Friar Bijou wrote:
We've already established you have no concept of "poor".
Not really, but if it makes you feel better about yourself.
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.
They need to eat.
Yes. Can we also agree that they don't need to drink soda?
Who the @#%^ are you to:
A: Deny them food;
A: Deny them food;
I'm not. Assuming we both agree that soda is not food they require in order to avoid starvation.
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.
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.