Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox Phoenix)   Phoenix mayor lives off food stamp budget for a week, finds out his actions have consequences to people other than him. "Occasionally I'd have a cup of coffee and skip a meal in order to make it through"   (myfoxphoenix.com) divider line 227
    More: Obvious, Arizona Attorney General, food stamps, Reference Daily Intake, Navajo Nation, photo showing  
•       •       •

3794 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2012 at 1:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



227 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-25 11:08:12 AM  
Hero tag? According to FWD:FW:FW: my father in law, It's endless free food if you are poor.
 
Pud
2012-09-25 11:34:39 AM  
Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.
 
2012-09-25 11:35:51 AM  
Next month the mayor is going to smoke crack and give handies for booze in order to understand how closing of treatment centers hurts addicts.

Later, he's going to burn dinner and have Chuck Lidell beat the shiat out of him so he understand the impact of under funding women's shelters.

And finally, he's going to farking shoot himself so he can understand how the medical insurance system works.

farking retarded. You don't have to 'live in someone's shoes' to figure shiat out.
 
2012-09-25 11:40:15 AM  
The goal of the challenge was to make elected leaders more understanding when making decisions that affect people living in difficult circumstances.

"I think it worked in that regard, I think it will make me a better policy maker," Mayor Stanton said.



That's my mayor. Good on you mayor. Finally, I get to be proud of an Arizona politician that represents me.
 
2012-09-25 12:08:18 PM  
Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?
 
2012-09-25 12:12:52 PM  

netizencain: Next month the mayor is going to smoke crack and give handies for booze in order to understand how closing of treatment centers hurts addicts.

Later, he's going to burn dinner and have Chuck Lidell beat the shiat out of him so he understand the impact of under funding women's shelters.

And finally, he's going to farking shoot himself so he can understand how the medical insurance system works.

farking retarded. You don't have to 'live in someone's shoes' to figure shiat out.


I read that as give away handles of booze and wondered where the line formed.

Also -
Dear Mayor -
If you're on foodstamps you don't deserve to go out for coffee. You drink your foodbank Folgers at home like everybody else.

/dnrtfa
 
2012-09-25 12:59:47 PM  
So he lost four pounds in a week on food stamps. Figure the average poor person starts out weighing about 200 pounds. If we give them food stamps for less than a year, the problem of poor people will go away.
 
2012-09-25 01:06:32 PM  
I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.
 
2012-09-25 01:16:30 PM  
Yeah, nice clothes mayor. I bet he drove to to Basha's in his SUV.

He should try taking a bus, or walking to the store.

What? No Basha's near your house?

Now go to the stores that are closest to you, and take what you get.

Aww, they don;t have 'organic' or healthier versions of the food you like. Tough shiat.

What? who will watch the kids? Take them with you.

What? It's a bad neighborhood?

What? you're disabled and can't get to a store?

What? What? What?
 
2012-09-25 01:18:26 PM  

Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.



Depends how much you eat.  Thats about $7/day.  I only eat once per day (not out of necessity, just how my body works).  So I could do it.  I wouldn't be happy, but I could.
 
Now if you're a normal person who eats twice or three times a day, not so much.
 
2012-09-25 01:20:00 PM  
One week, huh?  Try doing it for a year.
 
2012-09-25 01:28:15 PM  

downstairs: just how my body works


Apparently impacting your brain. Excellent argument for improving mental health as part of our healthcare reform.
 
2012-09-25 01:30:54 PM  

Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.


$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.
 
2012-09-25 01:31:33 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: So he lost four pounds in a week on food stamps. Figure the average poor person starts out weighing about 200 pounds. If we give them food stamps for less than a year, the problem of poor people will go away.


there is cheap unhealthy food with lots of calories in it. it just isn't particularly great tasting, and definitely not healthy.
 
2012-09-25 01:34:19 PM  

Godscrack: Yeah, nice clothes mayor. I bet he drove to to Basha's in his SUV.

He should try taking a bus, or walking to the store.

What? No Basha's near your house?

Now go to the stores that are closest to you, and take what you get.

Aww, they don;t have 'organic' or healthier versions of the food you like. Tough shiat.

What? who will watch the kids? Take them with you.

What? It's a bad neighborhood?

What? you're disabled and can't get to a store?

What? What? What?


I agree with your points. All of them. But so many politicians are so out of touch with 'just getting by' means that it is nice to see one try. Even if it is just enough to 'get it'.
 
wee
2012-09-25 01:38:28 PM  
I used to live on $35/week for food. It sucks, but it can be done. You'll wind up hating beans and rice, though. And you'll also discover every possible way to cheaply cook potatoes. I think the only "dish" I still eat from those days is peas tossed in some hot mustard. Add in a half a bacon strip crumbled up, it's pretty a good snack.

I didn't eat cheese for like three years. And forget things like beef (except for a pot roast once in a while) or potato chips. A $5 deli chicken can really go a long way if you're creative. If you do it right, all you have left over is a pile of boiled bones...
 
2012-09-25 01:41:03 PM  
In leaner times,

unlikely: $200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.


Great plan, but many people on food stamps may not be that good with math. You don't get a 'How To Spend Your Food stamps' brochure when you get your card. Maybe they should start doing this. But people don't want to be told what to eat. Then they end up buying too much of the wrong food. Then they get obese.

In leaner times, I found pasta and cheap cans of tomato sauce went a long way. Beans too. And they keep for a long time before use.

And I always made sure I had enough to buy spices. The more you spice food, the more you think you are eating.
 
2012-09-25 01:43:02 PM  

unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.


Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.
 
2012-09-25 01:44:19 PM  

Nadie_AZ: I agree with your points. All of them. But so many politicians are so out of touch with 'just getting by' means that it is nice to see one try. Even if it is just enough to 'get it'.


I didn't even scratch the surface. I've been there. I know/work with people who still are there. It pisses me off when I see these big shots trying to 'feel your pain'.

They wont even get close.
 
2012-09-25 01:46:37 PM  

wee: I used to live on $35/week for food. It sucks, but it can be done. You'll wind up hating beans and rice, though. And you'll also discover every possible way to cheaply cook potatoes. I think the only "dish" I still eat from those days is peas tossed in some hot mustard. Add in a half a bacon strip crumbled up, it's pretty a good snack.

I didn't eat cheese for like three years. And forget things like beef (except for a pot roast once in a while) or potato chips. A $5 deli chicken can really go a long way if you're creative. If you do it right, all you have left over is a pile of boiled bones...


My dad use to make a dish he called a poor man's dinner. Canned peas cooked in condensed milk served on a plain toast. Very good actually.
 
2012-09-25 01:47:00 PM  

gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household


wat

You know, in order to have stuff already present in the household, it had to be purchased at some point. Or do you have some spice replicator in your cupboard?
 
2012-09-25 01:49:26 PM  
How long before he's labeled a Commie loving Socialist, Liberal, Nazi and Marxist?
 
2012-09-25 01:49:49 PM  

gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?


How does any of that help the recipient eat better?

False equivalency...strawman distraction...RIGHT WING BLOW HARD DETECTED!!! ALERT!! ALERT!!
 
2012-09-25 01:49:55 PM  

wee: I used to live on $35/week for food. It sucks, but it can be done. You'll wind up hating beans and rice, though. And you'll also discover every possible way to cheaply cook potatoes. I think the only "dish" I still eat from those days is peas tossed in some hot mustard. Add in a half a bacon strip crumbled up, it's pretty a good snack.

I didn't eat cheese for like three years. And forget things like beef (except for a pot roast once in a while) or potato chips. A $5 deli chicken can really go a long way if you're creative. If you do it right, all you have left over is a pile of boiled bones...


Discarded pizza boxes are an inexpensive source of cheese
 
2012-09-25 01:51:07 PM  
From what I've seen, most of the moochers and parasites could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.
 
2012-09-25 01:51:39 PM  

Godscrack: Nadie_AZ: I agree with your points. All of them. But so many politicians are so out of touch with 'just getting by' means that it is nice to see one try. Even if it is just enough to 'get it'.

I didn't even scratch the surface. I've been there. I know/work with people who still are there. It pisses me off when I see these big shots trying to 'feel your pain'.

They wont even get close.


I keep thinking of people in legislatures who want to do away with many of these programs. How do you get those people to even remotely understand?
 
2012-09-25 01:51:59 PM  
ITT: people desperate to prove how awesome they are at buying groceries, cooking, and eating, unintentionally argue against helping poor people.

It doesn't matter if you're a supergenius at buying food, or love eating rice or beans, or are a human snake that eats one meal a day, can you at least admit living on food stamps SUCKS and we should strive to help poor people to actually eat?

We have Americans, and American children, that go to bed hungry. All you're doing with your math simulations is making Republican's "fark the poor" arguments for them.
 
2012-09-25 01:52:01 PM  

Madbassist1: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

How does any of that help the recipient eat better?

False equivalency...strawman distraction...RIGHT WING BLOW HARD DETECTED!!! ALERT!! ALERT!!


No, it just proves those leeches on food stamps really dine on caviar and lobster six nights a week.

Hey, gerrydork, just so you know: Salt and "spices" don't come with the household. YOU STILL HAVE TO BUY THEM.
 
2012-09-25 01:55:07 PM  

unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.


Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).
 
2012-09-25 01:55:19 PM  

downstairs: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.
Depends how much you eat.  Thats about $7/day.  I only eat once per day (not out of necessity, just how my body works).  So I could do it.  I wouldn't be happy, but I could.  
Now if you're a normal person who eats twice or three times a day, not so much.


I was on food stamps and ate like a farking king. Bought things I wouldn't even normally buy, like parmesan cheese. What the hell are those people who "can't get by" buying?

I'm sure men eat more than I do, but come on. I was feeding my son too.

/Food stamps are the greatest thing EVAR. There is nothing like being so broke you can't even afford to pay your bills, but you can still go get some food. The good this does for your head is above and beyond just keeping a person in groceries.
 
2012-09-25 01:55:22 PM  
Some nitwit on Fark once gave me a long spiel about he made minimum wage, and supported his family, and put himself through school, and didn't take out any school loans, and didn't accept any government aid of any kind, and what's more, he liked it, it made him feel proud and happy to do it.

One of his asinine points was that he could eat beans and rice two meals a day every day, with nothing else, and he was so super-smart that he knew where to buy them for like, 75 cents a truckload.

That pretty much ended any desire to debate economics with people here; someone will always step forward to claim the mantle of Bootstrappy the Great.
 
2012-09-25 01:55:34 PM  

gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?


Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot
 
2012-09-25 01:56:19 PM  
Number 2: You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Humiliation, investigation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation!
 
2012-09-25 01:57:58 PM  

Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.


Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.
 
2012-09-25 01:58:48 PM  

Kibbler: Some nitwit on Fark once gave me a long spiel about he made minimum wage, and supported his family, and put himself through school, and didn't take out any school loans, and didn't accept any government aid of any kind, and what's more, he liked it, it made him feel proud and happy to do it.

One of his asinine points was that he could eat beans and rice two meals a day every day, with nothing else, and he was so super-smart that he knew where to buy them for like, 75 cents a truckload.

That pretty much ended any desire to debate economics with people here; someone will always step forward to claim the mantle of Bootstrappy the Great.


Save that. We're going to need it later.
 
2012-09-25 01:59:39 PM  
CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB
 
2012-09-25 01:59:44 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Godscrack:

I agree with your points. All of them. But so many politicians are so out of touch with 'just getting by' means that it is nice to see one try. Even if it is just enough to 'get it'.


With all the BS misinformation about folks on food stamps (I had a friend tell me he didn't need to cite "public knowledge" when I called him on his argument that SNAP recipients stay on forever), it's definitely refreshing to see one person try to go against the grain, even if it is still a misrepresentation, it brings the needle closer to reality.

I'll wait to see if he actually tries to make any changes before calling it a cheap publicity stunt.

Godscrack:

You don't get a 'How To Spend Your Food stamps' brochure when you get your card. Maybe they should start doing this.

THIS. Along with better funding, more education (for both recipients and the general public), access to healthy food, etc....
 
2012-09-25 01:59:46 PM  
Stanton is a good man. I am next door in Scottsdale and I am very worried about the council going teabagger.

BTW, I am in North Scottsdale and am next to a Bashas. Cheap shopping is good for all of us.

/I am the 6%
 
2012-09-25 02:00:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.



That's why it's called government assistance.
 
2012-09-25 02:01:13 PM  
Hope he submitted to daily drug tests at the supermarket checkout counter
 
2012-09-25 02:01:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Madbassist1: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

How does any of that help the recipient eat better?

False equivalency...strawman distraction...RIGHT WING BLOW HARD DETECTED!!! ALERT!! ALERT!!

No, it just proves those leeches on food stamps really dine on caviar and lobster six nights a week.

Hey, gerrydork, just so you know: Salt and "spices" don't come with the household. YOU STILL HAVE TO BUY THEM.


You need to talk to your realtor, buddy. I just got a nice 3 bedroom, 3 1/2 bath, garlic salt and Season All town house for under $200k. And its only 10 minutes from Metro.
 
2012-09-25 02:02:05 PM  

Nadie_AZ: They wont even get close.

I keep thinking of people in legislatures who want to do away with many of these programs. How do you get those people to even remotely understand?


They're favorite tactic is to use the image of young, able bodied minorities who just want a free ride. So they use this image to paint all FS recipients with the same brush. All of the focus is on minorities as the abusers.

Most of it is political. And with the election of America's first black (mixed, whatever) president, the wealthy right is furious and they want blood.

So everyone ends up paying for the discrimination. Like elderly white people, disabled people and especially veterans.
 
2012-09-25 02:02:43 PM  

downstairs: One week, huh?  Try doing it for a year.


Try getting a job!
.
.
.
j/k - I troll, I troll.
 
2012-09-25 02:02:58 PM  
*than*, subby,

Jesus farking Christ in a chicken basket.
 
2012-09-25 02:03:15 PM  

AbbeySomeone: Also -
Dear Mayor -
If you're on foodstamps you don't deserve to go out for coffee. You drink your foodbank Folgers at home like everybody else.


The way I read it, that's exactly what he did. He couldn't afford to eat, so the threw a pot on and called it a meal.

That's what I usually do for breakfast even now that I can afford to eat.
 
2012-09-25 02:04:11 PM  

unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.


Well yeah, that works if you have luxury items like refrigerators around. I hear most of these so-called poor people have such extravagances these days.
 
2012-09-25 02:04:12 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Godscrack: Nadie_AZ: I agree with your points. All of them. But so many politicians are so out of touch with 'just getting by' means that it is nice to see one try. Even if it is just enough to 'get it'.

I didn't even scratch the surface. I've been there. I know/work with people who still are there. It pisses me off when I see these big shots trying to 'feel your pain'.

They wont even get close.

I keep thinking of people in legislatures who want to do away with many of these programs. How do you get those people to even remotely understand?


You're thinking of them, can you name one?
 
2012-09-25 02:04:40 PM  
Food stamps will provide the absolute baseline level of nutrition if you know what to buy, where to shop, how to cook and have a lot of time to prepare meals. You'll get fat from eating all the starchy food and should include a multivitamin in the budget because you sure as hell aren't getting a well balanced diet.
 
2012-09-25 02:05:11 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).


You also have to be able to afford to buy in bulk each week. Sure this week chicken thighs are on sale and you should stock up. But you need to still buy everything else you need to make it through the week. Do you buy extra cheap chicken at the expense of skipping breakfast for a week? You have to plan really well if you want to purchase in bulk and navigating the sales at your local supermarket.
 
2012-09-25 02:05:40 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).


They invented these things back in the day. They are called wagons. Check craigslist.
 
2012-09-25 02:06:46 PM  
I have a modest proposal. Why don't we simply find ways to temporarily or permanently disable the parts of the brain that tell poor people that they're hungry? It might cost more initially but the savings would pay off over the long run, and think of how much misery we'd be sparing them.
 
2012-09-25 02:06:47 PM  

Godscrack: Yeah, nice clothes mayor. I bet he drove to to Basha's in his SUV.

He should try taking a bus, or walking to the store.

What? No Basha's near your house?

Now go to the stores that are closest to you, and take what you get.

Aww, they don;t have 'organic' or healthier versions of the food you like. Tough shiat.

What? who will watch the kids? Take them with you.

What? It's a bad neighborhood?

What? you're disabled and can't get to a store?

What? What? What?


Last time I was in a Basha's, that $29 would have gotten me a half package of ramen and the stink eye from the cashier. I think the only other "grocery" store in AZ that was more expensive than Basha's was AJ's. Of course, this was about 10 years ago, so since then they may have gotten their heads out of their asses and realized that charging 1 1/2 to 2 times more than Frys or Safeway isn't going to work in a bad economy.
 
2012-09-25 02:07:08 PM  

Kuta: Number 2: You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Humiliation, investigation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation!



know your rights.

You have the right
 
2012-09-25 02:07:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB


That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!
 
2012-09-25 02:08:14 PM  
It sucks, I've been there trying to feed a family of four, but I've kept many of my frugal ways from when I was on food stamps.

I spent just $67 for an entire weeks worth of food for myself, my wife, and a 8 and 6 year old.

Granted we have a huge garden, bake our sweets instead of buying them, and buy beans and rice and flour in bulk, but I still feel kick ass when I can keep my food bill low.
 
2012-09-25 02:09:39 PM  

Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.


How about we force them to give up insurance for a decade. When one of them gets needs a triple bypass and has to either not have it treated or pony up a few hundred thousand dollars, perhaps they'll gain some perspective.
 
2012-09-25 02:09:53 PM  
Heh... Feeding a family of three on 60 bucks a week. No food stamps.

Aldi Supermarkets for the win!
 
2012-09-25 02:11:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB


But I thought President Fart was keeping everyone from getting jobs? What happened to all of that?

You're way off message here.
 
2012-09-25 02:11:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB



Jesus Saves.


/Try the veal
 
2012-09-25 02:12:15 PM  

unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.


There are other things. I am not on food stamps but I spend less than 200 dollars a month on food. I have a garden, I can things. The other day I went fishing and caught about 10 pounds of crappie in two hours total cost to me? 3 dollars for the minnows 12 bucks for a license for the entire year and a few dollars in gas saved me 200 dollars at the store.

People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.
 
2012-09-25 02:13:16 PM  

highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!


Well I'm sort of leaning toward social Darwinism for the lazy ones. The truly disabled and the children we should take care of as a society. I don't think that they represent the majority of the parasites though.
 
2012-09-25 02:13:44 PM  

mrexcess: I have a modest proposal. Why don't we simply find ways to temporarily or permanently disable the parts of the brain that tell poor people that they're hungry? It might cost more initially but the savings would pay off over the long run, and think of how much misery we'd be sparing them.


Wouldn't it be easier to disable the "I've got mine, fark you" part of politicians' brains? There's a lot fewer politicians than poor people, so the initial cost would be lower, and once they stopped being power-hungry sociopaths, they might actually do some good.
 
2012-09-25 02:14:25 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

But I thought President Fart was keeping everyone from getting jobs? What happened to all of that?

You're way off message here.


No, he's just handing out Obama bucks. It's easier to walk to the mail box than it is to ride the bus to a job.
 
2012-09-25 02:14:55 PM  
Am I the only one who thought he came off as a callous douche who only reluctantly acknowledged any difficulty? His biggest acknowledgement was:


"The goal of the challenge was to make elected leaders more understanding when making decisions that affect people living in difficult circumstances.

'I think it worked in that regard, I think it will make me a better policy maker," Mayor Stanton said.'"


Which to me reads like "yeah yeah, whatever, I couldn't eat junk food, boohoo... but yes, I'm totally a better mayor for it. Vote for Greg Stanton: The People's Mayor!"
 
2012-09-25 02:15:19 PM  

Kibbler: Some nitwit on Fark once gave me a long spiel about he made minimum wage, and supported his family, and put himself through school, and didn't take out any school loans, and didn't accept any government aid of any kind, and what's more, he liked it, it made him feel proud and happy to do it.

One of his asinine points was that he could eat beans and rice two meals a day every day, with nothing else, and he was so super-smart that he knew where to buy them for like, 75 cents a truckload.

That pretty much ended any desire to debate economics with people here; someone will always step forward to claim the mantle of Bootstrappy the Great.


Here he is.
 
2012-09-25 02:15:31 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB


Jesus Saves.


/Try the veal


DROxINxTHExWIND: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB


Jesus Saves.


/Try the veal


I sees what you did there.

+1 internets
 
2012-09-25 02:18:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Well I'm sort of leaning toward social Darwinism for the lazy ones. The truly disabled and the children we should take care of as a society. I don't think that they represent the majority of the parasites though.


If you're so damn bootstrappy and you work so many damn jobs how come you're on this board trolling ALL THE DAMN TIME?? When do you actually DO this work you brag about so often?
 
2012-09-25 02:18:45 PM  

I alone am best: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

There are other things. I am not on food stamps but I spend less than 200 dollars a month on food. I have a garden, I can things. The other day I went fishing and caught about 10 pounds of crappie in two hours total cost to me? 3 dollars for the minnows 12 bucks for a license for the entire year and a few dollars in gas saved me 200 dollars at the store.

People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.


My apartment has no dirt other than what I buy to put in a pot. I tried a container garden but I live in Savannah and I'd have to water them several times a day (brutal sun and heat) and my porch is on a different story than any source of water.

I don't have a car because I can't legally drive, and live downtown. So I can't get to a place to fish without spending so much it wouldn't really save anything.

I live cheap most of the time but have multiple medical bills and have to keep fairly regular doctors appointments for my medications. I'm not on food stamps, because my parents help me, but seriously. Yes, there are some great ways to stretch a budget. No, that doesn't mean those tricks are available for everyone.

/also, fishing would probably be ill advised with cataplexy
 
2012-09-25 02:18:59 PM  
I would love to have $29 a week for food. Right now I'm at $18-$20. (It was $16/ week before the Sentry up the street was replaced by a Piggly-Wiggly.)

It's really not that difficult if you live in a city. No meat and check sales fliers. Sure I have to walk 35 minutes to get day-old loaves of bread, but I'm not cutting into my savings much.

I also go shopping to further away stores after job interviews as long as I have a bus transfer.
 
2012-09-25 02:22:53 PM  

Teufelaffe: mrexcess: I have a modest proposal. Why don't we simply find ways to temporarily or permanently disable the parts of the brain that tell poor people that they're hungry? It might cost more initially but the savings would pay off over the long run, and think of how much misery we'd be sparing them.

Wouldn't it be easier to disable the "I've got mine, fark you" part of politicians' brains? There's a lot fewer politicians than poor people, so the initial cost would be lower, and once they stopped being power-hungry sociopaths, they might actually do some good.


Adderall for everyone!

I don't think they make drugs that treat sociopathy yet. Maybe ecstasy?
 
2012-09-25 02:23:05 PM  
Teufelaffe
Wouldn't it be easier to disable the "I've got mine, fark you" part of politicians' brains?

Politicians would never go along with this. The poor, on the other hand, don't have much choice. What are they going to do, hire lawyers?

There's a lot fewer politicians than poor people, so the initial cost would be lower, and once they stopped being power-hungry sociopaths, they might actually do some good.

Why the either/or? I think it's an equally sensible approach in either case. And while we're at it, can we do something about those kids and their saggy pants? Just a little zip zap here and there and the streets could be so much cleaner.
 
2012-09-25 02:23:58 PM  

TheGogmagog: Hero tag? According to FWD:FW:FW: my father in law, It's endless free food if you are poor.


Yup. And prisoners have it even better since they have a guaranteed place to stay and free medical care.
 
2012-09-25 02:24:57 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).


When shopping at the local supermarket, the wife and I saw an obviously low-income woman get out of a cab and make them wait while she shopped. When we walked out after doing our shopping, the cab was still there, meter running.

It's hard to know whether people are just godawful stupid, or they simply have no other way. I'm sure it's both at one time or another.
 
2012-09-25 02:27:58 PM  
When I was in school and could only work a few shifts a week I used to budget $90 a month for groceries and about $30 a month for take-out/restaurants. It farking sucked. The extra budget for take-out wasn't the smartest way to spend money, but it allowed me to go out with friends and for a few nights a month not feel like I was as strapped for cash as I was. But the habits of cheap eating will stick with you for a long time. I still only buy things that are on sale, eat breakfast and lunch from out-of-date items at work and get most of my groceries at Aldi.

I will never look down on anyone for using food stamps. I've been there, and I don't know their circumstances.
 
2012-09-25 02:28:08 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: I alone am best: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

There are other things. I am not on food stamps but I spend less than 200 dollars a month on food. I have a garden, I can things. The other day I went fishing and caught about 10 pounds of crappie in two hours total cost to me? 3 dollars for the minnows 12 bucks for a license for the entire year and a few dollars in gas saved me 200 dollars at the store.

People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.

My apartment has no dirt other than what I buy to put in a pot. I tried a container garden but I live in Savannah and I'd have to water them several times a day (brutal sun and heat) and my porch is on a different story than any source of water.

I don't have a car because I can't legally drive, and live downtown. So I can't get to a place to fish without spending so much it wouldn't really save anything.

I live cheap most of the time but have multiple medical bills and have to keep fairly regular doctors appointments for my medications. I'm not on food stamps, because my parents help me, but seriously. Yes, there are some great ways to stretch a budget. No, that doesn't mean those tricks a ...


I understand that my direct situation does not apply to everyone. If the people that could do something did it there would be more to go around for those who do actually need more.
 
2012-09-25 02:28:13 PM  
TIL that ramen is covered by food stamps.
 
2012-09-25 02:29:46 PM  

Silly Jesus: From what I've seen, most of the moochers and parasites could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.


I don't think Anne Romney is fat.
 
2012-09-25 02:31:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: HotWingConspiracy: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

But I thought President Fart was keeping everyone from getting jobs? What happened to all of that?

You're way off message here.

No, he's just handing out Obama bucks. It's easier to walk to the mail box than it is to ride the bus to a job.


I don't even know what the fark that means.
 
2012-09-25 02:32:37 PM  

I alone am best: doloresonthedottedline: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).

They invented these things back in the day. They are called wagons. Check craigslist.


Assuming you mean the rolly carts, I live in the historic district of Savannah. I'd rather live on ramen than try to roll a cart on the brick streets and sidewalks. I twist my ankle several times a week, last thing I need is a cart with all my groceries bouncing all over, breaking shiat and spilling into the road.

If you mean a horse and buggy, I don't have access to stables.

If you mean a red wagon, I.. Hmm. I'm not sure how that would work in Kroger. Or on the bricks. Or on all the things I'd have to lift it over to get it inside the gate at my apartment and get it either in and out of the basement storage or up to the third story where my kitchen is
 
2012-09-25 02:34:08 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).


Yeah, when I was living on that budget I didn't have a car either. Fortunately I had friends who would take me places if I asked nicely.

Gyrfalcon: The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.


Food stamps won't cover these items.

Invisible Dynamite Monkey: You also have to be able to afford to buy in bulk each week. Sure this week chicken thighs are on sale and you should stock up. But you need to still buy everything else you need to make it through the week. Do you buy extra cheap chicken at the expense of skipping breakfast for a week? You have to plan really well if you want to purchase in bulk and navigating the sales at your local supermarket.


A) Plan ahead, and B) $50 a month on ground beef or chicken breasts doesn't mean you have to buy bulk. That's a lot of beef or chicken. Yeah you're going to have to do some meals without meat, but seriously, I wasn't laying out how to eat like a king on $200, I was pointing out that one person can survive on that amount.

Honestly eating rice and frozen veggies two meals a day would drive me insane. But if you're looking at survival sustenance, it works.
 
2012-09-25 02:34:53 PM  

wee: I used to live on $35/week for food. It sucks, but it can be done. You'll wind up hating beans and rice, though. And you'll also discover every possible way to cheaply cook potatoes. I think the only "dish" I still eat from those days is peas tossed in some hot mustard. Add in a half a bacon strip crumbled up, it's pretty a good snack.

I didn't eat cheese for like three years. And forget things like beef (except for a pot roast once in a while) or potato chips. A $5 deli chicken can really go a long way if you're creative. If you do it right, all you have left over is a pile of boiled bones...


Some of my college friends used to eat like this, and could manage $32/week, but I would never want to have to eat like they did every day. They allowed themselves generic cereal with milk for breakfast and lunch, and for dinner, alternated between noodles with beans and noodles with bulk cheese for dinner. As a splurge, on the weekend, they'd buy the cheapest cut of beef in the grocery store. Obviously, they could've done cheaper by cutting that luxury, but I can understand why they didn't, especially since the entire exercise was just a point of pride in living cheaply rather than out of necessity.
 
2012-09-25 02:39:35 PM  
I don't recall when the then/than thing became such a common error.

Than again, I was younger than, I think, or maybe its just...whatever
 
2012-09-25 02:42:16 PM  

wee: I used to live on $35/week for food. It sucks, but it can be done. You'll wind up hating beans and rice, though. And you'll also discover every possible way to cheaply cook potatoes. I think the only "dish" I still eat from those days is peas tossed in some hot mustard. Add in a half a bacon strip crumbled up, it's pretty a good snack.

I didn't eat cheese for like three years. And forget things like beef (except for a pot roast once in a while) or potato chips. A $5 deli chicken can really go a long way if you're creative. If you do it right, all you have left over is a pile of boiled bones...


Yep, well, you covered about everything (add lentils) so...

/down to the "pile of boiled bones"
//we grow most of our own veggies during the summer now... it's a nice change of pace to completely fill up on fresh tomatoes and eggplant. I did make beans and rice last week, but wish fresh homegrown tomato and peppers and onion and not eating it out of necessity but because I wanted to... it was actually awesome
 
2012-09-25 02:45:23 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: My apartment has no dirt other than what I buy to put in a pot. I tried a container garden but I live in Savannah and I'd have to water them several times a day (brutal sun and heat) and my porch is on a different story than any source of water.

I don't have a car because I can't legally drive, and live downtown. So I can't get to a place to fish without spending so much it wouldn't really save anything.

I live cheap most of the time but have multiple medical bills and have to keep fairly regular doctors appointments for my medications. I'm not on food stamps, because my parents help me, but seriously. Yes, there are some great ways to stretch a budget. No, that doesn't mean those tricks are available for everyone.



Not to mention that I alone am best neglected to include the cost of his cooler, fishing pole and cleaning knife and original garden set-up costs in his calculations.
 
2012-09-25 02:45:42 PM  

doloresonthedottedline:
If you mean a red wagon, I.. Hmm. I'm not sure how that would work in Kroger. Or on the bricks. Or on all the things I'd have to lift it over to get it inside the gate at my apartment and get it either in and out of the basement storage or up to the third story where my kitchen is


It might be a little bit of extra work but if your looking at a little bit of extra work or being hungry a little bit of extra work will look pretty good.

No store is going to stop you from bring in a wagon. If you can fit into the gate you can fit the wagon in. They don't weigh that much when they are empty it would be easy to take it from the basement to the first floor or vice versa.

It sounds to me like the area you live in is not condusive to your lifestyle.
 
2012-09-25 02:47:20 PM  

gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?


Well, he's not including the cell phones, Xboxes and rims that Fark informs me are attached to every poor person at all times either.
 
2012-09-25 02:55:09 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: You need to talk to your realtor, buddy. I just got a nice 3 bedroom, 3 1/2 bath, garlic salt and Season All town house for under $200k. And its only 10 minutes from Metro.


Actually my house is having problems with Brazilian Pepper Trees (invasive species in Florida), my house does indeed come with spices. If you like pink peppercorns.

/Brazilian pepper trees. Sounds like a lot! How many zeros in a Brazilian?
//also comes with Jerusalem Cherries and Angel's Trumpet, if you want to end it all quickly.
 
xcv
2012-09-25 02:56:05 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: I alone am best: doloresonthedottedline: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).

They invented these things back in the day. They are called wagons. Check craigslist.

Assuming you mean the rolly carts, I live in the historic district of Savannah. I'd rather live on ramen than try to roll a cart on the brick streets and sidewalks. I twist my ankle several times a week, last thing I need is a cart with all my groceries bouncing all over, breaking shiat and spilling into the road.

If you mean a horse and buggy, I don't have access to stables.

If you mean a red wagon, I.. Hmm. I'm not sure how that would work in Kroger. Or on the bricks. Or on all the things I'd have to lift it over to get it inside the gate at my apartment and get it either in and out of the basement storage or up to the third story where my kitchen is


Lazy parasite, why haven't you asked your parents for money to buy ownership of a successful business already?
 
2012-09-25 02:56:20 PM  

Nadie_AZ:

I keep thinking of people in legislatures who want to do away with many of these programs. How do you get those people to even remotely understand?


Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them:

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached approx. $940 billion. The federal share will come to around $695 billion, or 74 percent, while state spending will be around $250 billion, or 26 percent.

Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

There are 69 means-tested programs operated by the federal government provide a wide variety of benefits. They include:

•12 programs providing food aid;

•10 housing assistance programs;

•10 programs funding social services;

•9 educational assistance programs;

•8 programs providing cash assistance;

•8 vocational training programs;

•7 medical assistance programs;

•3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,

•2 child care and child development programs.

Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance, and workmen's compensation are not considered means-tested aid and are not included in this list

Only 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.

In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with children. 

Link

Link
 
2012-09-25 02:56:32 PM  

YouAreItNoTagBacks: THIS. Along with better funding, more education (for both recipients and the general public), access to healthy food, etc....



All the booths at my neighborhood farmer's market now accept EBT cards. They implemented it this summer. Thought that was awesome, especially since the area is on the edge of another poor neighborhood that has few options in terms of healthy food.
 
2012-09-25 03:05:12 PM  

I alone am best: doloresonthedottedline:
If you mean a red wagon, I.. Hmm. I'm not sure how that would work in Kroger. Or on the bricks. Or on all the things I'd have to lift it over to get it inside the gate at my apartment and get it either in and out of the basement storage or up to the third story where my kitchen is

It might be a little bit of extra work but if your looking at a little bit of extra work or being hungry a little bit of extra work will look pretty good.

No store is going to stop you from bring in a wagon. If you can fit into the gate you can fit the wagon in. They don't weigh that much when they are empty it would be easy to take it from the basement to the first floor or vice versa.

It sounds to me like the area you live in is not condusive to your lifestyle.


I moved here from rural Kentucky.
I can walk to a grocery store, a pharmacy, and a few cheap take-out places.
I have a bus system.
The weather is great for walking everywhere.
The area I live is very low crime and safe for walking and people are incredibly helpful and polite, I've had tons of offers to help carry my groceries when people saw me struggling or to help me home when I had cataplexy in public.

You'd have a hard time finding a better place for me to live.

But I have to take Adderall which kills my appetite and narcolepsy gives me a low metabolism, so I tend to stretch my budget by just eating way less, and getting really cheap stuff from the Kroger bakery section when it marked down about to go back, or the cheap bags of candy, to get enough calories. And take vitamins.
 
2012-09-25 03:06:42 PM  

Cotton Rinkenbolts: YouAreItNoTagBacks: THIS. Along with better funding, more education (for both recipients and the general public), access to healthy food, etc....


All the booths at my neighborhood farmer's market now accept EBT cards. They implemented it this summer. Thought that was awesome, especially since the area is on the edge of another poor neighborhood that has few options in terms of healthy food.


Same here.... It's a great move. We've also got folks like this doing amazing work (albeit on a small scale).
 
2012-09-25 03:08:06 PM  

xcv: doloresonthedottedline: I alone am best: doloresonthedottedline: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).

They invented these things back in the day. They are called wagons. Check craigslist.

Assuming you mean the rolly carts, I live in the historic district of Savannah. I'd rather live on ramen than try to roll a cart on the brick streets and sidewalks. I twist my ankle several times a week, last thing I need is a cart with all my groceries bouncing all over, breaking shiat and spilling into the road.

If you mean a horse and buggy, I don't have access to stables.

If you mean a red wagon, I.. Hmm. I'm not sure how that would work in Kroger. Or on the bricks. Or on all the things I'd have to lift it over to get it inside the gate at my apartment and get it either in and out of the basement storage or up to the third story where my kitchen is

Lazy parasite, why haven't you asked your parents for money to buy ownership of a successful busines ...


The funny thing is, I'm actually working on starting a business. Because just about any other job would be very difficult with narcolepsy. I'm still very good at a lot of things, but most jobs would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. Managing a business is the one thing I'm most qualified for, but you have to work up to it.

So I'm working on a business plan for a restaurant back home. If it works, I have a life I can be proud if and work hard at. If it fails, my only other real option is bankruptcy and disability anyway, so fark it. Nothin to lose!
 
2012-09-25 03:09:30 PM  

unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.


This is so farking farked up. I literally did most of what you described above for more than a year when I was first starting out and never did it occur to me that I was roughing it.

My food budget was $120 per month and I know because I kept track of all my finances. And at the time I was full-time mechanical engineer living by myself and earning a good salary and I thought $120 was plenty for one person per month unless they live in some place that's a food desert. Oh, and about affording luxuries, I was able to afford all sorts of food luxuries like using olive oil and sesame oil instead of cheap vegetable oil. I was able to buy Jasmine rice instead of cheap rice. I was able to buy breakfast luxuries like milk and boxed cereal such as Total Raisin Bran instead of only oatmeal and grits and toast. I was able to supplement my meals with seasonal fresh fruits and vegetables. Home made deserts like red bean pudding or roasted bananas. Vitamins. All doable. All of that and more on a budget of $120 bucks a month with a standard deviation of $25. Under the normal food access circumstances that the majority of Americans live under, a person struggling to feed themselves with a whole $200 per month would have to be making a lot of unthrifty mistakes.  Mistakes like wasting their money on cups of ramen noodles and other cheap preprocessed food thinking that they're saving money.
 
2012-09-25 03:15:05 PM  
doloresonthedottedline: You should try dog food, I hear that it's way cheaper. It's also perfectly fit for human consumption, the FDA certifies it as such. Not tasty, but then again that's just a luxury not a necessity.
 
2012-09-25 03:20:34 PM  

gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?


How dare poor people use salt! Those entitled pricks!
 
2012-09-25 03:22:29 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

How dare poor people use salt! Those entitled pricks!


According to Fox News 99% of "poor" households have salt and pepper.
 
2012-09-25 03:23:40 PM  

hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them:


The Right isn't proposing anything to make these programs more efficient or effective. They propose nothing more than dramatic budget cuts. They aren't proposing new programs to assist. They'd rather insult those who must rely on them.
 
2012-09-25 03:30:58 PM  

oldass31: My food budget was $120 per month and I know because I kept track of all my finances. And at the time I was full-time mechanical engineer living by myself and earning a good salary and I thought $120 was plenty for one person per month unless they live in some place that's a food desert. Oh, and about affording luxuries, I was able to afford all sorts of food luxuries like using olive oil and sesame oil instead of cheap vegetable oil. I was able to buy Jasmine rice instead of cheap rice. I was able to buy breakfast luxuries like milk and boxed cereal such as Total Raisin Bran instead of only oatmeal and grits and toast. I was able to supplement my meals with seasonal fresh fruits and vegetables. Home made deserts like red bean pudding or roasted bananas. Vitamins. All doable. All of that and more on a budget of $120 bucks a month with a standard deviation of $25. Under the normal food access circumstances that the majority of Americans live under, a person struggling to feed themselves with a whole $200 per month would have to be making a lot of unthrifty mistakes. Mistakes like wasting their money on cups of ramen noodles and other cheap preprocessed food thinking that they're saving money.



Pretty much this.   I'm not sure why my food budget is right now because I'm dealing with some financial issues where my income is completely random from my business.
 
But just off the top of my head... we made pasta last night, sauce made from scratch.  Probably cost me and the wife $3 total.  And it made dinner for 2, plus at least 2 lunches as leftovers.  And totally healthy.  That's $0.75/meal.
 
And when it comes to pasta, there are a million variations... so its not something we ever get bored of eating almost every night.  Yeah, some variations cost a bit more... but we're talking a few bucks more for something that will make *at least* 4 meals.
 
We'll buy a whole chicken for like $6 or so.  Maybe grill it for one dinner for two... but the leftovers stretch to at least 3 more dinners (tacos, encheladas, tostadas) for like $5-7 more in ingredients.
 
I'll admit we do take out when we can, because we live near so many awesome restaurants.  But I can live without that if need be.
 
Really, its not that hard.  Hell, even when times weren't as tight, and we just didn't feel like going out and wanted to stay away from the bar/restaruant scene (we have great friends, but they can go through phases of high drama)... we'd find ourselves basically feeding ourselves for dollars per day.
 
2012-09-25 03:32:04 PM  

Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Well I'm sort of leaning toward social Darwinism for the lazy ones. The truly disabled and the children we should take care of as a society. I don't think that they represent the majority of the parasites though.

If you're so damn bootstrappy and you work so many damn jobs how come you're on this board trolling ALL THE DAMN TIME?? When do you actually DO this work you brag about so often?


In the wee hours. I also have a lot of downtime at work.
 
2012-09-25 03:35:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: From what I've seen, most of the moochers and parasites could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.

I don't think Anne Romney is fat.


Stay at home mothers are parasites? Nifty.
 
2012-09-25 03:35:38 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Silly Jesus: HotWingConspiracy: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

But I thought President Fart was keeping everyone from getting jobs? What happened to all of that?

You're way off message here.

No, he's just handing out Obama bucks. It's easier to walk to the mail box than it is to ride the bus to a job.

I don't even know what the fark that means.


Me neither.
 
2012-09-25 03:36:30 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: I alone am best: doloresonthedottedline: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).

They invented these things back in the day. They are called wagons. Check craigslist.

Assuming you mean the rolly carts, I live in the historic district of Savannah. I'd rather live on ramen than try to roll a cart on the brick streets and sidewalks. I twist my ankle several times a week, last thing I need is a cart with all my groceries bouncing all over, breaking shiat and spilling into the road.

If you mean a horse and buggy, I don't have access to stables.

If you mean a red wagon, I.. Hmm. I'm not sure how that would work in Kroger. Or on the bricks. Or on all the things I'd have to lift it over to get it inside the gate at my apartment and get it either in and out of the basement storage or up to the third story where my kitchen is


How about not living in such a stupid / inconvenient location?
 
2012-09-25 03:38:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: From what I've seen, most of the moochers and parasites could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.

I don't think Anne Romney is fat.

Stay at home mothers are parasites? Nifty.


Mitt Romney thinks so.
 
2012-09-25 03:39:30 PM  

BSABSVR: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Well, he's not including the cell phones, Xboxes and rims that Fark informs me are attached to every poor person at all times either.


Fark has to inform you of that? You don't get out much / read police blotters much do you?
 
2012-09-25 03:39:44 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: The funny thing is, I'm actually working on starting a business. Because just about any other job would be very difficult with narcolepsy.


Perfect job, sadly lost to automation;


Li'l Abner Loses Mattress Testing Job to Dummy
 
2012-09-25 03:42:26 PM  

hasty ambush: Nadie_AZ:

I keep thinking of people in legislatures who want to do away with many of these programs. How do you get those people to even remotely understand?

Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them:

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached approx. $940 billion. The federal share will come to around $695 billion, or 74 percent, while state spending will be around $250 billion, or 26 percent.

Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

There are 69 means-tested programs operated by the federal government provide a wide variety of benefits. They include:

•12 programs providing food aid;

•10 housing assistance programs;

•10 programs funding social services;

•9 educational assistance programs;

•8 programs providing cash assistance;

•8 vocational training programs;

•7 medical assistance programs;

•3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,

•2 child care and child development programs.

Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance, and workmen's compensation are not considered means-tested aid and are not included in this list

Only 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.

In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...


THIS
 
2012-09-25 03:59:07 PM  

hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them


And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.
 
2012-09-25 04:00:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: BSABSVR: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Well, he's not including the cell phones, Xboxes and rims that Fark informs me are attached to every poor person at all times either.

Fark has to inform you of that? You don't get out much / read police blotters much do you?


Yeah. I have better things to do that read the police blotter. Clearly that's a farking moral failing.

Try thinking before posting for a change.
 
2012-09-25 04:00:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS



You mean you think that if this was proposed as an alternative, the answer wouldn't be

"No! Because SOCIALISM!"
?

/I wonder where the free 'means testing' would come from
 
2012-09-25 04:01:58 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: So he lost four pounds in a week on food stamps. Figure the average poor person starts out weighing about 200 pounds. If we give them food stamps for less than a year, the problem of poor people will go away.


Tell you what, bud, you go out and spend 29$ in stores less than an hour away. We'll count the calories and take away all that bad-for-you food like ramen or boxed dinners. You can eat what's left over for the rest of the week.

Wonder how 'spiced air' sounds for dinner?

/Poverty creates obesity because cheap food is shiat food. Correlation is not farking causation. Do not confuse them, even if this is backwards from how we normally think of it.
 
2012-09-25 04:07:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: I also have a lot of downtime at work.


Well I see we have some things in common, then ;)
 
2012-09-25 04:09:54 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them

And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.



How about we get rid of them and replace them with a Negative Income Tax policy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
 
2012-09-25 04:10:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS



BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?
 
2012-09-25 04:12:24 PM  

Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?


A negative income tax policy.
 
2012-09-25 04:16:10 PM  

netizencain: farking retarded. You don't have to 'live in someone's shoes' to figure shiat out.


You do if you've never been poor a single day in your life.
 
2012-09-25 04:30:06 PM  

Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.


How many people are in your household?

downstairs: Depends how much you eat. Thats about $7/day. I only eat once per day (not out of necessity, just how my body works). So I could do it. I wouldn't be happy, but I could.

Now if you're a normal person who eats twice or three times a day, not so much.


Actually, that number is very high for just one person on Food Stamps. Play around with the government's food stamp tool, and you'll see that the daily amount per person is actually a lot lower than that.
 
2012-09-25 04:33:42 PM  
I just got my EBT card on Friday, so I'm getting a kick...

My favorite trick is to pick up a $10 pack of chicken breasts. Toss them in the crock pot with a bunch of spices, and if I freeze half, I've got all the meat I need for a week or more. Add it to ramen, get a $1 can of refried beans, $3 bag of cheese, and a $2 bag of tortilla chips to make nachos, or mix it with rice and frozen veggies.

Various flavors of Cheerios have been on sale for $2.25 a box. So I've been stocking up. Also, a $3 container of Crystal Light drink mix makes 3 gallons.

$200 a month is a bit of a squeeze, but I think I'll be able to make it. Its one of the few times I'm glad I'm single.
 
2012-09-25 04:36:38 PM  

oldass31: Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?

A negative income tax policy.


That inspired the EIC, and look at the screaming that goes on about that.
 
2012-09-25 04:42:21 PM  

Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot


Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others! Here's the thing: salt and one spice (pepper) ARE free -- or so close as to make no odds. Really. You can go into almost any fast food restaurant and snag a week's worth of either. No need to spend a third of your pauper's budget on a few month's worth of them. Or do you think that poor people are just too principled to do so?

And that's presuming you sprung fully-emerged from the head of some angry god into an adult life of poverty, with no one who would give you a salt/pepper shaker set -- not a mother or aunt, not a local food pantry, not a church program for the poor, not the same damn kitchen you still use after losing your job and requiring food assistance.

Then again, maybe your experience is different from mine. Tell me -- do the people you know/have heard of that have gone on government food programs thrown out all the food and spices from their kitchen when they did?

The rules on the "can you live on $X dollars" challenges I looked in to are ridiculously restrictive, to the point of not not coming anywhere close to what people on government assistance programs do. They are designed to make people fail -- and fail DIFFERENTLY than the people truly receiving government assistance. That makes them bad models, and foolish games. Holding them up as validation for anything but one's own do-gooder affirmation is a waste of time.
 
2012-09-25 04:47:29 PM  

gerrymander: Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot

Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others! Here's the thing: salt and one spice (pepper) ARE free -- or so close as to make no odds. Really. You can go into almost any fast food restaurant and snag a week's worth of either. No need to spend a third of your pauper's budget on a few month's worth of them. Or do you think that poor people are just too principled to do so?

And that's presuming you sprung fully-emerged from the head of some angry god into an adult life of poverty, with no one who would give you a salt/pepper shaker set -- not a mother or aunt, not a local food pantry, not a church program for the poor, not the same damn kitchen you still use after losing your job and requiring food assistance.

Then again, maybe your experience is different from mine. Tell me -- do the people you know/have heard of that have gone on government food programs thrown out all the food and spices from their kitchen when they did?

The rules on the "can you live on $X dollars" challenges I looked in to are ridiculously restrictive, to the point of not not coming anywhere close to what people on government assistance programs do. They are designed to make people fail -- and fail DIFFERENTLY than the people truly receiving government assistance. That makes them bad models, and foolish games. Holding them up as validation for anything but one's own do-gooder affirmation is a waste of time.


Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of others like that. It's just wrong. Disdain and selfishness really is the better attitude.
 
2012-09-25 04:49:23 PM  
Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage. This problem was seeded back in the 80s when businesses stopped giving raises for increased production. Now you have the very poor and the very rich. The rich became that way from not paying good wages and now resent having to shell out a couple bucks so that the people they cheated don't starve to death.
 
2012-09-25 04:51:28 PM  

unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.


I feed myself and my boyfriend for a month on $200 easily. That's actually much higher than our budget for food in the past (try $50 a month!) $200 a month is an easy budget to work with for me.
 
2012-09-25 04:53:38 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: oldass31: Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?

A negative income tax policy.

That inspired the EIC, and look at the screaming that goes on about that.


I don't hear very much complaining about the EIC specifically unless you're talking more generally about all that "47% of people are parasites" nonsense.
 
2012-09-25 05:00:22 PM  
Arizona native here, thought I should pipe-in.

My family was middle class then fell on hard times when I was very young. My father absolutely refused to go on food stamps.

I would say that decision was in error.

I cam from a large family and often the only *complete* meal I would get would be at lunch. Breakfast became a distant memory. Thank god at some of the different houses I grew up in there were trees that bore fruit. My point of bringing this up is not to say "whoa was me", but rather to explain that regardless of what side of the political fence you're on, children should NOT go to bed hungry, period. Not in this country. We're better than that - or at least, we should be.
 
2012-09-25 05:07:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of others like that. It's just wrong. Disdain and selfishness really is the better attitude.


When compared with faddish self-involvement that does nothing to actually help, disdain and selfishness truly is the better alternative. At the very least, there isn't some attention-whoring nitwit standing in the way of real social progress.
 
2012-09-25 05:07:57 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.


You shouldn't dismiss his argument so readily. DoD spending is more like 20% and medicare/medicaid/social security is ~45%. Plus the author clearly states that it includes means-tested spending on both the federal, state, and local levels.
 
2012-09-25 05:11:59 PM  

gerrymander: Philip Francis Queeg: Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of others like that. It's just wrong. Disdain and selfishness really is the better attitude.

When compared with faddish self-involvement that does nothing to actually help, disdain and selfishness truly is the better alternative. At the very least, there isn't some attention-whoring nitwit standing in the way of real social progress.


Yes, yes I agree. Caring about others is for losers. People have to stop considering anything but their own p[personal self interest. If someone is in your way, stomp them and stomp them hard. Especially if it is some nit wit who is concerned about the impact of your actions upon others. If children don't have food, tough. That just ,means that someone else is making even more for themselves, and that's all that really matters.
 
2012-09-25 05:23:02 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: I would love to have $29 a week for food. Right now I'm at $18-$20. (It was $16/ week before the Sentry up the street was replaced by a Piggly-Wiggly.)

It's really not that difficult if you live in a city. No meat and check sales fliers. Sure I have to walk 35 minutes to get day-old loaves of bread, but I'm not cutting into my savings much.

I also go shopping to further away stores after job interviews as long as I have a bus transfer.


Plus your using dial up to input that comment to fark or your at the public library right? No I have it. You have an iPhone on a $100 a month
plan and to keep that your eating at less than food stamp levels.
 
2012-09-25 05:24:40 PM  

gerrymander: Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot

Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others!


Don't act like a dick, don't get verbally abused. Try it sometime, dear.
 
2012-09-25 05:25:59 PM  
On 29 bucks a week, Gov. Jan Brewer would spend 6 1/2 days sober.
 
2012-09-25 05:34:20 PM  

oldass31: I don't hear very much complaining about the EIC specifically unless you're talking more generally about all that "47% of people are parasites" nonsense.


That's the most recent incarnation of it.

It existed as part of the talking points long before Willard mentioned it to his donors.
 
2012-09-25 05:39:25 PM  

BSABSVR: Silly Jesus: BSABSVR: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Well, he's not including the cell phones, Xboxes and rims that Fark informs me are attached to every poor person at all times either.

Fark has to inform you of that? You don't get out much / read police blotters much do you?

Yeah. I have better things to do that read the police blotter. Clearly that's a farking moral failing.

Try thinking before posting for a change.


You lost me...
 
2012-09-25 05:39:26 PM  

Bird3149: On 29 bucks a week, Gov. Jan Brewer would spend 6 1/2 days sober.


That's not bootstrappy enough!

Sure you need to buy a 50 gallon trash can and a packet of yeast to start. But after that a couple of pounds of sugar periodically doesn't cost that much.

/actually you'd need at least two containers. One fermenting, one being consumed.
//Plus, I hear you can get sugar packets for free at fast food joints, just like salt and pepper!
 
2012-09-25 05:40:49 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


You mean you think that if this was proposed as an alternative, the answer wouldn't be

"No! Because SOCIALISM!"
?

/I wonder where the free 'means testing' would come from


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Amiright?
 
2012-09-25 05:41:01 PM  

gerrymander: Philip Francis Queeg: Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of others like that. It's just wrong. Disdain and selfishness really is the better attitude.

When compared with faddish self-involvement that does nothing to actually help, disdain and selfishness truly is the better alternative. At the very least, there isn't some attention-whoring nitwit standing in the way of real social progress.


So, being a selfish attention whore who still does some good is worse than just being selfish and not helping at all? Are you sure you understand what the phrase "social progress" actually means?
 
2012-09-25 05:43:18 PM  

Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?


www.shimer.edu
 
2012-09-25 05:43:20 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.
.


CItation?


Your problem is you don't pay enough attention. The figures cited are combined Federal and state means tested welfare spending.

A more complete breakdown of government spending can be found here though MEDICAID is included uner health care spending and things like means tested education programs are under Education spending. Energy and utility assistance might be under energy spendign etc. When you all these means tested welfare programs together you have over $900 billion in COMBINED government spending


Since MEDICAID is a means tested program unlike Social Secuirty and MEDICARE it is part of the Welfare spending dollars

I will repost to help you:

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached approx. $940 billion. The federal share will come to around $695 billion, or 74 percent, while state spending will be around $250 billion, or 26 percent.

Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

There are 69 means-tested programs operated by the federal government provide a wide variety of benefits. They include:

•12 programs providing food aid;

•10 housing assistance programs;

•10 programs funding social services;

•9 educational assistance programs;

•8 programs providing cash assistance;

•8 vocational training programs;

•7 medical assistance programs;

•3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,

•2 child care and child development programs.

Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance, and workmen's compensation are not considered means-tested aid and are not included in this list

70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.

In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...
 
2012-09-25 05:45:22 PM  

Old enough to know better: I just got my EBT card on Friday, so I'm getting a kick...

My favorite trick is to pick up a $10 pack of chicken breasts. Toss them in the crock pot with a bunch of spices, and if I freeze half, I've got all the meat I need for a week or more. Add it to ramen, get a $1 can of refried beans, $3 bag of cheese, and a $2 bag of tortilla chips to make nachos, or mix it with rice and frozen veggies.

Various flavors of Cheerios have been on sale for $2.25 a box. So I've been stocking up. Also, a $3 container of Crystal Light drink mix makes 3 gallons.

$200 a month is a bit of a squeeze, but I think I'll be able to make it. Its one of the few times I'm glad I'm single.


1. You're welcome.
2. Get a job.
 
2012-09-25 05:46:33 PM  

hasty ambush: 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.


It really is terrible that doctors, social workers and others who serve the poor get paid for their labor. Why can't we give that money to the Job Creators and demand that those who serve the poor work for free?
 
2012-09-25 05:47:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: gerrymander: Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot

Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others! Here's the thing: salt and one spice (pepper) ARE free -- or so close as to make no odds. Really. You can go into almost any fast food restaurant and snag a week's worth of either. No need to spend a third of your pauper's budget on a few month's worth of them. Or do you think that poor people are just too principled to do so?

And that's presuming you sprung fully-emerged from the head of some angry god into an adult life of poverty, with no one who would give you a salt/pepper shaker set -- not a mother or aunt, not a local food pantry, not a church program for the poor, not the same damn kitchen you still use after losing your job and requiring food assistance.

Then again, maybe your experience is different from mine. Tell me -- do the people you know/have heard of that have gone on government food programs thrown out all the food and spices from their kitchen when they did?

The rules on the "can you live on $X dollars" challenges I looked in to are ridiculously restrictive, to the point of not not coming anywhere close to what people on government assistance programs do. They are designed to make people fail -- and fail DIFFERENTLY than the people truly receiving government assistance. That makes them bad models, and foolish games. Holding them up as validation for anything but one's own do-gooder affirmation is a waste of time.

Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of o ...


Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.
 
2012-09-25 05:47:23 PM  

Silly Jesus: What do you propose to put in these program's place?

www.shimer.edu



Well, at least it wasn't

www.thinkgeek.com

Although that would seem consistent with the theme.
 
2012-09-25 05:49:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.


So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.
 
2012-09-25 05:53:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.


WTF are you talking about?
 
2012-09-25 05:54:18 PM  

Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.


...at the POINT OF A GUN, amirite, hoss?
 
2012-09-25 05:56:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?


I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?
 
2012-09-25 05:57:15 PM  
They should have made him use the old paper food stamps. I know, no one accepts them anymore and haven't for years.
The times that I did use them were some of the most humbling moments of my life. It made me want to get off food stamps.
 
2012-09-25 05:59:39 PM  

DrBenway: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

...at the POINT OF A GUN, amirite, hoss?


LULZ

Well, that IS the ultimate result of not paying taxes..but I know what you're trying to do there. So sneaky sneaky.

I was merely differentiating between private, voluntary charity and public, forced charity.
 
2012-09-25 06:00:54 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?


I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.
 
2012-09-25 06:02:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.


Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?
 
2012-09-25 06:03:11 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them

And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.


Nonsense, we had this same debate in the mid 1990s. The left does not want any change that undermines their ability to buy votes withe welfare checks.
The GOP wanted to go with block grant system to the states instead of this inefficent one size fits all stupidty we have now that basicaly funds a huge bureacracy with only 30 cents of every welfare dollar reaching a recipient

Compare that to private charity

Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), the
newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by
various criteria and supply that information to the public on their
web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated
spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services
they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent
.
The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample
was only 10.3 percent.


But no lets just keep doing things he way we are now and keep throwing money at these government programs.
 
2012-09-25 06:04:57 PM  

Whatthefark: They should have made him use the old paper food stamps. I know, no one accepts them anymore and haven't for years.
The times that I did use them were some of the most humbling moments of my life. It made me want to get off food stamps.


In AZ in the 70's, they were actual stamps that you pasted on to sheets from a little booklet, then you handed the filled out sheets to the cashier. When I was a kid (maybe 5 or 6) I had no clue what they were...just that they were little green stamps that mom put into a little booklet. So, I took some of the stamps and used them in an 'art project'. I thought my parents were going to kill me when I brought them the neat picture I made with a week's worth of food stamps plastered all over it.
 
2012-09-25 06:06:36 PM  

hasty ambush: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them

And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.

Nonsense, we had this same debate in the mid 1990s. The left does not want any change that undermines their ability to buy votes withe welfare checks.
The GOP wanted to go with block grant system to the states instead of this inefficent one size fits all stupidty we have now that basicaly funds a huge bureacracy with only 30 cents of every welfare dollar reaching a recipient

Compare that to private charity

Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), the
newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by
various criteria and supply that information to the public on their
web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated
spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services
they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent.
The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample
was only 10.3 percent.

But no lets just keep doing things he way we are now and keep throwing money at these government programs.


So tell, us , before these awful government programs existed, were those private charities adequately addressing the needs of the poor? Were all poor children fed clothed and housed?
 
2012-09-25 06:07:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?


That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.
 
2012-09-25 06:08:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them

And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.

Nonsense, we had this same debate in the mid 1990s. The left does not want any change that undermines their ability to buy votes withe welfare checks.
The GOP wanted to go with block grant system to the states instead of this inefficent one size fits all stupidty we have now that basicaly funds a huge bureacracy with only 30 cents of every welfare dollar reaching a recipient

Compare that to private charity

Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), the
newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by
various criteria and supply that information to the public on their
web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated
spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services
they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent.
The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample
was only 10.3 percent.

But no lets just keep doing things he way we are now and keep throwing money at these government programs.

So tell, us , before ...


Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?
 
2012-09-25 06:11:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?

That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.


Well then if the people who pay for public services like the Fire Department are least likely to need them, why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you need rescue, pay cash up front. Don't force others to be concerned about your w well being if they aren't likely to need it. Quit being a parasite, pay for the EMT yourself.
 
2012-09-25 06:12:44 PM  

Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?


Aaandd we're back to the "not being able to help everyone is worse than helping no one" stupidity.
 
2012-09-25 06:13:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?

That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.

Well then if the people who pay for public services like the Fire Department are least likely to need them, why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you need rescue, pay cash up front. Don't force others to be concerned about your w well being if they aren't likely to need it. Quit being a parasite, pay for the EMT yourself.


OK. When it comes up for a vote I'll vote for that option. It's not like I really have an option currently.
 
2012-09-25 06:14:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?

Aaandd we're back to the "not being able to help everyone is worse than helping no one" stupidity.


No. He was implying that government forced charity is better because private voluntary charity didn't help everyone. I was simply pointing out that that statement is meaningless because forced government charity doesn't help everyone either.
 
2012-09-25 06:17:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?


Better than they were before the Federal social service programs were put into effect.
 
2012-09-25 06:19:40 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?

That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.

Well then if the people who pay for public services like the Fire Department are least likely to need them, why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you need rescue, pay cash up front. Don't force others to be concerned about your w well being if they aren't likely to need it. Quit being a parasite, pay for the EMT yourself.

OK. When it comes up for a vote I'll vote for that option. It's not like I really have an option currently.


Moochers like you will never give up their safety net.
 
2012-09-25 06:28:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?

Aaandd we're back to the "not being able to help everyone is worse than helping no one" stupidity.

No. He was implying that government forced charity is better because private voluntary charity didn't help everyone. I was simply pointing out that that statement is meaningless because forced government charity doesn't help everyone either.


And private voluntary charity is not capable of helping as many people as government charity, forced or otherwise, so it's still a stupid argument to suggest that privatizing charitable assistance is inherently superior to the government enforcing it.

Here's the thing, you're approaching this from a "what about ME?" standpoint, when the very nature of a government is that it isn't about the individual. An effective government is about maximizing the common good, and that frequently happens at the expense of the individual. If you're unhappy with that, well too farking bad, since there's pretty much nowhere on Earth you can go where you won't find it to be the case to some degree or another.
 
2012-09-25 06:36:33 PM  

Silly Jesus: From what I've seen, most of the moochers and parasites could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.

 


too large to post

/ironically
 
2012-09-25 06:38:04 PM  

highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!


Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?
 
2012-09-25 06:40:04 PM  

xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.


This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.
 
2012-09-25 06:46:44 PM  

Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?


You aren't bootstrappy enough?
 
2012-09-25 07:01:05 PM  

I alone am best:
People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.


Yeh... I can just see the legions of poor people with their fishing poles in the east river in new york... or off the Jersey shore... or maybe off the piers in LA or the cliffs in Oceanside in San Diego after the 100th toxic sewage spill of the year... ever see that three-eyed fish on the Simpsons that lives in the river by the nuke plant? There's worse stuff out there, if there's any of it that's still alive. And you do NOT want to eat it

What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?
Here's a hint - everyone doesn't live where you live. Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone isn't you.
 
2012-09-25 07:03:29 PM  

rewind2846: xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.

This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.


We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.
 
2012-09-25 07:14:30 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?

Better than they were before the Federal social service programs were put into effect.


Citation needed.
 
2012-09-25 07:16:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?

That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.

Well then if the people who pay for public services like the Fire Department are least likely to need them, why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you need rescue, pay cash up front. Don't force others to be concerned about your w well being if they aren't likely to need it. Quit being a parasite, pay for the EMT yourself.

OK. When it comes up for a vote I'll vote for that option. It's not like I really have an option currently.

Moochers like you will never give up their safety net.


I'm talking about paying for a service. That makes me a moocher with a safety net?

Several communities around the country already have this in place. There's usually a butthurt Fark thread when someone's house burns down because they didn't pay their fire service fee for the year.

Pay the fee and the fire department comes to your house if it's on fire. Don't pay it and they just come and watch to make sure that it doesn't spread to any of your paying neighbors.
 
2012-09-25 07:18:33 PM  

midigod: doloresonthedottedline: can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).

When shopping at the local supermarket, the wife and I saw an obviously low-income woman get out of a cab and make them wait while she shopped. When we walked out after doing our shopping, the cab was still there, meter running.

It's hard to know whether people are just godawful stupid, or they simply have no other way. I'm sure it's both at one time or another.


You have a car? Break out a calculator and figure how much it costs you to keep that car... insurance, registration, payments, gas, repairs, that kind of thing. Now you can reduce the gas costs because you only get to use that car twice a month, just to go grocery shopping. All other costs stay constant.

Now consider that woman in the cab. She obviously doesn't have a car. If she lives within a mile of the store, even with the meter running she may not spend more than $30 - $40 on that trip.every two weeks. That $60 - $80 may get her a month of cheap car insurance, if she had a good driving record and drove a beater with liability only on the policy. Of course that beater will cost her more in maintenance, so any insurance savings will probably be cancelled out.

Depending on how long she keeps the cab driver waiting, she may actually come out ahead on the deal.
 
2012-09-25 07:19:31 PM  

Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?

Aaandd we're back to the "not being able to help everyone is worse than helping no one" stupidity.

No. He was implying that government forced charity is better because private voluntary charity didn't help everyone. I was simply pointing out that that statement is meaningless because forced government charity doesn't help everyone either.

And private voluntary charity is not capable of helping as many people as government charity, forced or otherwise, so it's still a stupid argument to suggest that privatizing charitable assistance is inherently superior to the government enforcing it.

Here's the thing, you're approaching this from a "what about ME?" standpoint, when the very nature of a government is that it isn't about the individual. An effective government is about maximizing the common good, and that frequently happens at the expense of the individual. If you're unhappy with that, well too farking bad, since there's pretty much nowhere on Earth you can go where you won't find it to be the case to some degree or another.


This is where we differ. Of course government is necessary and provides things that otherwise can't be provided, but to what extent do we keep extending the reach of government? That's where we differ. I think that it's been extended too far already while you would probably like to see it extended more.
 
2012-09-25 07:21:20 PM  

Teufelaffe: We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.


But this would ensure that only independently wealthy people ran and served.
 
2012-09-25 07:23:34 PM  

Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?


Advice? Not really. Maybe you just have no marketable skills. 0-30 seems pretty bad. Maybe obtain a skill of some sort. My part time job is a delivery job for a small company. The only skill needed is being able to drive. Have you tried Domino's etc? Just in a 5 mile radius of me I have seen "Now Hiring" signs at Domino's, Papa John's, McDonalds, Publix and the local Parks and Recreation Department.
 
2012-09-25 07:26:22 PM  

rewind2846: I alone am best:
People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.

Yeh... I can just see the legions of poor people with their fishing poles in the east river in new york... or off the Jersey shore... or maybe off the piers in LA or the cliffs in Oceanside in San Diego after the 100th toxic sewage spill of the year... ever see that three-eyed fish on the Simpsons that lives in the river by the nuke plant? There's worse stuff out there, if there's any of it that's still alive. And you do NOT want to eat it

What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?
Here's a hint - everyone doesn't live where you live. Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone isn't you.


www.uhaul.com
 
2012-09-25 07:32:58 PM  

Teufelaffe: rewind2846: xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.

This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.

We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.


Yeah... with that logic, only people who really WANT to be lawyers would go to law school, and work for free... only people who really WANT to handle sh*t would be honeywagon drivers, and come home smelling like sun-ripened foulness every day for free... only people who WANT to be truck drivers would train to drive big rigs, and risk road hazards most people never see driving for days at a time for free... in fact, maybe ALL jobs should pay nothing... maybe then only the people who really WANT to do them will want them.

Let's start with YOUR job. Would you show up tomorrow if you weren't going to be paid?

What is with you people? IT IS A JOB. It's called a job because people get paid for doing it.
You won't get ANYONE as our elected officials EXCEPT the nutcases and zealots who see this as some sort of holy calling. You think someone like Michelle Bachmann is nuts? At least she's sane enough to realize that if she doesn't do what her constituents want, or at least her donors, she won't get paid.

Put down the bong, dood.
 
2012-09-25 07:36:02 PM  

Silly Jesus:

[www.uhaul.com image 404x228]


If they could afford to move, they wouldn't be "poor" genius.
 
2012-09-25 07:45:55 PM  

rewind2846: Silly Jesus:

[www.uhaul.com image 404x228]

If they could afford to move, they wouldn't be "poor" genius.


LULZ
 
2012-09-25 07:56:13 PM  

NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.


THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.
 
2012-09-25 07:59:55 PM  

rewind2846: NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.


So people should be paid more than their work is worth just to meet some arbitrary "living wage" number?
 
2012-09-25 08:13:06 PM  

rewind2846: Teufelaffe: rewind2846: xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.

This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.

We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.

Yeah... with that logic, only people who really WANT to be lawyers would go to law school, and work for free... only people who really WANT to handle sh*t would be honeywagon drivers, and come home smelling like sun-ripened foulness every day for free... only people who WANT to be truck drivers would train to drive big rigs, and risk road hazards most people never see driving for days at a time for free... in fact, maybe ALL jobs should pay nothing... maybe then only the people who really WANT to do them will want them.

Let's start with YOUR job. Would you show up tomorrow if you weren't going to be paid?

What is with you people? IT IS A JOB. It's called a job because people get p ...


Actually, I think that once you become a public servant, your assets should be frozen, you should be moved into government housing, and have your room and board provided by the government. You should be prohibited from receiving payments or gifts from any party outside of the government while you are in office. For a period of ten years after you leave office, you should be prohibited from receiving payments, gifts, or employment from any industry whose lobbyist you interacted with while in office. The only real difference there should be between going to prison and being an elected official should be less butt-rape for the elected officials.
 
2012-09-25 08:16:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: rewind2846: NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.

So people should be paid more than their work is worth just to meet some arbitrary "living wage" number?


It's either that or expand our social safety net to be larger than it already is in order to ensure all citizens' basic needs are met. It's what most of the rest of the developed world likes to call "being a civilized society."
 
2012-09-25 08:18:12 PM  

Teufelaffe: rewind2846: Teufelaffe: rewind2846: xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.

This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.

We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.

Yeah... with that logic, only people who really WANT to be lawyers would go to law school, and work for free... only people who really WANT to handle sh*t would be honeywagon drivers, and come home smelling like sun-ripened foulness every day for free... only people who WANT to be truck drivers would train to drive big rigs, and risk road hazards most people never see driving for days at a time for free... in fact, maybe ALL jobs should pay nothing... maybe then only the people who really WANT to do them will want them.

Let's start with YOUR job. Would you show up tomorrow if you weren't going to be paid?

What is with you people? IT IS A JOB. It's called a job because ...


Should they also ride unicorns and fart sprinkles?

Not really sure if you're serious...but if you are, who the hell would you find to sign up for such an assignment?
 
2012-09-25 08:21:10 PM  

Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.

So people should be paid more than their work is worth just to meet some arbitrary "living wage" number?

It's either that or expand our social safety net to be larger than it already is in order to ensure all citizens' basic needs are met. It's what most of the rest of the developed world likes to call "being a civilized society."


Paying people more than they are worth is being a civilized society? Interesting.
 
2012-09-25 08:33:46 PM  

Silly Jesus: Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.

So people should be paid more than their work is worth just to meet some arbitrary "living wage" number?

It's either that or expand our social safety net to be larger than it already is in order to ensure all citizens' basic needs are met. It's what most of the rest of the developed world likes to call "being a civilized society."

Paying people more than they are worth is being a civilized society? Interesting.


A person's worth is determined by what they're paid? Interesting.

Silly Jesus: Not really sure if you're serious...but if you are, who the hell would you find to sign up for such an assignment?


People who want to do the job for the sake of the job, not for the benefits. That's my entire point. As it stands now, a lot of people get into politics as a way to get money and power and they don't give a flying rat's arse about serving their constituents. As the last few decades have shown, this results in most of the country getting farked over as the people in power continue with their ongoing campaign to get more and more money and power. So, you take away the money, and limit the power. Then you'd be left with the bat-shiat loonies, which we already have, and the people who are there to serve the people. Al Franken and Bernie Sanders are a couple of examples of that on the left side of the isle. Honestly, the right's whackjobs take center stage so much that I don't know of such people on the right, but I'm sure there are some Republican elected officials who are there to represent the people.

Now, I know that my idea would never happen. It's just one of those "wouldn't it be nice?" type of things.
 
2012-09-25 08:54:28 PM  
I suspect actions like this is the best way to reach that top 15% or so of wealth in the country. A lot of the wealthy are wealthy from birth and have no real concept of "struggling".
 
2012-09-25 08:59:15 PM  

Teufelaffe: Actually, I think that once you become a public servant,....


Okay, I've been trolled. Good job.
/it was the "servant" that tipped me off
 
2012-09-25 09:21:20 PM  

wee: I used to live on $35/week for food. It sucks, but it can be done. You'll wind up hating beans and rice, though. And you'll also discover every possible way to cheaply cook potatoes. I think the only "dish" I still eat from those days is peas tossed in some hot mustard. Add in a half a bacon strip crumbled up, it's pretty a good snack.

I didn't eat cheese for like three years. And forget things like beef (except for a pot roast once in a while) or potato chips. A $5 deli chicken can really go a long way if you're creative. If you do it right, all you have left over is a pile of boiled bones...


Beef heart & liver is well under $2.00/lb but I gotta admit that pork liver is ghastly.
 
2012-09-25 09:22:13 PM  
rewind2846
You won't get ANYONE as our elected officials EXCEPT the nutcases and zealots who see this as some sort of holy calling.

They apparently think that the perks of the job are the pay and benefits, and not.. you know.. being a legislator. What they propose is that the only people fit to be legislators are the people who are wealthy enough that they don't need to work. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either.

rewind2846
What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?

Sadly, it's inherent in conservative thought. It is naturalistic and primitive. It's only recently that liberal thought has led to a distinction between "success" and "moral goodness". It's the same reason why utter crap such as "The Secret" has such popularity. It's the same reason why "Might makes right" is still regarded as true (though they won't admit it, because they recognize the negative connotation and tend to be more concerned with how words make people feel than what the words actually mean). It's the same reason that, when presented with the problem of, say, "starving poor people", conservative thinkers deny that it is even a problem. Heck, it's the same reason why they engage in hero worship, because they do not distinguish between the morality of an action and the morality of the person doing the act.

If asked, they'll deny this.. because it sounds bad. The religious tend to be the worst of these, so I'll pick on them. They are perfectly fine with genocide (as long as God commands it). They are perfectly fine with annexation (as long as God commands it). Their theodicies go to extreme lengths to be able to claim that everything is just (as the perfection of their God demands it). There is a natural social desire for justice, and extremely conservative people have trouble distinguishing between mental constructs and reality. Again, they'll deny this, yet every Sunday you have people raising their hands and shouting as the holy spirit possesses them. Heck, just look at the usage of "liberal" and "socialism" in media. They use the same strategies that I use on my freaking dog. My dog doesn't know what my commands mean, he merely recognizes them as cues that entail some consequence.

And to the people who will respond "That's not conservatism at all". Yes, it is. It is conservative by definition. Conservatism is about the way things used to be. There is nothing more conservative than this naturalistic crap. It's the way our earliest ancestors thought. The problem is that you define "Conservative" as "Your group" and "Liberal" as "Their group", with your group's ideology being some combination of ancient conservatism and liberalism-from-300-years-ago.

Also, I'm not saying that conservatism is always bad or that liberalism is always good. If you are defining the terms in this way, then you are categorizing things based on moral judgements and not based on any objective standard. That is, if you think that conservatism is always right, then you are merely assembling things that you approve of and then applying the label "conservative" to it. You don't care about what people mean when they use the word, you only care that you can claim the magical words of power for yourself.

That said, whether a liberal or conservative approach is correct at the moment, conservatism will always be, by definition, on the wrong side of history. If it was on the right side of history, it'd be called liberalism. The question is not "Should we progress" but, instead, "How fast should we progress".
 
wee
2012-09-25 09:33:15 PM  

CptnSpldng: Beef heart & liver is well under $2.00/lb but I gotta admit that pork liver is ghastly.


Chicken thighs are pretty cheap, and actually taste like something. Though I ate a lot of game meat back then...
 
2012-09-25 09:34:00 PM  

Teufelaffe: A person's worth is determined by what they're paid? Interesting.


Ummm...not sure if serious...

I meant worth in the context of a business. If I am paying you to produce a widget for me that I can sell for $10 then you're not worth $15 to make each one. I'd be losing money.

As for your politicians riding unicorns idea...I agree, it would be nice, but it's not even remotely realistic.
 
2012-09-25 09:43:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.


A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.
 
2012-09-25 09:47:34 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.

A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.


www.whoisbolaji.com
 
2012-09-25 09:54:00 PM  

rewind2846: I alone am best:
People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.

Yeh... I can just see the legions of poor people with their fishing poles in the east river in new york... or off the Jersey shore... or maybe off the piers in LA or the cliffs in Oceanside in San Diego after the 100th toxic sewage spill of the year... ever see that three-eyed fish on the Simpsons that lives in the river by the nuke plant? There's worse stuff out there, if there's any of it that's still alive. And you do NOT want to eat it

What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?
Here's a hint - everyone doesn't live where you live. Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone isn't you.


Hey! 2nd largest (in income) of all Eastern seaboard ports. Rag on North Jersey all ya want, but STFU about the shore.
Link
 
2012-09-25 10:58:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: Bathia_Mapes: Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.

A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.

[www.whoisbolaji.com image 300x300]


So you're one of those "empathy is for the weak" kind of people....

I bet you think you've never been helped in your life.
 
2012-09-25 11:37:32 PM  
How did he get to the store? Drive?
He should have shopped in a shaity little downtown "grocer" and see how far his money goes for those "quality" products.
 
2012-09-26 12:01:53 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Godscrack: Yeah, nice clothes mayor. I bet he drove to to Basha's in his SUV.

He should try taking a bus, or walking to the store.

What? No Basha's near your house?

Now go to the stores that are closest to you, and take what you get.

Aww, they don;t have 'organic' or healthier versions of the food you like. Tough shiat.

What? who will watch the kids? Take them with you.

What? It's a bad neighborhood?

What? you're disabled and can't get to a store?

What? What? What?

I agree with your points. All of them. But so many politicians are so out of touch with 'just getting by' means that it is nice to see one try. Even if it is just enough to 'get it'.


Stanton is a good guy. He lives in my neighborhood and it is certainly not affluent nor exclusive here.
 
2012-09-26 12:50:40 AM  

Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB


Perhaps you are exceptionally motivated and good at interviews. You're not so much boot strappy as you are lucky. You are lucky to have the talent to enable you to perform well in interviews. You are lucky not to be suffering any depression or anxiety that saps your ability to compete. You are lucky not to suffer from social phobia which makes it damn near impossible to sell yourself in an interview. You seriously don't know how lucky you are compared to many of those you piss on from above.

I applied for at least 10 jobs every 2 weeks for over a year before I found a job. This is despite having a lot of experience as a computer programmer in .NET and SQL Server. I suffer from social phobia and atypical depression. These conditions make it hard to apply for jobs and a nightmare to attend an interview.

It was only once I was put on medication to treat these illnesses that I had a chance in the job market - I was employed in an $80K per year job within 4 weeks of starting on Parnate.

The only reason I could get any treatment when I was unemployed and destitute was because I live in a country that has a government subsidized health care system. Otherwise I'm not sure I would even be alive now.

So think about that next time you heap shiat on someone for not being as talented or just plain lucky as you are. I am of course assuming you are capable of empathy.
 
2012-09-26 12:52:49 AM  

TippySheraton: Stanton is a good guy. He lives in my neighborhood and it is certainly not affluent nor exclusive here.


That explains it. Too bad his point will be lost on those who really need to understand it.
 
2012-09-26 01:09:00 AM  

Frederick: I bet you think you've never been helped in your life.


Also has never been helped in his life:
cache.gawker.com
 
2012-09-26 01:09:22 AM  

Flaming Yawn: TheGogmagog: Hero tag? According to FWD:FW:FW: my father in law, It's endless free food if you are poor.

Yup. And prisoners have it even better since they have a guaranteed place to stay and free medical care.


About 20 years ago in Ontario, the Conservative party, lead by Mike Harris (qualification - golf pro) had proposed cutting welfare at one point. A report was ordered by the government to prove that these cuts would be possible without harm to those receiving them. The report, by the provincial government's own agency, stated that the nutritional requirement could not met under the plan. The plan, in one part, called for macaroni, no cheese. Subsequently, the Premiere was pelted with macaroni at public appearances.
 
2012-09-26 03:55:21 AM  

eagles95: Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?

You aren't bootstrappy enough?


I guess. Right now I have just about enough bootstraps to hang myself.

I might do it, but it would leave my mom on the hook for my student loans, and that's not really fair.
 
2012-09-26 04:58:18 AM  

Frederick: Silly Jesus: Bathia_Mapes: Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.

A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.

[www.whoisbolaji.com image 300x300]

So you're one of those "empathy is for the weak" kind of people....

I bet you think you've never been helped in your life.


Nah, I just don't like forced empathy.
 
2012-09-26 05:00:43 AM  

kg2095: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

Perhaps you are exceptionally motivated and good at interviews. You're not so much boot strappy as you are lucky. You are lucky to have the talent to enable you to perform well in interviews. You are lucky not to be suffering any depression or anxiety that saps your ability to compete. You are lucky not to suffer from social phobia which makes it damn near impossible to sell yourself in an interview. You seriously don't know how lucky you are compared to many of those you piss on from above.

I applied for at least 10 jobs every 2 weeks for over a year before I found a job. This is despite having a lot of experience as a computer programmer in .NET and SQL Server. I suffer from social phobia and atypical depression. These conditions make it hard to apply for jobs and a nightmare to attend an interview.

It was only once I was put on medication to treat these illnesses that I had a chance in the job market - I was employed in an $80K per year job within 4 weeks of starting on Parnate.

The only reason I could get any treatment when I was unemployed and destitute was because I live in a country that has a government subsidized health care system. Otherwise I'm not sure I would even be alive now.

So think about that next time you heap shiat on someone for not being as talented or just plain lucky as you are. I am of cou ...


I don't categorize my success, or the success of others, as luck. Thanks though.
 
2012-09-26 05:30:57 AM  

Silly Jesus: Bathia_Mapes: Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.

A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.

[www.whoisbolaji.com image 300x300]


I for one wasn't asking for empathy, forced or otherwise. I was merely pointing out that buying in bulk isn't an option for everyone due to the circumstances I listed.
 
2012-09-26 07:48:02 AM  

Godscrack: Nadie_AZ: They wont even get close.

I keep thinking of people in legislatures who want to do away with many of these programs. How do you get those people to even remotely understand?

They're favorite tactic is to use the image of young, able bodied minorities who just want a free ride. So they use this image to paint all FS recipients with the same brush. All of the focus is on minorities as the abusers.

Most of it is political. And with the election of America's first black (mixed, whatever) president, the wealthy right is furious and they want blood.

So everyone ends up paying for the discrimination. Like elderly white people, disabled people and especially veterans.


^THIS
 
2012-09-26 08:30:24 AM  

Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?


If they live in the United States of America, and they aren't, then we all should be ashamed of ourselves...everyone of us.

/also thanks for the non-answer earlier.
 
2012-09-26 09:19:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So tell, us , before these awful government programs existed, were those private charities adequately addressing the needs of the poor? Were all poor children fed clothed and housed?


Are they now? There are no 100% effective programs It is a question which is a more efficient way to get help to the poor. With government you have only 30 cents of every allocated dollar reaching the intended recipient (civil service empolyees are expensive) while the private sector averages 70-75 cents of every dollar getting to the intended recipient.

citation
 
2012-09-26 09:25:48 AM  

gerrymander: Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot

Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others! Here's the thing: salt and one spice (pepper) ARE free -- or so close as to make no odds. Really. You can go into almost any fast food restaurant and snag a week's worth of either. No need to spend a third of your pauper's budget on a few month's worth of them. Or do you think that poor people are just too principled to do so?

And that's presuming you sprung fully-emerged from the head of some angry god into an adult life of poverty, with no one who would give you a salt/pepper shaker set -- not a mother or aunt, not a local food pantry, not a church program for the poor, not the same damn kitchen you still use after losing your job and requiring food assistance.

Then again, maybe your experience is different from mine. Tell me -- do the people you know/have heard of that have gone on government food programs thrown out all the food and spices from their kitchen when they did?

The rules on the "can you live on $X dollars" challenges I looked in to are ridiculously restrictive, to the point of not not coming anywhere close to what people on government assistance programs do. They are designed to make people fail -- and fail DIFFERENTLY than the people truly receiving government assistance. That makes them bad models, and foolish games. Holding them up as validation for anything but one's own do-gooder affirmation is a waste of time.


If you're advocating theft as necessary to survive on food stamps then I believe the point of the article has been made.
 
2012-09-26 09:56:33 AM  

wee: CptnSpldng: Beef heart & liver is well under $2.00/lb but I gotta admit that pork liver is ghastly.

Chicken thighs are pretty cheap, and actually taste like something. Though I ate a lot of game meat back then...


Fixes most anything

www.finecooking.com
 
2012-09-26 12:23:05 PM  

Citrate1007: If you're advocating theft as necessary to survive on food stamps then I believe the point of the article has been made.


I'm advocating a ready means of subverting the rules of a silly game -- a game which (to the extent of my research) is far more restrictive than what the government requires of food stamp program recipients. It doesn't have to be theft. What makes more sense on a known short duration limited food expense budget?

A) Buying a salt & pepper shaker with a six months' worth of each set from the grocery at $5,
B) Buying an order of fries and grabbing 5-6 packs of the "free to customers" condiments for $1, or
C) Using the salt and pepper you've previously purchased?

Presuming you want to play fair by stupid rules, C) is out but B) isn't.
 
2012-09-26 02:08:49 PM  

rewind2846: You have a car? Break out a calculator and figure how much it costs you to keep that car... insurance, registration, payments, gas, repairs, that kind of thing. Now you can reduce the gas costs because you only get to use that car twice a month, just to go grocery shopping. All other costs stay constant.

Now consider that woman in the cab. She obviously doesn't have a car. If she lives within a mile of the store, even with the meter running she may not spend more than $30 - $40 on that trip.every two weeks. That $60 - $80 may get her a month of cheap car insurance, if she had a good driving record and drove a beater with liability only on the policy. Of course that beater will cost her more in maintenance, so any insurance savings will probably be cancelled out.

Depending on how long she keeps the cab driver waiting, she may actually come out ahead on the deal.


You're missing the point. If a person is dirt poor, they should be taking the BUS to the grocery store, or getting a ride from a friend. If they must take a cab, they should take two cabs - one to the store, one home. Then they don't have to pay for the cab to sit there for a minimum of thirty minutes. Or they could walk, if they're close enough. But the waiting cab is the worst of all possible options.
 
2012-09-26 03:12:40 PM  

Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?


He'll have to give you that advice later; he has to be at work in 26 minutes.
 
2012-09-26 04:19:19 PM  

winterbraid: Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?

He'll have to give you that advice later; he has to be at work in 26 minutes.


I already went today, actually.
 
2012-09-26 07:32:41 PM  

Silly Jesus: winterbraid: Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?

He'll have to give you that advice later; he has to be at work in 26 minutes.

I already went today, actually.


No you didn't. You're unemployed.
 
2012-09-26 07:48:56 PM  

winterbraid: Silly Jesus: winterbraid: Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?

He'll have to give you that advice later; he has to be at work in 26 minutes.

I already went today, actually.

No you didn't. You're unemployed.


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-26 11:39:46 PM  

midigod:

Depending on how long she keeps the cab driver waiting, she may actually come out ahead on the deal.

You're missing the point. If a person is dirt poor, they should be taking the BUS to the grocery store, or getting a ride from a friend. If they must take a cab, they should take two cabs - one to the store, one home. Then they don't have to pay for the cab to sit there for a minimum of thirty minutes. Or they could walk, if they're close enough. But the waiting cab is the worst of all possible options.


Not everyone has friends that will do that for them, and it's a b*tch for people, especially if they are elderly, to carry two weeks worth of groceries on the bus. Just think about how much two gallons of milk weighs, then imagine that you're in your 70's and you have to hike that from the supermarket to the bus stop along with all the other stuff, then on the bus, then however far you have to walk home. Add a handicap like a bad hip, arthritis or some high blood pressure, and even a younger person might have trouble.

People who make judgements like this really need to stop projecting their lives onto others, and assuming that just because they did X then everyone can/should/would do X themselves. I'm fortunate enough to have a car, two degrees and a decent job, but the last thing I'm ever going to assume is that anyone can or should do what I did or how I did it.

If you really want to know what's going on in someone's life, ask, don't assume. This person is making the choice which is probably the most advantageous for her and her situation.
 
2012-09-27 01:16:20 AM  

Frederick: Silly Jesus: Bathia_Mapes: Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.

A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.

[www.whoisbolaji.com image 300x300]

So you're one of those "empathy is for the weak" kind of people....

I bet you think you've never been helped in your life.



Didn't post the picture but I did live on that kind of budget with no car and no phone in a 385 sq ft apartment for 5 years. So I do honestly think if you can't figure out how to surmount the "i have no car" problem you're probably not actually iN that position and you're posing it as an intentionally obtuse hypothetical.
 
2012-09-27 01:18:14 AM  
'Cuz anyone actually living in that situation figures out how to do things really quickly.
 
2012-09-27 12:22:42 PM  

rewind2846: midigod: doloresonthedottedline: can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).

When shopping at the local supermarket, the wife and I saw an obviously low-income woman get out of a cab and make them wait while she shopped. When we walked out after doing our shopping, the cab was still there, meter running.

It's hard to know whether people are just godawful stupid, or they simply have no other way. I'm sure it's both at one time or another.

You have a car? Break out a calculator and figure how much it costs you to keep that car... insurance, registration, payments, gas, repairs, that kind of thing. Now you can reduce the gas costs because you only get to use that car twice a month, just to go grocery shopping. All other costs stay constant.

Now consider that woman in the cab. She obviously doesn't have a car. If she lives within a mile of the store, even with the meter running she may not spend more than $30 - $40 on that trip.every two weeks. That $60 - $80 may get her a month of cheap car insurance, if she had a good driving record and drove a beater with liability only on the policy. Of course that beater will cost her more in maintenance, so any insurance savings will probably be cancelled out.

Depending on how long she keeps the cab driver waiting, she may actually come out ahead on the deal.


I cut a car out of my life to save money and because I live close to work. I have had to take taxis for groceries.

I don't understand why she had the guy wait with the meter running, a grocery store can call a taxi for you (at least in my area).
 
2012-09-27 12:24:39 PM  

unlikely: Didn't post the picture but I did live on that kind of budget with no car and no phone in a 385 sq ft apartment for 5 years. So I do honestly think if you can't figure out how to surmount the "i have no car" problem you're probably not actually iN that position and you're posing it as an intentionally obtuse hypothetical.


Yeah, read rewind2846's response to midigod above. Stop assuming that because YOU were able to succeed in a given situation that everyone else can do the same if they just try hard enough. For example, if I were to lose my car or somehow become unable to drive, I wouldn't have any options. There is no public transportation where I live, the closest friends share one vehicle between them and both work full time (and live 15 miles from me), and the closest grocery store to me is 8 miles away on winding roads with asshole drivers and no shoulder to walk on. I could try to move to a place in town, but everybody out here wants first, last, and deposit, and rent is high, so even a 300 sq ft studio shiathole would mean $2000+ to move in (and that wouldn't even include the cost of the move itself...remember, no car). But by all means, tell us how you'd totally figure something out.
 
2012-09-27 12:40:18 PM  

Teufelaffe: But by all means, tell us how you'd totally figure something out.


So you're saying you have a car and haven't had to try to figure out other options, and if your car died tomorrow you'd just be forced to... what? Start eating exclusively at restaurants?
 
2012-09-27 04:16:33 PM  

rewind2846: People who make judgements like this really need to stop projecting their lives onto others,


You need to stop thinking you know me based on someone else who obviously hurt you.

I didn't say she had to use the bus. I only pointed out that there were many options other than the single most expensive option, including using two cabs, which would have been perfectly applicable in her situation.

Read shortymac for the right answer, the same one I suggested.

Teufelaffe: Stop assuming that because YOU were able to succeed in a given situation that everyone else can do the same if they just try hard enough. For example, ....But by all means, tell us how you'd totally figure something out.


I figured it out for you, and so did shortymac. And I have been in that exact situation, so I'm perfectly capable of speaking from experience. And yet, you still didn't address the solution that she obviously had in her own circumstance. Stop assuming you're so righteous and caring in thinking there are no options, and look at the actual, no-penalty solution proposed. 

But certainly, I'm the judgmental one for proposing several solutions including at least one that requires no situational modification, and you both are so very righteous in exclaiming that there's never a better way to do something.
 
2012-09-27 04:55:06 PM  

midigod: Teufelaffe: Stop assuming that because YOU were able to succeed in a given situation that everyone else can do the same if they just try hard enough. For example, ....But by all means, tell us how you'd totally figure something out.

I figured it out for you, and so did shortymac. And I have been in that exact situation, so I'm perfectly capable of speaking from experience. And yet, you still didn't address the solution that she obviously had in her own circumstance. Stop assuming you're so righteous and caring in thinking there are no options, and look at the actual, no-penalty solution proposed. 

But certainly, I'm the judgmental one for proposing several solutions including at least one that requires no situational modification, and you both are so very righteous in exclaiming that there's never a better way to do something.


You're missing the point. Your solution might have been tenable, it might not have been, we don't know because we don't know the specifics of the situation. This is not "exclaiming that there's never a better way to do something", this is "hey, you don't know all the details, so perhaps you should stop acting like you have the answer." Sure, maybe she could have taken two cabs. Or maybe the cabbie was her grandson and the ride was gratis. Or maybe she lives in an assisted living facility that has a taxi budget, but limits the total number of taxi rides that residents can take in a week/month (my mom lives in such a place). There are any number of reasons that what she was doing was the best solution for her, so stop being an arrogant prick and assuming that you know better when you don't have all the facts.
 
2012-09-27 06:26:27 PM  

Teufelaffe: Or maybe the cabbie was her grandson and the ride was gratis. Or maybe she lives in an assisted living facility that has a taxi budget, but limits the total number of taxi rides that residents can take in a week/month (my mom lives in such a place). There are any number of reasons that what she was doing was the best solution for her, so stop being an arrogant prick and assuming that you know better when you don't have all the facts.


Wow, that's a stretch. I had a feeling you would try to deflect through any means, no matter how remote. Maybe the cabbie was an alien who was trying to have sex with her. I guess I didn't think of that either. She wasn't elderly, and required no assistance. Sorry I neglected to mention that she was able-bodied, I really didn't think that was necessary, given the context. Since I was there, it turns out I have more facts than you do. You've proven that you are going to remain deliberately obtuse.
 
2012-09-27 06:45:11 PM  

midigod: Teufelaffe: Or maybe the cabbie was her grandson and the ride was gratis. Or maybe she lives in an assisted living facility that has a taxi budget, but limits the total number of taxi rides that residents can take in a week/month (my mom lives in such a place). There are any number of reasons that what she was doing was the best solution for her, so stop being an arrogant prick and assuming that you know better when you don't have all the facts.

Wow, that's a stretch. I had a feeling you would try to deflect through any means, no matter how remote. Maybe the cabbie was an alien who was trying to have sex with her. I guess I didn't think of that either. She wasn't elderly, and required no assistance. Sorry I neglected to mention that she was able-bodied, I really didn't think that was necessary, given the context. Since I was there, it turns out I have more facts than you do. You've proven that you are going to remain deliberately obtuse.


I give one scenario that is easily within the realm of possibility (cabbie is a relative) and one that I've experienced personally and that's a "stretch"? Stop thinking you have all the f*ucking answers for situations you don't have all the facts about. Cripes, it's like talking to a dammed teenager...you don't know everything, you don't have all the answers, your "solutions" may not work for everyone, and you're not better than other people just because you can make assumptions about their life situation.

Tell you what, next time you see something like that and start to assume shiat, just punch yourself in the balls. It will be just as useful as your assumptions about other people's lives, and if you do it enough you'll either learn to stop making those assumptions or you'll eliminate your ability to breed. Either way, the world will become a better place.
 
2012-09-28 12:08:23 PM  

rewind2846: I alone am best:
People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.

Yeh... I can just see the legions of poor people with their fishing poles in the east river in new york... or off the Jersey shore... or maybe off the piers in LA or the cliffs in Oceanside in San Diego after the 100th toxic sewage spill of the year... ever see that three-eyed fish on the Simpsons that lives in the river by the nuke plant? There's worse stuff out there, if there's any of it that's still alive. And you do NOT want to eat it

What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?
Here's a hint - everyone doesn't live where you live. Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone isn't you.


THIS JUST IN ALL POOR PEOPLE ARE HELPLESS!!!!

If you would have bothered to read the thread I had stated that my situation isn't the same as everyone, but don't let that stop you. I am from Michigan. A large portion of poor people in my state have easy access to fishing, hunting and making their own gardens.

If the people who could do that stuff would do it then it would leave more for those who cant which was also stated in a previous post.

Additionally you can eat fish from the east river in NYC.

It may only be advised to eat up to 5 meals a month but that is still almost a week or supplementing your food budget. Quit making excuses.
 
Displayed 227 of 227 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report