently, it doesn't exist or something.
#73 Jan 03 2013 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
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.


Oh my god, can't stop breathing, laughing so hard... Smiley: lol
Holy ******* ********** he did not just write that!!!!

*re-reads gbaji's post*

He DID!!!!








Hmm, I guess the whole "Bijou thinks gbaji has no perspective on being poor" was right on the money!
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#74 Jan 03 2013 at 4:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Spoonless wrote:
However, being on food stamps can be used as a measure of one's economic class, since in order to receive them, your family has to be at or below a certain income level.


Sure. But not receiving them is *not* a measure of one's economic class. Which was the precise point I was making. One could choose not to accept or apply for food stamps even if one qualified for them, right? So arguing that if someone wasn't on food stamps, they must not have been "pretty poor" is a completely false assumption.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Jan 03 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
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.


Oh my god, can't stop breathing, laughing so hard... Smiley: lol
Holy @#%^ing sh*tballs, he did not just write that!!!!

*re-reads gbaji's post*

He DID!!!!


Am I missing something (other than the typo)? I assumed Cat was laughing at you.

According to lolwiki, lower middle class means:

Quote:

Taking into account the percentages provided in the six-class model by Gilbert, as well as the model of Thompson and Hickey, one can apply [[U.S. Census Bureau] statistics regarding income. According to these class models the lower middle class is located roughly between the 52nd and 84th percentile of society. In terms of personal income distribution in 2005, that would mean gross annual personal incomes from about $32,500 to $60,000.[21]

As 42% of all households, and the majority of those in the top 40%, had two income earners, household income figures would be significantly higher, ranging from roughly $50,000 to $100,000 annually.[13] In terms of educational attainment, 27% of persons had a Bachelor's degree or higher.


So yes. Low middle class typically does mean a house in the suburbs. Not in the rich neighborhoods, but we're not talking apartment in the slums by any means (again, there's a whole range in between you seem to be ignoring). And if we're looking at a married couple, they can quite easily afford a whole lot of nice things for themselves and their kids.


If you think lower middle class is that poor, then where does the working class fit in?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Jan 03 2013 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
gbaji wrote:
So arguing that if someone wasn't on food stamps, they must not have been "pretty poor" is a completely false assumption.
Sure. Just like arguing that if someone only owned a single b&w tele and second-hand pants, they must have been "pretty poor" is a completely false assumption.
____________________________
Banh
#77 Jan 03 2013 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
I guess it also depends on where you grew up.

In ******* Hephzibah Georgia, a family income of $100,000 meant you were ******* rich.

I was laughing at the comment about the Lexus. Lower middle class people don't drive Lexuses, new or used. The parts are too expensive.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#78 Jan 03 2013 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
We've already established you have no concept of "poor".

Try to get through your thick ******* skull that sometimes life is grossly unfair to people and they don't have the resources to continue after a loss, be it a job or spouse or home. They need to eat. Who the **** are you to:

A: Deny them food;

B. Chose what they eat.

Go **** yourself.

Better yet, get in a terrible auto accident, be refused by the insurance companies and lose your job. Oh, and have your house foreclosed on. And your bank fail.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#79 Jan 03 2013 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Replying to spoonelesses post you quick posting *****.

But that wasn't what Gbaji was arguing. He was arguing that someone that had no choice about the b&w + second hand pants. On the other hand, it goes both ways, if you set the poverty bar at people who get food stamps, I think it's pretty clear that you're including people who could get food stamps but don't.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 5:10pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#80 Jan 03 2013 at 5:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Spoonless wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So arguing that if someone wasn't on food stamps, they must not have been "pretty poor" is a completely false assumption.
Sure. Just like arguing that if someone only owned a single b&w tele and second-hand pants, they must have been "pretty poor" is a completely false assumption.


But if someone does those things because they can't afford a color TV, or new pants, then it is a decent way to determine whether someone was "pretty poor".

If we can't define levels of poverty based on what sorts of things people can afford to obtain, then we don't really have any meaningful standard at all. While I'm sure that some middle class kids shopped at the goodwill store to buy cheap stuff out of a sense of frugality or something, for my family it was a necessity. We could not afford brand new clothes. Period. We were able to afford the most important basics, but had to scrimp and save wherever we could in order to make ends meet.

If that doesn't qualify as "pretty poor", then what does? I see it as being just above poverty. You're not desperate. You're capable of getting by without help. But just barely. What other definition would you suggest for "pretty poor"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Jan 03 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
catwho wrote:
I was laughing at the comment about the Lexus.


Honestly, I thought you were laughing at my "And they don't own a pool" comment.

Quote:
Lower middle class people don't drive Lexuses, new or used. The parts are too expensive.


Just an example. Lexus is considered the lower end of the "nice car" category. I've never owned one, so I can't speak about repair costs. I do know a guy who bought one (a used one) as his first "real car" (ie: not old beater), specifically because it was relatively inexpensive compared to other brand recognizable cars. Never asked him how much it cost to maintain. I do know the thing was absolutely thrashed when he finally got rid of it though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Jan 03 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
One of my mother's friends was a single mom - divorced from an abusive husband. She and her daughter, who was my age and a class mate in middle school, lived in the trailer park a mile up the road from us. The trailer was missing all the interior doors so they had hung sheets up for privacy. I was scared to go in it. She had a car, but it was ancient and frequently broke down and she'd have my mother come pick her up to go to work on those days.

Oh, she was the very definition of working poor, all right. I don't think they had any television, not even a black and white one.

And yeah, they also volunteered at the food bank, now that I think about it, in addition to being on food stamps. What little cash the mother had at the end of the month went to things to help the daughter do better in life - she was in my Girl Scout troop and our school's drama club.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#83 Jan 03 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Taking into account the percentages provided in the six-class model by Gilbert, as well as the model of Thompson and Hickey, one can apply [[U.S. Census Bureau] statistics regarding income. According to these class models the lower middle class is located roughly between the 52nd and 84th percentile of society. In terms of personal income distribution in 2005, that would mean gross annual personal incomes from about $32,500 to $60,000.[21]

As 42% of all households, and the majority of those in the top 40%, had two income earners, household income figures would be significantly higher, ranging from roughly $50,000 to $100,000 annually.[13] In terms of educational attainment, 27% of persons had a Bachelor's degree or higher.
So..what was your dad's annual salary when you were, say, 10? Y'know, for comparison.


Also. That puts me squarely into the "poor as ****" class. And I don't qualify for, much less receive food stamps. You family didn't get food stamps because they DIDN"T ******* QUALIFY.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#84 Jan 03 2013 at 5:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
We've already established you have no concept of "poor".


Not really, but if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Quote:
Try to get through your thick @#%^ing skull that sometimes life is grossly unfair to people and they don't have the resources to continue after a loss, be it a job or spouse or home.


I've never said that wasn't the case.

Quote:
They need to eat.


Yes. Can we also agree that they don't need to drink soda?

Quote:
Who the @#%^ are you to:

A: Deny them food;


I'm not. Assuming we both agree that soda is not food they require in order to avoid starvation.

Quote:
B. Chose what they eat.


I think that if I'm paying for someone else's food, then I do get to choose what they eat. At the very least, I ought to be able to say what I'm not willing to pay for them. More directly, if someone can afford to buy and is choosing to buy soda, then they are not so poor that they require food stamps.


It's just strange that you went on this huge diatribe about how someone who went without a bunch of stuff wasn't really "pretty poor", but apparently being able to afford to buy soda doesn't preclude one from the same analysis. You have a very very odd means of determining such things.


Quote:
Better yet, get in a terrible auto accident, be refused by the insurance companies and lose your job. Oh, and have your house foreclosed on. And your bank fail.


If, after all of that, I'm stocking my fridge with soda, then by all means deny me food stamps. Why is this a hard concept to grasp? If you can afford to buy soda, then you can afford to buy food and you don't need other people's help. If you're choosing to spend other people's help buying soda instead of (or in addition to) food, then you're getting too much in food stamps. In either case, the dollars spent buying soda are dollars that could be reduced from the amount other people are paying to help you without hurting you in any way at all.

Get it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Jan 03 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
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? Your really, really have zero concept of what life for the poor is like. At all.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#86 Jan 03 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
So..what was your dad's annual salary when you were, say, 10? Y'know, for comparison.


How the **** would I know? I was 10. We're talking late 1970s here, so unless you happen to have the inflation tables handy, it wouldn't tell you much anyway. Certainly would be something you could compare directly.

And it wasn't at that time. It was later, when we were living with my mom. Mostly when I was in middle school and high school. My mom was working two jobs and putting herself through school during that time period. Classic tale of divorced woman who set aside her education to have children and then found life very hard to get going afterward.

Quote:
Also. That puts me squarely into the "poor as ****" class.


Yup. Most people grossly underestimate what "middle class" means.

Quote:
And I don't qualify for, much less receive food stamps.


Kinda depends on how many dependents you have though. 20 year old making $18k/year with no dependents is "poor as ****" but is in no real need of assistance (cause you can live on that much when you're that age). Single mom with 3 kids making the same money wont be able to make ends meet.


Quote:
You family didn't get food stamps because they DIDN"T @#%^ING QUALIFY.


How do you know? I don't recall you being there. I just find it strange (yes, I'm saying this for the 3rd time) that you are so quick to insist that my mother could not have been poor enough to have qualified for food stamps (or even to be considered "pretty poor"), yet are equally quick to defend the need for food stamps for people who can afford to have soda in their fridge. That really seems to be inconsistent. I'd think you'd be yelling at them that they aren't really poor and don't really need food stamps.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Jan 03 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
Think of the Honey Boo Boos of the world.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#88 Jan 03 2013 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
High sugar, mass produced, unhealthy food isn't exactly super expensive. That's part of the reason why it's used so often and why there is the obesity "epidemic".

It's not like drinking a gallon of Orange Juice instead of a gallon of Pepsi is really much better for you. I think the Pepsi actually has fewer calories, and beyond the Vitamin C from the OJ, (which is not really that big of a vitamin since it has to be one of the easiest to get through any other foods), the OJ doesn't provide anything good for you since juicing it removes the part that makes the fruit 'good' for you (filling, with few calories). You are left with all the sugar and calories, and none of the 'filling'.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#89 Jan 03 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 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?


No. Because that's about the most stupid thing I've heard outside of an Alma post. Scratch that. It's more stupid.

Quote:
Your really, really have zero concept of what life for the poor is like. At all.


I'm pretty sure that my grasp is greater than that of someone who insists that someone could be "so poor that we had to drink soda in order to feel full when we didn't have enough food". Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Jan 03 2013 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
TirithRR wrote:
High sugar, mass produced, unhealthy food isn't exactly super expensive. That's part of the reason why it's used so often and why there is the obesity "epidemic".

It's not like drinking a gallon of Orange Juice instead of a gallon of Pepsi is really much better for you. I think the Pepsi actually has fewer calories, and beyond the Vitamin C from the OJ, (which is not really that big of a vitamin since it has to be one of the easiest to get through any other foods), the OJ doesn't provide anything good for you since juicing it removes the part that makes the fruit 'good' for you (filling, with few calories). You are left with all the sugar and calories, and none of the 'filling'.


Actual poor people drink water and take vitamin C tablets (or actually eat oranges when possible instead of drinking juice). May I mention for the record that we never had juice in the fridge either. We did occasionally have apples and oranges though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Jan 03 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji 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?
No. Because that's about the most stupid thing I've heard outside of an Alma post. Scratch that. It's more stupid.
Quote:
Your really, really have zero concept of what life for the poor is like. At all.


I'm pretty sure that my grasp is greater than that of someone who insists that someone could be "so poor that we had to drink soda in order to feel full when we didn't have enough food". Smiley: lol
Further confirming that you were never poor and have apparently never been in a poor persons home. For someone who claims to suck in information and process it to form his world-view you sure are leaving out a bunch of data.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#92 Jan 03 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
High sugar, mass produced, unhealthy food isn't exactly super expensive. That's part of the reason why it's used so often and why there is the obesity "epidemic".

It's not like drinking a gallon of Orange Juice instead of a gallon of Pepsi is really much better for you. I think the Pepsi actually has fewer calories, and beyond the Vitamin C from the OJ, (which is not really that big of a vitamin since it has to be one of the easiest to get through any other foods), the OJ doesn't provide anything good for you since juicing it removes the part that makes the fruit 'good' for you (filling, with few calories). You are left with all the sugar and calories, and none of the 'filling'.


Actual poor people drink water and take vitamin C tablets (or actually eat oranges when possible instead of drinking juice). May I mention for the record that we never had juice in the fridge either. We did occasionally have apples and oranges though.


That's not the point (and HA, vitamin tablets?)

The point is you are making a big deal about the "expense" of Soda, and how the Food Stamps being spent on it means they have too much. Soda is cheaper than other non-water beverages, and the other non-water beverages are just as unhealthy in terms of "nothing but empty calories from sugar".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#93 Jan 03 2013 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
**
585 posts
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.
____________________________
.
#94 Jan 03 2013 at 6:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Oh. And I think I can end the debate right here. We also drank powdered milk. Done. I win.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Jan 03 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
Oh ya?

The one time we were allowed sweets for the whole year, we decided on homemade ice cream, but we accidentally put salt in the cream mixture instead of sugar. My dad ate the whole thing because he wanted to show us that we weren't allowed to waste anything.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#96 Jan 03 2013 at 6:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Further confirming that you were never poor and have apparently never been in a poor persons home.


I suspect that it indicates that our definition of poverty has changed dramatically since I was a kid. The idea that poor means you feed your kids soda because it's filling and sugary shows how completely out of whack our priorities have become.


To be fair, the definition and conditions had changed by the time I was a kid too. My dad grew up poor. Really poor. As in, lived with his mom on the edge of someone's property in Missouri, in an old broken down wagon (as in pulled by horses kind of wagon). A typical dinner for him was a can of WW2 surplus soybean soup heated over a steno stove. On the day he finished high school, he walked home diploma in hand, to find his mother standing out front of the wagon with a couple of bags packed with all of his belongings. She gave him a hug and told him he was a man now and sent him off into the world to find his own way.

So please don't try to tell me what poverty is. You honestly have no clue what you are talking about. I suspect that each generation in the US knows less and less about what "real" poverty is. Our standards change. But I do think that the point at which people are making regular purchasing decisions which include things which by any definition are complete luxury items, we've moved so far past "poverty" that the definition becomes meaningless. Are there people who are in such dire conditions that they would go seriously hungry without assistance? Absolutely. But those people would never fill their fridges with soda. Which is the most relevant point here IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Jan 03 2013 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And I think I can end the debate right here. We also drank powdered milk. Done. I win.
Yeah. No.

I drank powdered drank as a kid sometimes, too. In fact much of what you've written about yourself in this thread (excluding the moranic pants bit) applied to me as well. We had a big garden to supplement what went on the table. We got second hand stuff like used bikes by mowing lawns and such. New was too expensive. We had a 12" 1972 Sony TV for over a decade because a new one was too much for my mom's budget. I got new clothes only occassionaly (or mom made them) because I had three older brothers who outgrew theirs and I normally got those. And guess what? That ain't poor.


ALSO: About you dad's pay...just tell us what he did for a living and I think we can ballpark that one. I knew my parents pay when I was ten years old, how could you possibly not know yours?


ALSO: ALSO: Your screed about your tax money going to buy someone pop sounds pretty selfish and hypocritical coming from a guy who gets a tax break on his mortgage. You didn't need that money, but you took it anyway.


Kinda irrelevant. though, seeing as you should be in prison for tax evasion.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#98 Jan 03 2013 at 6:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Actual poor people drink water and take vitamin C tablets (or actually eat oranges when possible instead of drinking juice). May I mention for the record that we never had juice in the fridge either. We did occasionally have apples and oranges though.


That's not the point (and HA, vitamin tablets?)


yes. What was your point? One of the items that was commonly in the food boxes when I was a kid were bottles of various vitamins. I assume because most of the stuff in there was non-perishable, so you usually didn't get fruits and vegetables (except the occasional canned variety of course).

Quote:
The point is you are making a big deal about the "expense" of Soda, and how the Food Stamps being spent on it means they have too much. Soda is cheaper than other non-water beverages, and the other non-water beverages are just as unhealthy in terms of "nothing but empty calories from sugar".


I am not singling out "soda", but any non-necessary item. Soda happens to be something I include in that list. I also include pre-made bottles of fruit juice, especially any that aren't "all natural". Those which are all natural are expensive (a lot more expensive). It's much more economical to simply buy oranges and eat them then to buy orange juice from the store and keep it in the fridge.

And unless you don't have access to a tap, anything other than the gallon or larger jugs of basic water is also a luxury item. You don't need to drink any of them. You can drink water. As I mentioned earlier, if you really need some flavoring, instant tea is relatively inexpensive. My point is that if you are really struggling to feed yourself and your children, you are not going to be buying any of those things. Water is free (more or less). It's what you actually need to hydrate yourself. Actual food should be purchased with food stamps, not yummy treats. It's surprising to me how much resistance this somewhat simple idea is receiving.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Jan 03 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
The resistance is to the idea of "BAN SODA!" As though it's some sort of luxury expense that is a waste of your tax money.

I wonder how much support you'd get if you went around screaming "BAN APPLE JUICE!" or "BAN MILK!"
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#100 Jan 03 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And I think I can end the debate right here. We also drank powdered milk. Done. I win.
Yeah. No.

I drank powdered drank as a kid sometimes, too.


Key word: Sometimes. Replace that with "always" and you're in the ballpark.

Quote:
In fact much of what you've written about yourself in this thread (excluding the moranic pants bit) applied to me as well. We had a big garden to supplement what went on the table. We got second hand stuff like used bikes by mowing lawns and such. New was too expensive. We had a 12" 1972 Sony TV for over a decade because a new one was too much for my mom's budget. I got new clothes only occassionaly (or mom made them) because I had three older brothers who outgrew theirs and I normally got those. And guess what? That ain't poor.


Given that a hour ago you were insisting that this was lower middle class, forgive me if I just assume you don't know what you're talking about. How do you know you weren't poor? If you didn't have those things, and couldn't have them because you couldn't afford them, perhaps you were poor. But in your case, your parents lied to you and told you that they were middle class or something? I don't know.

Quote:
ALSO: About you dad's pay...just tell us what he did for a living and I think we can ballpark that one. I knew my parents pay when I was ten years old, how could you possibly not know yours?


He was an insurance investigator for Equifax. Not what you think though. I mean, he was the guy who would drive around to people's addresses and take pictures of them through their back fences not being as disabled as they claimed. The point is that this is irrelevant. We lived relatively well with my dad. He remarried and moved up north (and we lived with them for several years). My stepmom worked in the welfare department in Santa Cruz at the time. They were not "lower middle class", but comfortably working class. It was my mom who struggled financially. She was the single/divorced mom trying to make ends meet. I'm sure she received some amount of child support from my dad when we were there, but it was still quite a struggle.

Quote:
ALSO: ALSO: Your screed about your tax money going to buy someone pop sounds pretty selfish and hypocritical coming from a guy who gets a tax break on his mortgage. You didn't need that money, but you took it anyway.


There's a huge difference between paying less taxes out of the money you earned, and receiving money you didn't earn in the first place. 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.


Quote:
Kinda irrelevant. though, seeing as you should be in prison for tax evasion.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Jan 03 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
TirithRR wrote:
The resistance is to the idea of "BAN SODA!"


And as I stated in my very first post in this thread I don't agree with the BAN SODA idea either. I do agree with the idea of identifying "staple food goods" and only allowing food stamp dollars to purchase those things. Which is entirely different.

Quote:
As though it's some sort of luxury expense that is a waste of your tax money.


It is. But it's not alone in being so. As I said earlier, here in California, you pay sales tax on a bottle of soda (in addition to CRV). You do *not* pay sales tax when buying a pound of ground beef, or package of chicken *******, or bag of rice. It's quite possible to identify different types of foods and use those differentiations when determining use of something like food stamps. That is what I believe we should do.

Quote:
I wonder how much support you'd get if you went around screaming "BAN APPLE JUICE!" or "BAN MILK!"


Probably not much. Although the costs of those things versus other alternatives should provide incentives to be more frugal with spending dollars (if those dollars are scarce). However, most people wont be, largely because they believe (correctly so far) that their government will provide them whatever number of dollars they "need" to buy stuff, so why not buy the most expensive stuff possible?

I agree that much of this debate is purely about rhetoric that misses the real issue at hand. But that does not mean that we should abandon the basic concept that needs and wants are different things, and if we're paying to address needs, we should do whatever we can to ensure that we're providing just for those needs.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 4:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CST
Allegory, Kavekkk, Szabo, TirithRR, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (49)