SNAP benefits ( gentally)

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Because when they are using other people's money, the other people have every right to tell people how and where they should spend it.

They are using my money, and I'm not policing the food they purchase. But healthy is double the cost, than what most Americans call healthy. Chips and dessert is standard with at least one meal. Which is junk food to me. America schools and the grown ups should be teaching healthy eating. I know in California , they don't have liquor and cigarettes on EBT . I assume that's the same for other states. Maybe a good idea is to teach people to water bath and pressure can food. I grow some of my food. I plan on pressure water bath and pressure canning my food. I'm also getting a food sealer in a few days. But all Americans don't want to pay taxes on junk food. So junk food and , juice, sodas, is counted as food .

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Dang...mic drop

I'm sorry but not really, but the inventorying of if poor people look poor enough to have access to poor people things is just annoying. Especially, ESPECIALLY appearance-related things.

Oh, so the woman has a weave and lashes? First off, does he know how weaves and lashes work? Getting them, getting them put on, and how much it does or doesn't cost? Are we talking about a weave or a wig? Sown in? Clipped in? Are the lashes magnetic? Glue? Reusable? Because I have to tell you, a clip in weave can cost $30 to buy, last for a long time, and cost zero dollars to put on. So are we really assuming the girl with the $30 weave is not actually broke because he wrongly believes it's expensive? Or he believes he knows how much it costs to do stuff like that as a woman, much less the eleven billionty ways they can replicate expensive looks for basically nothing, especially in the era of the beauty influencer and Tik Tok?

Secondly, when it comes to beauty or salon enhancements, does he even begin to fathom the number of people who trade service-for-service? Especially for people with home salons? Like, watch 5 episodes of Judge Judy and I promise you, at least one of the cases is a woman who traded childcare for a free salon treatment, the treatment wasn't done to their standard, and now people are asking for Judge Judy to arbitrate the presumptive cost of an at-home weave installation vs 40 hours of in-home babysitting because a stylist said "watch my kid for 40 hours, I'll install a weave for you in exchange" and somebody thinks they got shortchanged. As we speak, I'm listening to one co worker argue with another coworker that they thought the 2x2 tattoo they'd get in exchange for watching another other dude's dog is less detailed and they used less color than he thought. If he'd only known that the guy would use no shading lines and only 3 colors instead of 5, he'd have just taken the cash.

The average guy cannot tell the difference, especially at a distance, between Lee Press Ons and a professional manicure, a fake hair weave and a real hair clip in, lashes from Ulta and lashes from Dollar Tree that come in a pack of 10 and have been used way longer than intended. If we're being honest, at social distance, I really can't either unless I'm up in their space and studying them. So to be like "she's got a weave and lashes but is using Snap so clearly she's scamming the system" is baloney. Get out of here with that nonsense.

And as a card carrying member of the BTDT club, when I was 18, I dressed like looks could kill. Clearly dyed red hair, makeup on point, nails, jewelry (oh I'm sorry, "bling"), the works.

Hair? Boxed, done by a friend, Dollar Tree. $1
Makeup? Same makeup I used when I was 16. Cheap, stretched with baby powder or lotion (when I could afford it), used past the point of all usability. Eyeliner was a marker.
Nails? Dollar Tree. $1 for two sets, did it myself. Look closely, you'll see the gap between the bottom of the nail and the cuticle because I wore them too long.
Shampoo? V05, $1
Conditioner? None.
Soap? That's what the shampoo is for. You drip off your hair, use it as soap.
Lotion? Gifted from mom.
Jewelry? Gifted, very fake, very cheap, no value in selling, but free to wear whenever I wanted.
Clothes? Same clothes I'd had since high school, altered or re-worn in new ways a thousand times. Thrifted or gifted.

Meanwhile:

Cell phone: None; too expensive
Home phone: None; too expensive
Cable: None; too expensive
Grocery budget per week: $20
What I had for dinner? Mac and cheese, no milk (unless I found some in Dunkin by the coffee station and I'd load up), no butter (unless KFC had some unattended I could snark) if I was fancy. Ramen if I wasn't.
Condiments? Mini packs from fast food places squeezed into larger containers. BK for ketchup and mustard, Taco Bell for salsa, KFC for butter. McDonalds and Wendy's had theirs behind the counter or in pumps, which is lame, but Wendy's was still worth a stop because sometimes they had sour cream packets and cheese or bacon bits for people who got potatoes. That was super awesome.
Salt, pepper, spices? Same. Subway, sometimes Taco Bell for taco seasoning. And did you know you can ask Longhorn for Prairie Dust seasoning and it's free, even if you don't eat there? I do. Ask me how I know.
Heat? Nope. Didn't pay the bill. Cook with the oven, leave the door open, warm up in the car if it's too cold.
Water? Included in my $550 rent, thank goodness. But it was well water and nasty.
Electricity? Nothing during the day, a light at night. I saved it all to run the stove and watch TV.
Medical care? LoL, yeah, right.

You want to know why I spent so much time, energy and effort looking nice? Because everything after "meanwhile" I felt I had no control over. It made me feel less than human to sit in a car to get warm because I couldn't pay for heating oil. To eat mac and cheese that tasted like dirt because Dunkin got wise to me coming in just to walk away with the little creamer packs so they stowed them behind the counter and KFC didn't have any butter out on their condiment station. To drink only water that tasted nasty and would turn my teeth yellow from the stuff they softened the water with.

But how I looked? How I presented myself? That I had control over, and by goodness, if it meant I'll spend an hour with my PT pen I snarked from work because it was too dead to use doing a cats eye liner, then I was going to do it. Or coloring my hair by hanging on to enough red, mostly dead markers from work that add to a pot of water, boil, then soak my hair in to get a vaguely red color, then yep, I was doing it. Without cable, only like 10 VHS tapes to my name, and nothing by way of entertainment beyond what I got from the library, it's not like I was going to be doing something else with that hour.

So no, I'm not a big believer in performative poverty to make it appear like somebody deserves help. Especially given if they did do it, it's not like they won't be judged for that either. It's a trap where somebody is genuinely darned if they do, darned if they don't. They roll into Walmart in dirty pj pants, greasy hair, smelling of BO, a jacket that looks ratty and tattered, then they whip out their EBT card, the comment that person gets isn't going to be "that poor person is struggling." It's going to be "of course they're paying with EBT... Look at them. They're too lazy to take a shower, obviously they're too lazy to work."

 

[Chesterton]

Cool. So I expect thanks from you for all the things I fund for you via my taxes.

And you can thank me back.

What does that even mean? Your food is free so they should thank you? Your roads are free, so they don't need to thank you?

Aren't free ≠ is free.

I don't even know where to begin when it comes to addressing the absolute and sheer whackers bonkersness that this statement is. Do I start with the lunacy in comparing yourself to a slave and people on Snap as your masters?

Sure.

Do I point out that yeah, generally people with no freedoms are super jealous of those who have more than their share of freedoms and how none of that applies to you or this situation?

I'm not free to exclude my tax dollars from being given to freeloaders. I tried. I asked. The U.S. Treasury replied "What kind of idiotic question is that?" (I guess they also use Chat.)

Or do I say "holy cow, that was super racially insensitive" and then spend far too long to explaining to you why, only for you to not get it anyway, and console myself with the fact that people on the Internet say all sorts of things with the veil of anonymity they'd never think of saying to a person face-to-face, and hope that's enough?

Sure you can say that, but it would be nice if you specified which race I was insensitive to.

It's literally the post I linked and replied to, which you and I both know.

But you said I was being nasty in a previous post before you mentioned hatred and that other word I forget. Explain how I'm being any of those things.

So then stop inventorying the things they have and complaining they have it.

No ma'am. I shall continue until they get off SNAP.

The problem is that you resent them for having something you don't, but instead of addressing that character flaw in yourself, you simply project it onto them. The solution is to investigate yourself and your biases, address them, and not expect other people contort themselves to the image you think they should have because you can't mind your business or control your thoughts.

Okay, biases. I think that was the other word. Explain exactly, if you can, how I'm being nasty, and have hatred, and what my biases are. You could help me if what you're saying is true. I'm sure you want to help.

We eat food in order to live. I don't resent them for anything other than I have to work to pay for my living and for part of theirs.

I'm admitting that poor people don't always look poor...

They should.

...and that people who don't act poor get a lot of hate from people who think because they aren't acting poor enough, they must not actually be poor.

Correct, as they should.

So I'm admitting if they were performing poverty, that would be an act for your benefit that in no way reflects anything but your desire to be able to look at somebody and judge them as poor.

For me, if somebody is on Snap, knowing what one has to go through to get it and maintain it, I just know they're in need. I don't need them to perform poverty for my benefit. There but for the grace of God goes me or you, so no need for them to sacrifice their dignity for my amusement as apparently you require.

I'm not a psychic, I judge by appearances in situations like this. I was once behind a guy at the store trying to pay for food with SNAP. He didn't have quite enough on the card to cover the cost, so the cashier was telling him he had to put something back. While I was pulling into the store parking lot, I had happened to notice him walking across the street to the store. Maybe he lived very close, or maybe he didn't have a car or even a bike. I looked at what he was purchasing and it was very basic stuff - wieners, cheap hot dog buns, large container of some knock-off brand orange drink, etc. He appeared to me to be actually needy so I gave him five bucks to cover the balance. It's possible I was wrong, but he seemed actually needy, and I've been taught by the Lord in that case to help out.

 

[rambot]

I'm sorry but not really, but the inventorying of if poor people look poor enough to have access to poor people things is just annoying. Especially, ESPECIALLY appearance-related things.

Oh, so the woman has a weave and lashes? First off, does he know how weaves and lashes work? Getting them, getting them put on, and how much it does or doesn't cost? Are we talking about a weave or a wig? Sown in? Clipped in? Are the lashes magnetic? Glue? Reusable? Because I have to tell you, a clip in weave can cost $30 to buy, last for a long time, and cost zero dollars to put on. So are we really assuming the girl with the $30 weave is not actually broke because he wrongly believes it's expensive? Or he believes he knows how much it costs to do stuff like that as a woman, much less the eleven billionty ways they can replicate expensive looks for basically nothing, especially in the era of the beauty influencer and Tik Tok?

Secondly, when it comes to beauty or salon enhancements, does he even begin to fathom the number of people who trade service-for-service? Especially for people with home salons? Like, watch 5 episodes of Judge Judy and I promise you, at least one of the cases is a woman who traded childcare for a free salon treatment, the treatment wasn't done to their standard, and now people are asking for Judge Judy to arbitrate the presumptive cost of an at-home weave installation vs 40 hours of in-home babysitting because a stylist said "watch my kid for 40 hours, I'll install a weave for you in exchange" and somebody thinks they got shortchanged. As we speak, I'm listening to one co worker argue with another coworker that they thought the 2x2 tattoo they'd get in exchange for watching another other dude's dog is less detailed and they used less color than he thought. If he'd only known that the guy would use no shading lines and only 3 colors instead of 5, he'd have just taken the cash.

The average guy cannot tell the difference, especially at a distance, between Lee Press Ons and a professional manicure, a fake hair weave and a real hair clip in, lashes from Ulta and lashes from Dollar Tree that come in a pack of 10 and have been used way longer than intended. If we're being honest, at social distance, I really can't either unless I'm up in their space and studying them. So to be like "she's got a weave and lashes but is using Snap so clearly she's scamming the system" is baloney. Get out of here with that nonsense.

And as a card carrying member of the BTDT club, when I was 18, I dressed like looks could kill. Clearly dyed red hair, makeup on point, nails, jewelry (oh I'm sorry, "bling"), the works.

Hair? Boxed, done by a friend, Dollar Tree. $1
Makeup? Same makeup I used when I was 16. Cheap, stretched with baby powder or lotion (when I could afford it), used past the point of all usability. Eyeliner was a marker.
Nails? Dollar Tree. $1 for two sets, did it myself. Look closely, you'll see the gap between the bottom of the nail and the cuticle because I wore them too long.
Shampoo? V05, $1
Conditioner? None.
Soap? That's what the shampoo is for. You drip off your hair, use it as soap.
Lotion? Gifted from mom.
Jewelry? Gifted, very fake, very cheap, no value in selling, but free to wear whenever I wanted.
Clothes? Same clothes I'd had since high school, altered or re-worn in new ways a thousand times. Thrifted or gifted.

Meanwhile:

Cell phone: None; too expensive
Home phone: None; too expensive
Cable: None; too expensive
Grocery budget per week: $20
What I had for dinner? Mac and cheese, no milk (unless I found some in Dunkin by the coffee station and I'd load up), no butter (unless KFC had some unattended I could snark) if I was fancy. Ramen if I wasn't.
Condiments? Mini packs from fast food places squeezed into larger containers. BK for ketchup and mustard, Taco Bell for salsa, KFC for butter. McDonalds and Wendy's had theirs behind the counter or in pumps, which is lame, but Wendy's was still worth a stop because sometimes they had sour cream packets and cheese or bacon bits for people who got potatoes. That was super awesome.
Salt, pepper, spices? Same. Subway, sometimes Taco Bell for taco seasoning. And did you know you can ask Longhorn for Prairie Dust seasoning and it's free, even if you don't eat there? I do. Ask me how I know.
Heat? Nope. Didn't pay the bill. Cook with the oven, leave the door open, warm up in the car if it's too cold.
Water? Included in my $550 rent, thank goodness. But it was well water and nasty.
Electricity? Nothing during the day, a light at night. I saved it all to run the stove and watch TV.
Medical care? LoL, yeah, right.

You want to know why I spent so much time, energy and effort looking nice? Because everything after "meanwhile" I felt I had no control over. It made me feel less than human to sit in a car to get warm because I couldn't pay for heating oil. To eat mac and cheese that tasted like dirt because Dunkin got wise to me coming in just to walk away with the little creamer packs so they stowed them behind the counter and KFC didn't have any butter out on their condiment station. To drink only water that tasted nasty and would turn my teeth yellow from the stuff they softened the water with.

But how I looked? How I presented myself? That I had control over, and by goodness, if it meant I'll spend an hour with my PT pen I snarked from work because it was too dead to use doing a cats eye liner, then I was going to do it. Or coloring my hair by hanging on to enough red, mostly dead markers from work that add to a pot of water, boil, then soak my hair in to get a vaguely red color, then yep, I was doing it. Without cable, only like 10 VHS tapes to my name, and nothing by way of entertainment beyond what I got from the library, it's not like I was going to be doing something else with that hour.

So no, I'm not a big believer in performative poverty to make it appear like somebody deserves help. Especially given if they did do it, it's not like they won't be judged for that either. It's a trap where somebody is genuinely darned if they do, darned if they don't. They roll into Walmart in dirty pj pants, greasy hair, smelling of BO, a jacket that looks ratty and tattered, then they whip out their EBT card, the comment that person gets isn't going to be "that poor person is struggling." It's going to be "of course they're paying with EBT... Look at them. They're too lazy to take a shower, obviously they're too lazy to work."

When I lived in South Korea, you didn't see much poverty but the beggars they DID have? They dragged themselves on their bellies (legs wrapped in rubber carpetting material as they dragged all day) around on dolly. And they basically NEVER looked up. They always looked so decrepit.

I think some posters here would like to be around that kind of poverty...

 

[Tropical Wilds]

And you can thank me back.

Nah. I’m not the one who thinks doing the bare minimum (paying taxes) is something somebody gets thanked for or deserves a special acknowledgement as an achievement. I also don’t thank people for driving on the correct side of the road, paying their electric bill, and not peeing on my front porch. It’s all stuff they should just be doing.

Aren't free ≠ is free.

You think roads are free and your taxes don’t go to maintaining them? Buckle up, my dear, have I got a shock for you.

Sure.

Fine. Paying your taxes like everybody else does does not equate to slavery and people receive things that are funded by taxes are not the same as slave owners. To even think it’s the same means either you fundamentally don’t understand taxes (given your comment above, it seems a certainty), or you have a shocking lack of knowledge about slavery and I’m about to hear about how slaves actually we’re well taken care of thus reinforcing your shocking lack of knowledge for the entire class to see, or some combination of the two. I’m going to be nice and assume it’s ignorance and not prejudice that makes you believe that, so you’re welcome in advance.

I'm not free to exclude my tax dollars from being given to freeloaders. I tried. I asked. The U.S. Treasury replied "What kind of idiotic question is that?" (I guess they also use Chat.)

Sure you can say that, but it would be nice if you specified which race I was insensitive to.

Are we going to pretend we don’t know which race made up a majority of slaves in the US now…?

But you said I was being nasty in a previous post before you mentioned hatred and that other word I forget. Explain how I'm being any of those things.

You don’t understand how stereotyping people and remarking negatively on their appearance is nasty, then taking that information to arrive at a baseless conclusion they are liars and frauds is hateful…?

No ma'am. I shall continue until they get off SNAP.

So you believe that you’re entitled to act as you do because, as they’re struggling, you’re better than them and because an optimistic 2.5% of your taxes, $323 or so, buys you the right to marginalize them?

But somehow, as you’re buying the right to insult people by doing the bare minimum that is paying your taxes, you’re producing an analogy where you believe you are the slave…?

Okay, biases. I think that was the other word. Explain exactly, if you can, how I'm being nasty, and have hatred, and what my biases are. You could help me if what you're saying is true. I'm sure you want to help.

Again, you need to tell me why stereotyping people and remarking negatively on their appearance is nasty, then taking that information to arrive at a baseless conclusion they are liars and frauds is hateful…?

We eat food in order to live. I don't resent them for anything other than I have to work to pay for my living and for part of theirs.

So you resent them for needing food, not having the decency to starve to death, or forcing you to hand over 2.5% of what you paid in taxes ($323 for the average citizen) to help keep them from dying?

You are aware that in this Dickens poverty performance you want, the part before the ghosts, where Scrooge was commenting on the surplus population not dying fast enough, that was not the part we were supposed to take away as the point of the story, right?

They should.

Correct, as they should.

You just admitted that people who don’t look poor enough should be ridiculed.

Still need me to explain how you’re being rude, nasty, and biased…?

I just asked CharGPT if that little segment of delight there was rude, nasty, and biased and she legit just went “… But let me tell you why...”

I'm not a psychic, I judge by appearances in situations like this.

Saying “hey, I don’t know anything, but here’s why what I don’t know is morally and factually right” is certainly a bold play on your part.

I’m genuinely excited for the train wreck of whackers bonkers I’m about to read because the intro is absolutely peak.

I was once behind a guy at the store trying to pay for food with SNAP. He didn't have quite enough on the card to cover the cost, so the cashier was telling him he had to put something back. While I was pulling into the store parking lot, I had happened to notice him walking across the street to the store. Maybe he lived very close, or maybe he didn't have a car or even a bike. I looked at what he was purchasing and it was very basic stuff - wieners, cheap hot dog buns, large container of some knock-off brand orange drink, etc. He appeared to me to be actually needy so I gave him five bucks to cover the balance. It's possible I was wrong, but he seemed actually needy, and I've been taught by the Lord in that case to help out.

So you saw a guy who looked poor enough by your arbitrary measure, who was buying junk food, junk food, and junk food, and you were so moved by this display you tipped him $5. Barely enough to cover one thing he had. And you did so because, wait for it… The Lord has taught you that in your pursuit of spiritual growth and ascension that you are judge your fellow man by appearance and quality of hotdogs in order to determine need, and if both are suitably wanting, slide unto them a fin, and you too shall be blessed.

And out of all the works you’ve done, that right there is the story you went with. The one that stood out as a pinnacle of your charity for which to prove you love for the Lord and your boundless compassion for your fellow man.

Fabulous. Perfect. Outstanding. I have no notes whatsoever.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

When I lived in South Korea, you didn't see much poverty but the beggars they DID have? They Dragged themselves on their bellies (legs wrapped in rubber carpetting material as they dragged all day) around on doll. And rhey basically NEVER looked up. A and they always looked so decrepit.

I think some posters here would like to be around that kind of poverty

I mean, these discussions are always crazy revealing, and you’d think after being on this forum for 20 years this stuff wouldn’t surprise me anymore… Then somebody does a lore drop about a guy who had cheap hotdogs and the pity $5 he gave, just as the Lord taught him, and my flabber is left properly ghasted.

 

[Chesterton]

Nah. I’m not the one who thinks doing the bare minimum (paying taxes) is something somebody gets thanked for or deserves a special acknowledgement as an achievement. I also don’t thank people for driving on the correct side of the road, paying their electric bill, and not peeing on my front porch. It’s all stuff they should just be doing.

You think roads are free and your taxes don’t go to maintaining them? Buckle up, my dear, have I got a shock for you.


Fine. Paying your taxes like everybody else does does not equate to slavery and people receive things that are funded by taxes are not the same as slave owners. To even think it’s the same means either you fundamentally don’t understand taxes (given your comment above, it seems a certainty), or you have a shocking lack of knowledge about slavery and I’m about to hear about how slaves actually we’re well taken care of thus reinforcing your shocking lack of knowledge for the entire class to see, or some combination of the two. I’m going to be nice and assume it’s ignorance and not prejudice that makes you believe that, so you’re welcome in advance.

View attachment 372735

Are we going to pretend we don’t know which race made up a majority of slaves in the US now…?

You don’t understand how stereotyping people and remarking negatively on their appearance is nasty, then taking that information to arrive at a baseless conclusion they are liars and frauds is hateful…?

So you believe that you’re entitled to act as you do because, as they’re struggling, you’re better than them and because an optimistic 2.5% of your taxes, $323 or so, buys you the right to marginalize them?

But somehow, as you’re buying the right to insult people by doing the bare minimum that is paying your taxes, you’re producing an analogy where you believe you are the slave…?

Again, you need to tell me why stereotyping people and remarking negatively on their appearance is nasty, then taking that information to arrive at a baseless conclusion they are liars and frauds is hateful…?

So you resent them for needing food, not having the decency to starve to death, or forcing you to hand over 2.5% of what you paid in taxes ($323 for the average citizen) to help keep them from dying?

You are aware that in this Dickens poverty performance you want, the part before the ghosts, where Scrooge was commenting on the surplus population not dying fast enough, that was not the part we were supposed to take away as the point of the story, right?

You just admitted that people who don’t look poor enough should be ridiculed.

Still need me to explain how you’re being rude, nasty, and biased…?

I just asked CharGPT if that little segment of delight there was rude, nasty, and biased and she legit just went “… But let me tell you why...”

View attachment 372737
View attachment 372738
View attachment 372739

Saying “hey, I don’t know anything, but here’s why what I don’t know is morally and factually right” is certainly a bold play on your part.

I’m genuinely excited for the train wreck of whackers bonkers I’m about to read because the intro is absolutely peak.


So you saw a guy who looked poor enough by your arbitrary measure, who was buying junk food, junk food, and junk food, and you were so moved by this display you gave him $5. Barely enough to cover one thing he had. And you did so because, wait for it… The Lord has taught you that in your pursuit of spiritual growth and ascension that you are judge your fellow man by appearance and quality of hotdogs in order to determine need, and if both are suitably wanting, slide unto them a fin, and you too shall be blessed.

And out of all the works you’ve done, that right there is the story you went with. The one that stood out as a pinnacle of your charity for which to prove you love for the Lord and your boundless compassion for your fellow man.

Fabulous. Perfect. Outstanding. I have no notes whatsoever.

Do you realize that you lose when you're incapable of addressing what I say, and have to respond to things you make up in your own head?

 

[rjs330]

Interesting. So the solution to poverty is to get married and find somebody to support you, making marriage a transactional arraignment? And when they have kids, what then?

Statistics show people who are married are WAY more likely to be above poverty. Even when they have kids. Marriage is not about finding someone to support you. You support each other.

So let’s pretend that’s true. Is the implication still that because they don’t do it for long, that makes it ok to pay people non-livable wages? Unethical pay practices are fine because people don’t stay in those jobs, and the ones who do need money less?

Yes, I don't believe in the livable wage ideology. Its okay if you do. I want the free market system to determine wages.

And yet, a program that helps those people is inaccessible right now and people are comforting themselves by saying “well, there are people on that program I feel don’t deserve it” and now that has become the main talking point… Isolating the people who it is assumed don’t deserve it and calling them lazy, enabled, and entitled.

Thats the Democrats fault for shutting down the government. No one is being "comforted" by saying anything. And yes we need to put a stop to incentives to be on the dole of your fellow Americans if you are able bodied and can work or maybe go to school. Heck, I'm good with helping people go to school and get an education if that means they can get a good job and be out of poverty.

Then there are people who’d destroy the table because they’d rather everybody go hungry than give somebody they deem unworthy a meal they “don’t need.” As a Christian, God clearly commands the former not the latter, and as a person with a sense of ethics and morality, I think living in a land of plenty and being content with people starting is fundamentally wrong, I’m happy to be the former.

No one wants to destroy the table. This isnt an all or nothing proposition. We dont have any obligation morally or ethically to feed people who dont need it and could take care of themselves. In fact we have a moral and ethical obligation to remove them from the table. This helps to be able to care for those who do need to be there.

I just showed you that 44% of Americans work for wages that make them low income and unable to pay for basic needs.

And I just showed you how those stats are manipulated. Only 4% of workers have wages below the poverty line. And only 2% of FULL TIME workers have wages below the poverty line. I again point out that the majority of those dont stay there. The truth is still the best way to get out is still to work full time and continue to do so because you will work your way out. Getting married is still a huge way to get out as well.

The largest majority of adults who were poor are those who are NOT participating in the labor force.

No, you’re arguing because you think there aren’t a lot of them, they don’t do it for long,

Im pointing out facts. And the rest of what you said is putting words in my mouth. You shouldn't do that.

Oh no. The thing you established is junk food that nobody needs and believe some don’t deserve because there are cheaper, healthier options and should only be regarded as a treat for those with disposable income costs “a lot” of money because the person who’s serving you the treat you don’t need and comes through disposal income needs to be able to afford to live too.

Hey i dont care what you spend your own money on. Its your money. Spend it whatever you want. But don't tell me your starving and demand money from others so you can buy junk food with it. Cause you'll be starving again in shirt order.

If you are sick, $40 is no longer enough. Better find somebody to marry to pay your bills, I guess. And better hope they don’t get sick and unable to work, because now you aren’t making it, you’re lazy, and it’s your fault.

I thought we established if you are sick your not lazy. Why do insist on trying to say orherwise?

Except statistically employers who pay that are also not giving full time hours, and when you don’t work full-time hours, you need a second job. When you work a second job, you’re looking for a job that will be less than full time, which are the lower paying jobs. When you’re telling those potential employer that you can’t work open availability because you have a second job, you are now a less desirable candidate.

Its called grit. Stick to it and by the time you are 25 you'll be fine. You will work your way out. If you dont work your guaranteed to stay in poverty. As an able bodied adult you'll be okay as you work your way out. Remember only 2% if full time workers are below poverty. And they dont stay for long if they are able bodied.

Just be careful about who you have been programmed to believe is expendable and who deserves to not eat, or who deserves to dwell in poverty because you have judged them unworthy of a pay that keeps them fed and housed. Just be careful that you aren’t pretending it’s not a problem because you’ve invented a boogeyman, called them liberals, and your fear of the boogeyman you invented for yourself is so all-encompassing, so tremendous, you’re ok with sacrificing other people on the altar of your ignorance in order to get by.

There you go again putting words in my mouth. It sure seems you have bought a lot of of false propeganda from the liberal media and leftist websites.

I havent said anything about sacrificing anyone. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Do you realize that you lose when you're incapable of addressing what I say, and have to respond to things you make up in your own head?

Oh, somebody is coming clearly on the losing side of this discussion, but it absolutely is not me.

 

[rjs330]

Lol! I've worked with families with a frying pan, 2 plates and 3 spoons and no working oven.

They're landlord was an expletive. That tends to be the case.

Total ignorance of poverty in America. What you are doing is trying to make a case for an entire group of people based upon an extreme. Your doing what many liberals do. Point to the extreme and say its an example of a majority. But I cam prove the extreme is tge exception to the rule and not the rule.

A landlord like that would most likely be in violation of law.

 

[Chesterton]

Oh, somebody is coming clearly on the losing side of this discussion, but it absolutely is not me.

So what you're saying is you hate poor people? Great, just great.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Statistics show people who are married are WAY more likely to be above poverty.

Do you understand what “correlation doesn’t equal causation” means?

People tend to wait until they’re more financially secure before getting married. Financially secure people are also more attractive partners. Er go, married people are more financially secure, because attitudes surrounding marriage select for those people. Marriage rates are largely downstream of these economic indicators, not upstream.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

When I lived in South Korea, you didn't see much poverty but the beggars they DID have? They dragged themselves on their bellies (legs wrapped in rubber carpetting material as they dragged all day) around on dolly. And they basically NEVER looked up. They always looked so decrepit.

I think some posters here would like to be around that kind of poverty...

Yes. We are blessed to live in a country where the poorest of the poor can still own smartphones, multiple televisions, and eat better than I do.

 

[rambot]

Total ignorance of poverty in America. What you are doing is trying to make a case for an entire group of people based upon an extreme.

I'm explaining why blanket rules can be a significant hindrance for people. I know not every person in poverty is in the same circumstances.

I'm seeing things with gray. You see black and white.

Your doing what many liberals do. Point to the extreme and say its an example of a majority.

I am NOT saying it is a majority unless you can point out where I've said anything. It's an example that is important instead of thinking od the poor as one monolith as you seem comfortable doing with frequently repeating this notion of "poor in america".

But I cam prove the extreme is tge exception to the rule and not the rule.

It's different kinds of chaos. You seem to believe the experience of the poor in america is all the same.

A landlord like that would most likely be in violation of law.

Think of it this way...you know how "gun laws don't stop criminals"? Landlords sometimes also break the law and these people's housing is often to always tenuous.
Maybe you've heard of the term slumlords?

Frankly it seems extremely out of touch and really naive to say "well golly. That means the landlord broke the law". You think that doesn't happen?
While I was doing social work, of my families renting apartments WAY more than half of them had a significant peoblem that the landlord did not properly deal with. All of them complained about poor treatment.

 

[rambot]

Yes. We are blessed to live in a country where the poorest of the poor can still own smartphones, multiple televisions, and eat better than I do.

LOL! I don't think you feel blessed at all.

It seems many of you ARE truly, truly resentful that the poor have anything pure survival rations.

Isn't that what all the complaining is about?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

So what you're saying is you hate poor people? Great, just great.

Where did I say or even imply that? Don’t flame me because you’re mad you made yourself look like a goofball. You did that to yourself, champ. Making it seem like the issue is I hate poor people after you basically openly admitted as much about yourself reeks of “I know what you are but what am I” and desperation.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Total ignorance of poverty in America. What you are doing is trying to make a case for an entire group of people based upon an extreme. Your doing what many liberals do. Point to the extreme and say its an example of a majority. But I cam prove the extreme is tge exception to the rule and not the rule.

A landlord like that would most likely be in violation of law.

And as we all know, landlords always run places that are ship-shape and never flout the law.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Yes. We are blessed to live in a country where the poorest of the poor can still own smartphones, multiple televisions, and eat better than I do.

So the issue is that you feel they’re less than you but have more than you? Have you considered working a little bit harder, showing some gumption, and earning those things for yourself without inventorying what others have and resenting them for what you lack? And don’t you think it’s a little bit of a flawed perspective to say that because you can’t afford to eat well, everybody who isn’t as good as you are should starve?

Personally, I think of you aren’t eating as well as you should like, you should get a better job, another job, or made a better marriage-match with a richer woman who would have afforded you a better lifestyle you feel befits you.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So the issue is that you feel they’re less than you but have more than you?

Nope.

Have you considered working a little bit harder, showing some gumption, and earning those things for yourself without inventorying what others have and resenting them for what you lack?

Why should I? I would be better off quiting my job, getting a divorce but still live with my ex, and live off of the government.

And don’t you think it’s a little bit of a flawed perspective to say that because you can’t afford to eat well, everybody who isn’t as good as you are should starve?

I never claimed to be better than anyone. I also never said that I cannot afford to eat well. But the single moms in my family often brag about the steak and lobster they eat.

Personally, I think of you aren’t eating as well as you should like, you should get a better job, another job, or made a better marriage-match with a richer woman who would have afforded you a better lifestyle you feel befits you.

Again, why should I get a better job when I can make more just sitting on the couch?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Where did I say or even imply that? Don’t flame me because you’re mad you made yourself look like a goofball. You did that to yourself, champ. Making it seem like the issue is I hate poor people after you basically openly admitted as much about yourself reeks of “I know what you are but what am I” and desperation.

Yet you did the exact same thing to me. How quaint.