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.

(Huffington Post)   New study claims that a quarter of the people in Mississippi can't afford food, which, when you think about it, is a bit of a self-correcting problem   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Mississippians, Feeding America, Electronic Benefit Transfer, cartons  
•       •       •

3517 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:23 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-27 03:31:30 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.


The same could be said for Florida.
 
2014-03-27 03:32:31 PM  

olddinosaur: No sympathy here.

Mississippi has some of the most fertile land in the region, plus mild weather and a long growing season.

It would not cost much to put those people out to farming on the land, but they will not do it.  If you see those people refusing to work, they would not get the sympathy, taxes, subsidies, and bureaucracies needed to care for them. They would also be looking for better jobs in their spare time.

Highest percentage of people on food stamps, lowest percentage of minorities on the work force; well done, Comrade Obamavich!


You do understand that a good portion of people receiving benefits work, right? Or does that not suit your "welfare queen" narrative?
 
2014-03-27 03:36:50 PM  

Pangea: formerfloozy: Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.

Liberal here too, and I've always thought a little social engineering could go a long way. Make birth control cheap or near free, and not tie it to a doctor's visit (which is where most of the cost for came from for me) and give folks very specific sex ed. The health dept where I live was awesome, but it may not be as awesome in other places and having had to wait for months to get seen at the free clinic and taking unpaid time off of work makes it hard on working familes. People shouldn't have to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. As far as forcing them to...eh..a little close to the line for me, but I get it. It sounds pretty punative, but we have to address the issue of having too many kids to support. I honestly don't know how to address it other than better healthcare and education.

You I like. I read some of your posts upthread.

Force is indeed a bad word. I suppose for me, I consider capping of benefits based on number of children you have when entering the program to be as "forced" as I would honestly want.

It doesn't change the fact that people are still going to have babies, but if you can stretch that limited money then it's on you.

Someone else pointed out that the restriction of fertility options is usually attributed to the people most determined to reduce benefits. I have no religious dogma forcing me to believe that every fertilized egg is a life though. Personally, I've got no problem if women want an abortion in the first trimester, even though it would never be the option in my home.


Thank you. I understand the disconnect for a lot of people. The BEST thing I did was get fixed after I had my youngest. I did not want to be a single mom with three kids and I got pregnant while on BC. But even at a discount for income, it was still hugely expensive and I paid on that for a long time.
 
2014-03-27 03:36:53 PM  

d23: tlchwi02: The Southern Logic Company: When no one in your family can boil water, how can you expect them to cook a decent meal?

or when you're (best case) living in a low rent apartment or long term cheap hotel with a hot plate, one pot and maybe a microwave?

I said no hot plates in the room, Steve?  Do you have a hot plate up there?


Are you boys cooking in there?  Are you building an interociter?
 
2014-03-27 03:38:38 PM  

This text is now purple: Z-clipped: This text is now purple: Starvation is usually understood to mean a fatal caloric deficit. A malignant nutritional deficit (say, cretinism (iodine deficiency)) is malnutrition, not starving.

Fat people don't starve to death, but they may be malnourished.

No, that's incorrect.  Starvation is literally an extreme form of malnutrition.  Caloric deficit is only one kind of malnutrition.  You can starve from the lack of any necessary nutrient, a lack of calories, or both.

Point to an example of someone starving despite a caloric surplus.


I'm sure there are some cancer examples but that would be in poor taste and probably irrelevant.

When I was training weight loss clients I would tell fruit phobic people that they could probably lose weight on a diet consisting solely of whole fruit, and many people argued with me. I would like to see this diet tested empiricically...not to starvation and death of course, and none of that juicing crap either.
 
2014-03-27 03:42:15 PM  

This text is now purple: Point to an example of someone starving despite a caloric surplus.


I already mentioned scurvy.  It can and has killed countless people.  Biotin, Vitamin D, selenium + vitamin E... you can die from a lack of any of these, and many more.

You do know that people who starve from caloric deficiency don't literally die from a lack of tissue to catabolise, right?  They have plenty of available calories left when they die.  Other diseases (like organ failure) are what kills them.
 
2014-03-27 03:50:36 PM  

mayIFark: trappedspirit: Nadie_AZ: There is only a certain amount of resources

Yeah, like software.  Whoever has the most software is rich.

Software is not the resource, it's the product. The copyright of the software is the resource.


So it's an unlimited resource and suddenly this whole idea of a zero sum game looks as stupid as it ever was?
 
2014-03-27 03:57:13 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.


Does that include military spending?
 
2014-03-27 04:00:51 PM  

FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.


you have no idea how obesity works, do you....
 
2014-03-27 04:01:22 PM  

Z-clipped: Pangea: Of course not, and I'm not trying to minimize all the difficulties of actually being poor, but at some point the argument needs to stop being that of throwing more money at the problem.

Fine.  You stop making the argument that the poor are poor because they're lazy and indolent, and we'll talk.


Thanks for painting me with that broad brush and drawing conclusions far beyond the point I was making. Does that technique typically result in people being more willing to debate you?

In all fairness, there really is no need for me to change anything in an effort to gain access to your magnificent wisdom in a discussion. The right-wing fundies are rapidly taking away these benefits regardless of my position on the merit of poor people.

The only argument that remains, is that if too much is taken away from these poor people, they'll revolt. My only response to that is the motherfarkers you're talking about have an absolutely atrocious voting rate, and it's too inconvenient for them to even get to a god damned grocery store.

What makes you think they'll get organized enough to revolt? More likely we'll hear about how inconvenient it is to get to the guillotine from the guillotine desert.
 
2014-03-27 04:26:50 PM  
It is NOT TRUE that healthy food costs more.

 A bag of flour costs FAR less than the 100 or so processed doughnuts it would make if you knew how to make doughnuts. It's not that difficult to learn.

A 10 pound bag of potatoes costs about 4 dollars and would feed you one nutritious healthy meal per day, every day of a month, if you microwaved or baked it with the skin on and did not load up too much on the butter. But people are too lazy or ignorant to wash and microwave a potato, they would rather pay 4 dollars a DAY for bag of potato chips, which have less than one potatos worth per bag in them, and are loaded with fat and salt and sugar.

You can buy chicken parts for less than one dollar a pound, and make your own fried or baked or boiled chicken for less than buying a bucket at the Colonels.

Much of Mississippi is rural, isn't it? How difficult is it to plant a few seeds of beans or greens or tomatoes and eat well all summer? You can freeze or dry more for winter if you don't know how to can. There are cheap dehydrators made in China for less than 40 dollars at Walmart. Or you could string the beans on a thread and dry them on the porch like they used to do.

People are fat and poor because they are too lazy and stupid to make an effort to better themselves. And because fat, salt and sugar are delicious, but you can't eat that shiat every day.
 
2014-03-27 04:29:16 PM  

Nadie_AZ: trappedspirit: New study claims that a quarter of the people in Mississippi can't afford food, which, when you think about it, is a bit of a self-correcting problem

No, it's not.  We will still feed them and make certain that there are always poor people around.

Interesting phrasing. There are more poor people in the world than rich. But that's the nature of the universe. There is only a certain amount of resources and those who have the most of those resources are the 'rich'. Doesn't matter what the resource is. Food, water, money, oil- whatever. The Western US is poor in water, for example.


Yeah, but you can generally make sure there's enough so no one's, y'know, at risk of  dying.
 
2014-03-27 04:32:00 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: "Teach a man to fish, he eats for a day...Feed a man to the fishes, and he never bothers you for food again." --Confucius


- Shia Lebouf
 
2014-03-27 04:33:01 PM  

sat1va: It is because they're not able to afford nutritious and high protein food," Ross Fraser, spokesperson for hunger-relief charity Feeding America



Beans and rice are extremely cheap, store well, are high protein, low fat, heart healthy, and nutritionally complete. And they are a traditional Southern dish. This guy is a liar, who is shilling to get more money.
 
2014-03-27 04:42:42 PM  

mayIFark: they also lacks access to proper medical care sometimes needed to lose weight.



ALL that you need to do to lose weight is to eat less calories and exercise more. Pass the word!
 
2014-03-27 04:47:40 PM  

bdub77: EnderX: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

Republicans hate poor
Democrats love poor

got it!

Neither party gives a sh*t about the poor, parties want control and votes and you obtain those through people. Of course you never want people to be so poor that they'll drag you out of your house and kill you.

Now on a personal level, plenty of people on both aisles care about the poor. Democrats run on the platform that the best way to improve the plight of low income families is to improve educational opportunities for upward mobility and provide a social safety net. The downside to that is that a fairly small number of people will game the system to their benefit.

Republicans run on a platform that varies from person to person but basically amounts to 'turn off the spigots and stop giving them things and they'll be forced to get out of poverty' and 'whatever they don't have rich people will donate out of the kindness of their greedy hearts'. The downside to the GOP's plans is that rich people game the system too and essentially have the low wages they pay subsidized by the welfare system.

Increasingly the economic data looks to be in favor of the Democratic plans, although Obama is not doing them any favors by agreeing to reduce SNAP benefits.


Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own. "Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.
 
2014-03-27 04:48:09 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food



Since when? Why do poor people have less time? They aren't working, or they wouldn't be poor. Where does the time go? Did you just make that up, along with those prices you quoted?
 
2014-03-27 05:01:54 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Four dollars in Mississippi is seven in Hawaii.



Some things cost more in Hawaii because it is a group of small islands, way out in the middle of the Pacific, and things need to be barged or flown in. They have limited land, housing and resources. Everything is far more expensive because of tourism. Etc.
 
2014-03-27 05:06:57 PM  

Nadie_AZ: If all you have and eat are those ingredients, you are going to grow tired of them very quickly.



Do junk food eaters ever get tired of soda and chips, and long for a nice fresh salad?
 
2014-03-27 05:12:58 PM  

EnderX: Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own.


This sentence makes zero sense, even in context.

"Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.

Corporations like Walmart pay intentionally low wages and direct low income families to apply for welfare, and in turn those low income families receive welfare and are additionally provided tax credits like the earned income credit. This means the federal government subsidizes the low wage industry by paying what they won't, and the low wage corporations thereby profit off the backs of the higher wage industries and every other taxpayer.

But honestly, I'm not going to argue with someone who spells 'higher' H-I-R-E.
 
2014-03-27 05:13:09 PM  

El Dudereno: Hard to create a market for kale futures when you can't store it for more than a week after harvest.



Actually, if you dry kale, it will keep in a bag on the shelf for years. It's still very good, reconstituted in soup.
 
2014-03-27 05:14:23 PM  

Onkel Buck: Bullseyed: Food shortages are always self correcting problems.

If you believe in evolution, then you should refuse to support people in overpopulated areas. Darwinism ftw.

Around here Darwin's theories are only admissable when making fun of Christians.


Idiots
/FTFY
//some idiots just happen to be Christian sometimes
 
2014-03-27 05:14:50 PM  

WeenerGord: El Dudereno: Hard to create a market for kale futures when you can't store it for more than a week after harvest.


Actually, if you dry kale, it will keep in a bag on the shelf for years. It's still very good, reconstituted in soup.


Yah umm kale chips last practically forever.
 
2014-03-27 05:15:32 PM  

WeenerGord: Dr Dreidel: Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food


Since when? Why do poor people have less time? They aren't working, or they wouldn't be poor. Where does the time go? Did you just make that up, along with those prices you quoted?



Please provide citations for this assertion in bold.

/you may find your research enlightening.
 
2014-03-27 05:16:56 PM  

WeenerGord: El Dudereno: Hard to create a market for kale futures when you can't store it for more than a week after harvest.


Actually, if you dry kale, it will keep in a bag on the shelf for years. It's still very good, reconstituted in soup.


Bad example.

Romaine lettuce would have been better.
 
2014-03-27 05:27:55 PM  

hasty ambush: Angelica Hernandez (left) and her mother, Gloria Nunez, struggle to make ends meet on a very limited budget.


Have you seen their ends?  You'd struggle too.
 
2014-03-27 05:37:28 PM  

freetomato: Have you  ever heard the term "food desert"?  It's kind of hard to get fresh fruit and vegetables if the only stores you can get to are mini marts that only carry junk food.



The mini marts would carry fresh fruit and veg if ppl would buy it. California gas stations carry fresh fruit and veg, because ppl are health conscious in Calif and it sells.
 
2014-03-27 05:59:11 PM  

bdub77: EnderX: Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own.

This sentence makes zero sense, even in context.

"Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.

Corporations like Walmart pay intentionally low wages and direct low income families to apply for welfare, and in turn those low income families receive welfare and are additionally provided tax credits like the earned income credit. This means the federal government subsidizes the low wage industry by paying what they won't, and the low wage corporations thereby profit off the backs of the higher wage industries and every other taxpayer.

But honestly, I'm not going to argue with someone who spells 'higher' H-I-R-E.


Intentionally low!! The wages they bargain for are what their skill level can demand. Families!! Do not have children if you do not have the education and skill level to support one. What this means is uneducated people who do not have a very high skill level MUST be subsidized by the government because they are not intelligent enough to stop making decision that are harmful to themselves and society.
 
2014-03-27 05:59:14 PM  

MBooda: States like Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina and Virginia were on the receiving end of a TON of federal (mostly military) spending in the 1860s and hardly contributed a penny in tax revenue.

/ingrates



It's because their money was worthless.
 
2014-03-27 06:04:40 PM  

Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.


It iis a basic human right as long as you are paying for it.  But when others (the tax payer) have to pay the freight for your birth control, abortion or the financial consequences of you committing parenthood that you cannot afford they should get to have some say so in the matter. regarding your "reproductive right"
 
2014-03-27 06:10:23 PM  

thefatbasturd: squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.

But apparently they don't teach you to read or use your brain there. See where one of the main points of his post was lower unemployment rates? Means he could more likely get an actual JOB in Texas and thar is preferable to him than living on assistance.


Funny you should talk about reading comprehension. Texas takes more federal money than they pay in because the actual jobs there don't pay workers enough to survive off government assistance. So, even if he had an actual job he'd still be sucking at the government teat because it would most likely be a WalMart or fast food type job that doesn't pay a living wage and still requires government help.

If you really had the brain you're suggesting I lacked you could have figured that shiat out on your own not wasted my time to put you in your place, idiot.
 
2014-03-27 06:14:05 PM  

hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]


You still living in 2010? Cause you map and data are. Why don't you catch on up to 2014? Because then you'd be wrong?
 
2014-03-27 06:23:17 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]

You still living in 2010? Cause you map and data are. Why don't you catch on up to 2014? Because then you'd be wrong?


Well maybe that extra federal money is to cover the over 10 billion a year Texas has to pay for Illegal Immigrants. Immigration? That is a Federal responsibility, isn't it?
 
2014-03-27 06:27:27 PM  

EnderX: squirrelflavoredyogurt: dittybopper: squirrelflavoredyogurt: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?

The implication of the headline that people might starve because they "can't afford food".

Which is bullshiat, because they are getting enough calories.  More than enough, in fact.

Now it might not be healthiest kind of food, but it is food that will keep you from starving.  And if you go hungry for a day or two or three at the end of the month, well, that's what fat is for:  To store calories to bridge the gap between meals when times are hard.

I'm not going to get worked up about a fat person talking about how they don't have much to eat for a couple of days until they get their check*.

And I say that as a fat person.

Now, you show me a gaunt person who is obviously suffering from malnutrition due to lack of caloric intake that isn't voluntary, and we'll talk.

*Payroll or welfare, doesn't matter

So your position is screw the health and well being of poor people because we make sure they have enough calories to stay alive. They don't need any proper nutrition, they don't need to be healthy.

We subsidize the cheap crappy food they eat which barely keeps them alive. Why not subsidize healthier food? Why not provide free seeds and garden plots and let them grow some of their own food? The model your championing, is the least efficient and worst system in terms of cost to nutrition. You suggestion keeps them poor. If you don't eat right you don't perform as well mentally or physically. Want chance do they ever have to get off welfare if all ...


The payouts from the chart show recipients in Minnesota getting less money in 2014 than in Mississippi. Why is it that Mississippi has so many more people unable to afford food than Minnesota does? Are you suggesting the cost of living in Mississippi is considerably higher than it is in Minnesota?

The cost of living adjustments are based on a family of four. I'm willing to bet Mississippi has a lot more larger families on SNAP than other states, based upon it's conservative, religious, abstinence only teaching, etc. Not gonna bother to look that up and qualify it though, just my opinion. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong if I am.
 
2014-03-27 06:30:09 PM  

hasty ambush: DROxINxTHExWIND: hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]

That is one of the worst charts I think I've ever seen.

Does not change the fact that Texas does not even break even in money sent to the Feds vs what it gets back and it has been that way for a long time. California used to be a donor state  but  in recent years has become a welfare state.  New York is trending that way  Look how far it status has changed from 2004:compared to 2010 (previous post)
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 743x505]


Becuase Federal spending also takes in things like Naitonal Parks, Military spending etc total federal spending is not really a good measure as a state were the Feds own a lot of the land or has a lot of military bases  would have the number slant against it  while  measurign just welfare dollars  gives a different picture:

[imageshack.com image 850x176]
[imageshack.com image 850x1276]


Posting charts without sources and/or dates is not a valid argument. If you have recent data from a credible source please provide the link, if not, then who are you trying to convince?
 
2014-03-27 06:42:30 PM  

BgJonson79: squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.

Does that include military spending?


I'm sure it does. Does that somehow invalidate it? The military pays it's people who spend their money in Texas. The same as they pay people to maintain national parks, highways, etc.

Suggesting that we should take military spending out as opposed to highway maintenance, national park maintenance, infrastructure, etc. is a silly argument. The money goes to the state, it's spent in the state, it enriches the state. Illinois has the great lakes naval base and still manages to be second in payouts vs pay ins.

I haven't seen a chart that breaks down federal spending by what it goes to, if you have one, I'll be happy to take a look.
 
2014-03-27 06:45:02 PM  
huffkinpo again ?
 
2014-03-27 06:54:19 PM  

WeenerGord: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Four dollars in Mississippi is seven in Hawaii.


Some things cost more in Hawaii because it is a group of small islands, way out in the middle of the Pacific, and things need to be barged or flown in. They have limited land, housing and resources. Everything is far more expensive because of tourism. Etc.


Which the federal government takes into account with a program called COLA (cost of living adjustment). This explains why Hawaii gets more money than Mississippi, but fails to account for why more people in Mississippi are suggesting they're starving. Many states get less money payouts, according to the chart linked in the article, than Mississippi.

The only thing I can see that might explain why Mississippi is in the situation it is, is that the COLA is based on a family of four. Mississippi may have larger families because of it's horrible education system, it's sexual health education specifically.
 
2014-03-27 07:07:19 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: thefatbasturd: squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.

But apparently they don't teach you to read or use your brain there. See where one of the main points of his post was lower unemployment rates? Means he could more likely get an actual JOB in Texas and thar is preferable to him than living on assistance.

Funny you should talk about reading comprehension. Texas takes more federal money than they pay in because the actual jobs there don't pay workers enough to survive off government assistance. So, even if he had an actual job he'd still be sucking at the government teat because it would most likely be a WalMart or fast food type job that doesn't pay a living wage and still requires government help.

If you really had the brain you're suggesting I lacked you could have figured that shiat out on your own not wasted my time to put you in your place, idiot.


Oh. So your a "if I am proven to be wrong on a point someone else made I'll just keep repeatjng MY point louder all the while ignoring the ACTUAL point" type. Gotcha...
 
2014-03-27 07:33:49 PM  

thefatbasturd: ignoring the ACTUAL point



We are not allowed to mention the actual point
 
2014-03-27 07:43:43 PM  

WeenerGord: thefatbasturd: ignoring the ACTUAL point


We are not allowed to mention the actual point


I thought we were just supposed to not mention the war, Basil.
 
2014-03-27 08:28:32 PM  

thefatbasturd: WeenerGord: thefatbasturd: ignoring the ACTUAL point


We are not allowed to mention the actual point

I thought we were just supposed to not mention the war, Basil.



Don't mention that either, or the silly walk
 
2014-03-27 08:58:34 PM  

EnderX: Intentionally low!! The wages they bargain for are what their skill level can demand. Families!! Do not have children if you do not have the education and skill level to support one. What this means is uneducated people who do not have a very high skill level MUST be subsidized by the government because they are not intelligent enough to stop making decision that are harmful to themselves and society.


You should probably stop breathing before you hurt your brain.
 
2014-03-27 09:18:17 PM  

bdub77: EnderX: Intentionally low!! The wages they bargain for are what their skill level can demand. Families!! Do not have children if you do not have the education and skill level to support one. What this means is uneducated people who do not have a very high skill level MUST be subsidized by the government because they are not intelligent enough to stop making decision that are harmful to themselves and society.

You should probably stop breathing before you hurt your brain.


Its the childish insults at the end of all your statements that subtly make your point for you.

You truly have a dizzying intellect, please go on.
 
2014-03-27 09:27:01 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: This explains why Hawaii gets more money than Mississippi, but fails to account for why more people in Mississippi are suggesting they're starving.


They didn't say they were starving.
 
2014-03-27 10:10:27 PM  

EnderX: bdub77: EnderX: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

Republicans hate poor
Democrats love poor

got it!

Neither party gives a sh*t about the poor, parties want control and votes and you obtain those through people. Of course you never want people to be so poor that they'll drag you out of your house and kill you.

Now on a personal level, plenty of people on both aisles care about the poor. Democrats run on the platform that the best way to improve the plight of low income families is to improve educational opportunities for upward mobility and provide a social safety net. The downside to that is that a fairly small number of people will game the system to their benefit.

Republicans run on a platform that varies from person to person but basically amounts to 'turn off the spigots and stop giving them things and they'll be forced to get out of poverty' and 'whatever they don't have rich people will donate out of the kindness of their greedy hearts'. The downside to the GOP's plans is that rich people game the system too and essentially have the low wages they pay subsidized by the welfare system.

Increasingly the economic data looks to be in favor of the Democratic plans, although Obama is not doing them any favors by agreeing to reduce SNAP benefits.

Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own. "Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.


Seriously I get sick of this damn argument. Kust having an education doesn't mean you automatically get a better job. Not all poor people are stupid, lazy, unemployed single moms sucking the gubmint titty. I am an intelligent, educated vet, yet I saw plenty just like me waiting to get some help. It's not a farking lark not being able to get by on your own. Have some farking compassion.
 
2014-03-27 10:16:49 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: WeenerGord: Dr Dreidel: Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food


Since when? Why do poor people have less time? They aren't working, or they wouldn't be poor. Where does the time go? Did you just make that up, along with those prices you quoted?


Please provide citations for this assertion in bold.

/you may find your research enlightening.


This will cause me to have a rage stroke, I swear. WeenerGord, People who are poor work. Poor people work and get welfare. Working people qualify for food stamps. fark I farking hate that farking argument. I hope that you and yours NEVER goes hungry despite your best efforts. Because that would mean you would have to hate yourself for being an unemployed poor loser.
 
2014-03-27 10:28:12 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: squirrelflavoredyogurt: This explains why Hawaii gets more money than Mississippi, but fails to account for why more people in Mississippi are suggesting they're starving.

They didn't say they were starving.


SHHHH! Don't confuse him with actual facts...
 
2014-03-27 11:20:37 PM  

formerfloozy: People who are poor work.



Not all of them. Maybe you do, but not all of them.

When I was in high school, there were certain girls who screwed anything, constantly, with the express intention of getting pregnant so that they could drop out of school, get money, and move out of their parents house and get drunk and do drugs every night of the week, and never work. We all knew it, because they bragged about it, and planned for it. I saw these girls, and I saw them later in life, with their hungry looking, dirty, abused and beaten children by who knows how many different fathers. I saw them and heard them planning to get pregnant again because they could get x amount of dollars more for another child, and that would buy more beer. I hope you don't think I'm making this up. Generations of these poor came up with no one in the family working, unless you count prostitution and crime as work, because that is what they got in to. If you were poor and lived in a big city, you had to have seen this, too. It's TRUE. And it only began to slow down when Clinton changed the laws to make welfare harder to get if you didn't work.

If you are not like that, if you are better than that, then prove it. Don't identify with or defend the people who chose to live this way. And don't blame me for telling the truth about how some people, other than yourself, chose to live.

It's the little kids I felt sorry for, with moms like that, and no fathers, but plenty of strange "boyfriends." Those poor kids didn't have much of a chance, did they. Do you know about the "crab in a bucket" syndrome? When they grow up a certain way, it is difficult to get out.

Do other farkers know about people who lived like this? Is this another one of those things that we are never supposed to talk about?
 
2014-03-27 11:46:18 PM  

WeenerGord: formerfloozy: People who are poor work.


Not all of them. Maybe you do, but not all of them.

When I was in high school, there were certain girls who screwed anything, constantly, with the express intention of getting pregnant so that they could drop out of school, get money, and move out of their parents house and get drunk and do drugs every night of the week, and never work. We all knew it, because they bragged about it, and planned for it. I saw these girls, and I saw them later in life, with their hungry looking, dirty, abused and beaten children by who knows how many different fathers. I saw them and heard them planning to get pregnant again because they could get x amount of dollars more for another child, and that would buy more beer. I hope you don't think I'm making this up. Generations of these poor came up with no one in the family working, unless you count prostitution and crime as work, because that is what they got in to. If you were poor and lived in a big city, you had to have seen this, too. It's TRUE. And it only began to slow down when Clinton changed the laws to make welfare harder to get if you didn't work.

If you are not like that, if you are better than that, then prove it. Don't identify with or defend the people who chose to live this way. And don't blame me for telling the truth about how some people, other than yourself, chose to live.

It's the little kids I felt sorry for, with moms like that, and no fathers, but plenty of strange "boyfriends." Those poor kids didn't have much of a chance, did they. Do you know about the "crab in a bucket" syndrome? When they grow up a certain way, it is difficult to get out.

Do other farkers know about people who lived like this? Is this another one of those things that we are never supposed to talk about?


Yeah, I know people who live like that.  But here's the thing, are you aware or even care, that there are people who don't? That not everyone should be tarred with the same brush?  Essentially you are saying "I know some assholes who live like this, therefore everyone lives like this." It leaves no room for anything other than contempt.  fark man, do you know how many people I sat with in the food stamp office who were employed and taking unpaid time off  of work to apply for assistance? How many of us dropped off our kids at daycare or willing (or not so willing) relatives so we could go to our second or third job to try to make ends meet?  Just because I'm not starving now and have a great job doesn't mean I didn't struggle or forget what it was like.  And you know the shiat of it?  I wasn't even that bad off compared to some.I came from a middle class family and joined the military right out of high school.  I worked through the ranks, and then was medically retired.  The military was all I knew, and I was good at it, but life had other plans. My husband wanted me to stay at home with my kids while he worked, so we decided that was for the best.  I was out of the work force for almost 3 years when he left me for another woman after stealing my retirement.  Let me reiterate...not  everyone chooses that life.  I can't think of anyone who would voluntarily submit themselves to the humiliation and judgement of those who think they are better than they are, simply because they need help.  You know, people like you.  Not everyone who struggles is a piece of shiat. But keep telling yourself that you are superior to all of us poor, uneducated, sluts.  I guess everyone has to have something to cling to when they feel small.  You can talk about it, it's not taboo or illegal.  Just please be aware that the people in your convenient anecdote do not represent or reflect on all of us. Not even on most of us. I don't have to prove anything to you just because I have compassion for others.  Just like I said to another poster, I hope you never find yourself in that position.
 
Displayed 50 of 208 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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