Soda for Food StampsFollow

Is it time to play annecdote theatre?

"When Takashi Hashiyama, CEO of a Japanese television equipment manufacturer, decided to auction off the collection of impressionist paintings owned by his corporation, including works by Cézanne, Picasso, and van Gogh, he contacted two leading auction houses, Christie's International and Sotheby's Holdings. Hashiyama asked the firms to decide between themselves who would hold the auction, which included Cézanne's Large Trees Under the Jas de Bouffan, worth $12–16 million. The houses were unable to reach a decision. Hashiyama told the two firms to play rock-paper-scissors to decide who would get the rights to the auction. Christie's won the match and sold the $20 million collection, with millions of dollars of commission for the auction house."

Decision making ability like this is how you make it in the CEO world.

I don't think that being on welfare means you should be restricted on what kinds of foods you choose to eat. There's bigger problems with welfare than people buying too much soda with. I'd rather the government focus on making sure people who truly need welfare are getting it, and the people who don't need it, aren't.



This is just wrong. Who gets to decide how much money is enough to make per year? Who decides what's "good enough" or "comfortably"?

Your argument falls apart when you look at it from a different scale. A starving person in Africa could tell you that 50k/year is way too much money for one person to have and you can live quite "comfortably" with far less. You don't "need" that much money. The rich don't need yachts? You don't need cable TV. The rich don't need a $200 haircut? You don't need coffee from Starbucks.

You're right about someone making 200k/year being silly for acting like they're poor, but they have every damn right to whine about having to pay higher taxes. It's still more money out of their pocket. Again, you seem to lack the proper perspective on this. If they put in a toll booth at the end of your driveway and charge you 25 cents a day, do you rescind the right to whine about it because you can afford to live without it?

And what does the company have to "give back", exactly? They're already giving back. To the consumer, they give back the product or service the consumer wanted. To the worker, they give back wages in exchange for their labor. Wages the worker freely agreed to before starting any work. If they aren't satisfied with the wages they receive for their labor, they can work at another company. If their life circumstances make it so that their options are limited, why is the company to blame?

If you go to a hot dog stand and the guy is willing to sell you a hot dog for $2, do you say "No, no good sir! Even though you're willing to exchange me a hot dog for $2 as opposed to $3 or $4 due to the status of the market, I'm going to voluntarily give you more money than you can get from anyone else just because I should give back and not exploit the circumstances that have led to a $2 hot dog price"

It's the same with workers. Due to whatever circumstances in the job market, they're able to get X wages. Much like the circumstances of the local hot dog market determine what price the vendor is able to sell you a hot dog for, the circumstances of the local job market determine what price a worker is able to "sell" their labor.

Are you honestly saying you're a bad guy for not giving him more than fair market value for his hot dog? If not, then why is a company bad for not giving a worker more than fair market value for their labor?



Edited, Feb 11th 2013 9:40pm by SansDeity

On a slightly amusing note I got approved for food stamps today. So now I not only can I afford to eat more than 1.5 meals a day I can buy the soda Gbaji so despises me for being able to purchase. Sounds like a win/ win to me.

MonxDot? Dat you?

I'm kinda blind. Please point out the words "nearly" and "more or less" in that quote. Don't blather on about the rest of you giberish in the following wall'o'text. That is a statement, you made it, no modifiers.

LERN2ENGLISH

Today my husband has a phone interview to see if we can get food stamps, emergency Medicaid and any other services because he got a separation notice from his job (wonderful) so now he also has no insurance. I doubt we'll buy much soda with our food stamps though. But potato chips...

You guys are good, really. Every time you post one of Gbaji's random quotes and comment on it, I actually begin to wonder where he actually posted it. I spent about 5 seconds looking for the line Smash quoted before reminding myself I just don't give a ****, but shame on me for being tempted in the first place.

This may be true, but it really depends on how long he'll be considered disabled. SSI claims typically take 6 months or more to process. Back in Jan. of 2012, I applied for SSI for my now 18 year old sister who has epilepsy and a related congitive disability. It was 4 months before the paperwork was even pushed through, and another 4 months of doctor appointments and even a psychological review before she was finally approved in August. Having gone through all that, she still gets a mere $490 a month (the max benefit, at least for her), so it's a temporary solution until we can get her a job meshes with her particular set of disabilities.

480 is the max for SSI even if you did work, SSDI is what you get if you become disable before hitting 65. I got SSI 3 months into my total disability while waiting for SSDI to be approved which took another 4 months . They take the benefits paid for SSI out of the settlement for SSDI since that goes back to the date you became disable. That was my case and I didn't have a lawyer, nads hubby could get SSDI straight out the gate depending on that.

Thats because we are socialist =D i.e. Not fascist.


@Gbaji, your post is full of stupid and you should feel bad.

Socialism and Fascism do not oppose Capitalism they are products of it. Socialisms ideology stems from the money going to the people, Fascisms ideology stems from the money being controlled by few people...preferably one (highlander go!) Capitalism is the crux of either economic system, they are no different than the Democratic or Republican parties, or the Conservatives and NDP here.

The issue is when wealth becomes consolidated (fascism), it allows the few to dictate the terms, with wealth spread out no one really acquires the economic power solely to dictate anything(socialsim). The same things can occur under Communism as well, they are essentially just monetary ideologies that oppose each other on the opposite ends of the economic spectrum.

Similar to how both Republic Systems (USA/France) and the Westminster Parliamentary systems(UK/Canada) are both democracies, they have their subtle differences but rely on the core principles of Democracy they do not oppose it, they are born of it.

The true opponent of Capitalism is Communism, but ill let you read about that on your own...then again I am sure Rush will tell you at some point to.









Edited, Feb 12th 2013 1:42pm by rdmcandie

For some reason I have this idea of socialism more an economic policy; a wealth re-distribution kind of thing. Fascism being more of extreme form of nationalism that could exist irregardless of a countries position on the economic spectrum.

That's pretty close, I'd say. Socialism is largely an economic theory. How it's enacted can vary wildly.