Rich dont pay enough but poor people dont pay any and people fine with that

[quote name='dmaul1114']To be fair, it doesn't have to be that way. The FDA or other agency needs to come in and regulate supplements just like they do medicine so that we have the same quality of experimental studies of vitamins and supplements that we do for medical drugs before they can go on the market.

That said, I'm a believer in both to some extent. I take a good bit of vitamins (multi, B and C, Glucosamine/Condroiton, probiotics, fiber) and seem to get sick less since I started that, notice some improvement in knee pain from the Glucosamin, and the probiotics and fiber pills seem to help with my irritable bowel and reflux problems some.

But I also have no qualms going to the doctor when I get a sinus infection or chest cold and getting some anti-biotics and inhalers/steroids (if I'm wheezing) as not much over the counter stuff seems to help when I get really sick. If it's just a simple cold I just pound the fluids, up the vitamin B and C and try to get a lot of rest.[/QUOTE]


Yeah I think what you are describing though is outside of what I was even talking about. Although there are some dubious claims by supplement companies I do think there can be some benefit to certain ones. I think there are some studies with glucosamine that actually say it can provide a benefit. I am more concerned with people who try to market things as cures to diseases with pretty well understood pathophysiology. Preventative things like vitamins (although some studies actually show an increased incidence of certain cancers with lifelong vitamin takers) and other supplements are not as egregious as those who try to sell curing cancer with ionized water or changing the pH of your tumor.

I agree though with your idea that the FDA should regulate those things more tightly.
 
[quote name='Javery']Really? I couldn't disagree more. Sorry welfare people, buy a 20" CRT and deal with it. That dollar a day could be going towards food and other necessities. You don't need a 60" flatscreen to mitigate the social isolation effects of poverty. ;)[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but this rings hollow as fuck when you have a million dollar house, did a $200k+ renovation, and bitch about being in the same boat as poor people.

Besides, all you're doing is harping on a conservative myth when most people use welfare appropriately. Not to mention that there's a 5 year lifetime cap on benefits as an adult.

Your example is loaded as hell.

[quote name='berzirk']That's my position too. They have also issued numbers that show that some of the lowest income people spend more on apparel than other groups. Of course it's highly socially biased, but effectively they were saying based on income, poor people are buying more jewelry, more expensive clothing, and more expensive footwear than middle class households for example.[/QUOTE]
I guess rich people spend so little on those things as a percentage of their income that they must be all dressed in rags and hand me downs. See, I can play with numbers too! But of course, this sounds stupid right?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Sorry, but this rings hollow as fuck when you have a million dollar house, did a $200k+ renovation, and bitch about being in the same boat as poor people.

Besides, all you're doing is harping on a conservative myth when most people use welfare appropriately. Not to mention that there's a 5 year lifetime cap on benefits as an adult.

Your example is loaded as hell. [/QUOTE]

OK, first off I most definitely do not live in a million dollar house - I wish I did though! I also didn't do a $200K renovation (although I'm about to pull the trigger :cool:) and when do I bitch about being in the same boat as poor people? I think the only position I've ever taken is that when trying to define who is rich and who is poor based on income (really for tax purposes) you can't use a universal dollar amount without taking into consideration where you live but that's neither here nor there.

Even if most people use welfare "appropriately" (whatever that means) all I was saying is that there should be some rule against people on welfare buying 60" flatscreens. Obviously, you can't actually make that rule but the idea is that if you don't work, you qualify for government assistance and are classified as below the poverty line maybe you shouldn't be entitled to expensive electronics.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Sorry, but this rings hollow as fuck when you have a million dollar house, did a $200k+ renovation, and bitch about being in the same boat as poor people.

Besides, all you're doing is harping on a conservative myth when most people use welfare appropriately. Not to mention that there's a 5 year lifetime cap on benefits as an adult.

Your example is loaded as hell.


I guess rich people spend so little on those things as a percentage of their income that they must be all dressed in rags and hand me downs. See, I can play with numbers too! But of course, this sounds stupid right?[/QUOTE]

It's actually more insidious than that. I was talking to a friend who works for an "urban apparel" company, and they were basically giggling over the fact that poor, namely black kids, are spending thousands of dollars a year on new shoes, jewelry, and clothing (his specific comment was athletic wear and throwback jerseys). Their marketing targets that demographic, and the try to exploit the "cool factor" of black kids wearing this gear, because then your suburban white kids who emulate them will wear it.

When I asked if it feels awkward to be releasing products that most people can't afford, he mentioned that they'll get money one way or another. I joke with friends that I'm like the Hank Hill of the industry I work in. I would feel sick if my pure motivation was selling more crap to people who didn't needed it/couldn't afford it.
 
[quote name='Javery']OK, first off I most definitely do not live in a million dollar house - I wish I did though! I also didn't do a $200K renovation (although I'm about to pull the trigger :cool:) and when do I bitch about being in the same boat as poor people? I think the only position I've ever taken is that when trying to define who is rich and who is poor based on income (really for tax purposes) you can't use a universal dollar amount without taking into consideration where you live but that's neither here nor there.[/QUOTE]
Are you the only one allowed to be hyperbolic? Cause that was the point of me calling you out on trotting out the old "welfare queen" trope.

Even if most people use welfare "appropriately" (whatever that means) all I was saying is that there should be some rule against people on welfare buying 60" flatscreens. Obviously, you can't actually make that rule but the idea is that if you don't work, you qualify for government assistance and are classified as below the poverty line maybe you shouldn't be entitled to expensive electronics.
Click to expand...
"Appropriate" means that it's used as it was meant to: a temporary social safety net. But let's not mince words. We all know what comes to mind when we're talking about welfare queens: single black mothers with lots of kids from different fathers driving around in brand new Escalades. It's a myth and exists on such a small degree that it's not even really significant. Considering their income, their living spaces mostlikely aren't even large enough to accommodate a tv that big and a 50 inch could be had for under a poverty inducing $500 even with the highest sales tax in the country. "Entitled" got nothing to do with it.

edit: This is not me calling you racist. If I was going to call you a racist fuck, I would just do it. Everyone here knows how I roll with that.

[quote name='berzirk']It's actually more insidious than that. I was talking to a friend who works for an "urban apparel" company, and they were basically giggling over the fact that poor, namely black kids, are spending thousands of dollars a year on new shoes, jewelry, and clothing (his specific comment was athletic wear and throwback jerseys). Their marketing targets that demographic, and the try to exploit the "cool factor" of black kids wearing this gear, because then your suburban white kids who emulate them will wear it.

When I asked if it feels awkward to be releasing products that most people can't afford, he mentioned that they'll get money one way or another. I joke with friends that I'm like the Hank Hill of the industry I work in. I would feel sick if my pure motivation was selling more crap to people who didn't needed it/couldn't afford it.[/QUOTE]
Didn't think you were going in this direction from your previous post, but I agree that it's beyond predatory. If you're interested in how insidious and rampant that stuff is, I strongly recommend watching Frontline: Merchants of Cool.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, I think we misunderstand - I don't think that there are tons and tons of "welfare queens" out there buying electronics... just that if they do exist, they shouldn't be.
 
[quote name='Javery']Oh, I think we misunderstand - I don't think that there are tons and tons of "welfare queens" out there buying electronics... just that if they do exist, they shouldn't be.[/QUOTE]

Of course, why even bring it up?

Most pointless post ever.
 
[quote name='camoor']Of course, why even bring it up?

Most pointless post ever.[/QUOTE]

This is what I get for following up a slidecage post.
 
[quote name='Javery']This is what I get for following up a slidecage post.[/QUOTE]

I do like Slidecage. He would be a fine model for the Epsilon caste.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Yeah I think what you are describing though is outside of what I was even talking about. Although there are some dubious claims by supplement companies I do think there can be some benefit to certain ones. I think there are some studies with glucosamine that actually say it can provide a benefit. I am more concerned with people who try to market things as cures to diseases with pretty well understood pathophysiology. Preventative things like vitamins (although some studies actually show an increased incidence of certain cancers with lifelong vitamin takers) and other supplements are not as egregious as those who try to sell curing cancer with ionized water or changing the pH of your tumor.

I agree though with your idea that the FDA should regulate those things more tightly.[/QUOTE]

I vehemently disagree the FDA should be brought in to regulate them as the ultimate verdict will be most, if not, all will be banned due to deliberately slanted studies on them. I say this as it's well known the FDA is in Big Pharma's pocket. I would not even be surprised if there were a few dummy companies offering watered down versions of the Herbs to discredit the industry as a whole. Before you call me a Conspiracy Theorist I think you can argue it is good business practice for them to use these types of techniques.

They won't stand for herbs to gain any sort of widespread credibility as proof of that would cause a substantial dip in their profit margin as they would no longer be making fat dips of profits off of the patents for their drugs. Part of the reason Herbal, Homeopathic cures have been widely discredited is most of the time you can't patent them unless you have a special mixture of said Herbs in combination that do the job those herbs separately cannot.
edit: Just to make things clear I don't like the snake oil salesmen you speak of making these claims but it's all or nothing for supplements right now given the FDA's conduct at the current time. I also can't say I'm the biggest fan of one taking vitamins because I believe you get a better rate of absorption through a balanced diet.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Wow, came back from a broken computer to this. I am saddened.[/QUOTE]
I just came back from a 2 week temp ban to this, so imagine how I feel. Yet people say I'm irritable on here? :lol: Seriously.:whistle2:##-o
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I vehemently disagree the FDA should be brought in to regulate them as the ultimate verdict will be most, if not, all will be banned due to deliberately slanted studies on them. I say this as it's well known the FDA is in Big Pharma's pocket. I would not even be surprised if there were a few dummy companies offering watered down versions of the Herbs to discredit the industry as a whole. Before you call me a Conspiracy Theorist I think you can argue it is good business practice for them to use these types of techniques.

They won't stand for herbs to gain any sort of widespread credibility as proof of that would cause a substantial dip in their profit margin as they would no longer be making fat dips of profits off of the patents for their drugs. Part of the reason Herbal, Homeopathic cures have been widely discredited is most of the time you can't patent them unless you have a special mixture of said Herbs in combination that do the job those herbs separately cannot.
[/QUOTE]


I am not sure what a "slanted" study would be. If you cannot designed a double blind placebo control study looking at the effects of your compound (vitamin, herb, supplement) on said disease, ailment or condition then your compound does not work. This is where holistic medicine likes to wallow. Well "some" people feel they get better or their joints don not hurt or whatever vague response they are trying to elicit. I am not going to say do not take herbs or other supplements if you think they are helping you but the placebo effect is pretty dang strong and a lot of the holistic/herbal claims rely on this.

I have worked at both the National Cancer Institute and Pharma and I can tell you this. The FDA and Pharma DO work hand in hand but not for the reason you may think. They are trying to develop ways to bring more drugs to market in faster, safer and more reliable ways. The FDA has shut down many drugs in Phase 3. Way more than they approve. The amount of research and money spent to get one drug to market is crazy expensive. If they were just in it together you would see far more "bad" drugs out there. Do some make it through? Yes, but usually that is because the sample size for the clinical trial was not large enough to predict adverse outcomes once it hits a population of millions or billions. My biggest issue now is that some cancer drugs are being approved based solely on the fact they increase disease free progression yet have no effect on overall survival. This is a slippery slope. They are expensive drug that may improve your quality of life for 6 months but do not extend it. There are also drugs for cancer with no previous known therapy that are being approved because it extends survival for 3 months but at the cost of 10s of thousands of dollars. These are real issues that play a role in the rising costs of health care. I do not want to be callous but at some point we have to really ask the tough questions about these types of drugs. Anyway, war off topic but it is something I actually feel passionate about.
 
Did you guys know that some dude developed a car that would run on water, but big oil buried it? True story.

extreme sarcasm.
 
[quote name='Javery']Oh, I think we misunderstand - I don't think that there are tons and tons of "welfare queens" out there buying electronics... just that if they do exist, they shouldn't be.[/QUOTE]

I can't relate how things are in other areas of the country but I can comment on San Bernardino and it's bad.

Here is an article on people committing fraud using EBT, I know this isn't anything new but just cluing some of you in on how massive it is in this area. I think the 20% is being very optimistic considering how many people they investigated, not even close to 1% of the population. I think EBT came out as a good idea but ended up being way to easy to commit fraud but that is a whole other story. Close to half of the city of San Bernardino are on some form of government assistance just to show how big it is around here.

Just to chime in on Javery's "welfare queens" I've seen it a lot first hand, I think it's pretty sad on the extent it goes too especially when the kids start suffering.
 
[quote name='skiizim']I can't relate how things are in other areas of the country but I can comment on San Bernardino and it's bad.

Here is an article on people committing fraud using EBT, I know this isn't anything new but just cluing some of you in on how massive it is in this area. I think the 20% is being very optimistic considering how many people they investigated, not even close to 1% of the population. I think EBT came out as a good idea but ended up being way to easy to commit fraud but that is a whole other story. Close to half of the city of San Bernardino are on some form of government assistance just to show how big it is around here.[/QUOTE]
It's a bit of a stretch to call it a fraud when those selling the cards are taking a loss on them. Most of the predatory action is on those buying the cards. Not to mention that you have to be pretty creative with the paltry amount you get from selling the cards. It's not like they're shopping at LV, Neimans, or buying the latest luxury car.

I mean shit, the woman on your broken 2nd link gets a whopping $326 a month to feed 1 adult and 2 kids. That's $10 a day. So what if half the city gets assistance. Are there enough well-paying jobs to get them off of it? Even from that little preview of the article, it's not saying what you think it is.

Just to chime in on Javery's "welfare queens" I've seen it a lot first hand, I think it's pretty sad on the extent it goes too especially when the kids start suffering.
Click to expand...
Tell us more. I'm dying to hear some 100% accurate anecdotes that give a 100% accurate description of their life situations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to give you a small example, A really good friend of mine who makes close to 90k a year was getting government assistance. His babys momma who he isn't married too but still lives with had an income low enough to qualify was getting this among other things. This type of incident isn't isolated and happens a lot around here which where a lot of my opinion stems from.
 
I was just reading about how the austerity measures in Greece and Spain have driven normal folks to start rooting around in trash bins for food.Don't people realize that welfare helps us avoid such shameful treatment of our fellow man?

Before I go further, wholesale welfare abuse on an organized crime level is certainly a problem and must be curtailed. Of course.

However honestly, for me, giving a few bucks to folks that are down on their luck so they don't fall beyond a base subsistence level is totally worth it. If some people use the money to buy a flashy jacket instead of food then they can go hungry for all I care, but at least as a society we did the right thing.
 
[quote name='skiizim']Just to give you a small example, A really good friend of mine who makes close to 90k a year was getting government assistance. His babys momma who he isn't married too but still lives with had an income low enough to qualify was getting this among other things. This type of incident isn't isolated and happens a lot around here which where a lot of my opinion stems from.[/QUOTE]

Well yeah, rich people are generally assholes. You won't find any disagreement from me. However that's not exactly "welfare queen", it's a rich person taking advantage of a poorly designed system.

We need to cut your rich asshole friend off, but don't gut the system.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well yeah, rich people are generally assholes. [/QUOTE]

Can I get some concrete back-up on that? ;) Also, $90K per year hardly qualifies as rich without some context.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well yeah, rich people are generally assholes. You won't find any disagreement from me. However that's not exactly "welfare queen", it's a rich person taking advantage of a poorly designed system.

We need to cut your rich asshole friend off, but don't gut the system.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with welfare, when we were young my parents were on welfare until they could better themselves and us. I'm just against people who abuse the system or the ones that don't want to better themselves or devolve themselves further.

[quote name='Javery']Can I get some concrete back-up on that? ;) Also, $90K per year hardly qualifies as rich without some context.[/QUOTE]

Definitely not rich but living very comfortably, I did threaten to report him when this was going on and gave him a piece of my mind.
 
[quote name='skiizim']Just to give you a small example, A really good friend of mine who makes close to 90k a year was getting government assistance. His babys momma who he isn't married too but still lives with had an income low enough to qualify was getting this among other things. This type of incident isn't isolated and happens a lot around here which where a lot of my opinion stems from.[/QUOTE]
In that case, your opinion is dumb as shit.

First off, your friend isn't getting assistance in any official manner; his child and child's mother is. Secondly, this is a far cry the "welfare queen" myth. Thirdly, what you're describing is an indictment on those, like your friend and not the child or the child's mother, with the income and means taking advantage of the system. You should be directing your ire at them and not people like the mother and child. If your friend contributes to the family, good for him, but if he decides he's tired of it one day, we need a system in place so that they aren't worse because of it. You're pointing your finger at the wrong people.

[quote name='Javery']Can I get some concrete back-up on that? ;) Also, $90K per year hardly qualifies as rich without some context.[/QUOTE]
$90k ain't rich, but you can live VERY comfortably almost everywhere.
 
[quote name='skiizim']I have no problem with welfare, when we were young my parents were on welfare until they could better themselves and us. I'm just against people who abuse the system or the ones that don't want to better themselves or devolve themselves further.

Definitely not rich but living very comfortably, I did threaten to report him when this was going on and gave him a piece of my mind.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone actually is in favor of welfare fraud which is why it makes it so much easier to the Republicans to rally against it. They like to prop up these stories of abuse as if it's indicative of an entire systematic failure. It's not; give me any program, public or private and there's a good chance there's been some type of fraud involved. And if the Republicans were genuine in their efforts to root out all fraud affecting the government they would have been much more proactive in the housing market collapse than just throwing up their hands and saying "free market." What about all the money missing from Iraq reconstruction?

If there is anyone out there that seriously believes we should end all forms of government assistance I'd love to give them the middle finger and a good hard slap to knock some sense into them. I don't care who you are, how wealthy you are right now, and how much you've planned for the future; people fall and they can fall hard with an astonishing swiftness. What you're essentially saying to those people when you say we should end government assistance is "fuck you, you're dead to us." Or better yet, when their response is "that's what charity is for." Right, because churches these days spend all their money on "helping their fellow man" and not building shit like this:

SaltLakeUT_hr.jpg

I know it's somewhat bombastic and preposterous to think there are people out there who want to end government assistance but there are those people out there. One only needs to look as far as slidecage's posts to see someone who would end government assistance if given the chance. What would happen to him if that "cushy" newspaper delivery job suddenly went buh-bye on him though? Government assistance is a safety net in place to help people from completely falling through the cracks. Sure there are gonna be people who want to live in that safety net try to exploit it but the majority who use it need it.

[quote name='Clak']90k around here and you could live in the ritzy neighborhoods. I'd love to make 90k a year.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, my fiancee just got a job that pays $60k and even with me still working part time while in school only making about ~$10-15k we're suddenly feeling like we're rich...
 
[quote name='Clak']Did you guys know that some dude developed a car that would run on water, but big oil buried it? True story.

extreme sarcasm.
[/QUOTE]

wasn't there toy cars back in the 80s that did this .. I could swear i had a car where you put water into it and it ran around the house..
 
I think it's just what a person's goals are. Would you be happy living comfortably in a nice, safe neighborhood, or do you want to own a damn horse to enter into the Olympics? Not saying one is more right than the other, but choices like that are going to shape who you are and what you have to do to get there. Romney couldn't have made his millions if he were just a nice guy. He's a damn corporate raider who will cut your throat to get what he wants, and he's made millions doing it.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think it's just what a person's goals are. Would you be happy living comfortably in a nice, safe neighborhood, or do you want to own a damn horse to enter into the Olympics? Not saying one is more right than the other, but choices like that are going to shape who you are and what you have to do to get there. Romney couldn't have made his millions if he were just a nice guy. He's a damn corporate raider who will cut your throat to get what he wants, and he's made millions doing it.[/QUOTE]


Bingo. This is why calling Obama a millionaire and lumping him in with Romney is wrong. Obama wrote some books that people chose to buy. Romney made his money mostly off the misery of others. Even if that company was going to die anyway it takes a special type of asshole to make a profit off of it.
 
You know, something I've been wanting to mention since this thread started, let's flip this around. slidecage is all in a tizzy about government assistance being "wasted" on these "welfare queens." Where's the same outrage when it comes to corporate assistance?

For example, a little over 10 years ago Best Buy leveraged the city of Richfield, MN to use eminent domain to take out a whopping 82 homes and businesses so they could build their new corporate headquarters. Here's a fairly old article on the story but I'll paraphrase it here On top of the city government having to pay out millions to these affected home- and business-owners they set up a nice fancy tax incremented financing deal for Best Buy for a whopping 25 years. What that means is, any increase in tax value of the property is basically given right back to Best Buy to pay off the financing of the building. For anyone who hasn't seen the Best Buy corporate headquarters, here you go:
domain.span.jpg
Now, if you see in that picture it's actually a series of 4 towers. Wanna know the funny part about that? They built for expansion, meaning one of those towers was basically never fully utilized. On top of that, we all know how Best Buy has been doing lately and how many layoffs they've had so that headquarters is getting lonelier and lonelier by the day... Will Best Buy even be around in another 15 years for the tax increment financing deal to expire and the city of Richfield to finally start seeing a return on their "investment" (welfare)? I dunno, the way things are looking right now, maybe, maybe not. I'm sure they had a hell of a pitch for Richfield at the time though...

The point of this though is that there might be people sitting there with their hands out to government expecting them to pay their way, but most corporations are out there doing the same damn thing. One only needs to look at stories like I mentioned above or just about any professional sports venue to see this corporate welfare in action.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You know, something I've been wanting to mention since this thread started, let's flip this around. slidecage is all in a tizzy about government assistance being "wasted" on these "welfare queens." Where's the same outrage when it comes to corporate assistance?

For example, a little over 10 years ago Best Buy leveraged the city of Richfield, MN to use eminent domain to take out a whopping 82 homes and businesses so they could build their new corporate headquarters. Here's a fairly old article on the story but I'll paraphrase it here On top of the city government having to pay out millions to these affected home- and business-owners they set up a nice fancy tax incremented financing deal for Best Buy for a whopping 25 years. What that means is, any increase in tax value of the property is basically given right back to Best Buy to pay off the financing of the building. For anyone who hasn't seen the Best Buy corporate headquarters, here you go:
domain.span.jpg
Now, if you see in that picture it's actually a series of 4 towers. Wanna know the funny part about that? They built for expansion, meaning one of those towers was basically never fully utilized. On top of that, we all know how Best Buy has been doing lately and how many layoffs they've had so that headquarters is getting lonelier and lonelier by the day... Will Best Buy even be around in another 15 years for the tax increment financing deal to expire and the city of Richfield to finally start seeing a return on their "investment" (welfare)? I dunno, the way things are looking right now, maybe, maybe not. I'm sure they had a hell of a pitch for Richfield at the time though...

The point of this though is that there might be people sitting there with their hands out to government expecting them to pay their way, but most corporations are out there doing the same damn thing. One only needs to look at stories like I mentioned above or just about any professional sports venue to see this corporate welfare in action.[/QUOTE]

At least they are paying money back and hiring people instead of companies like Solyndra who took the money and ran

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/solyndra-bankruptcy-government-loan_n_1721043.html
 
[quote name='slidecage']At least they are paying money back and hiring people instead of companies like Solyndra who took the money and ran

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/solyndra-bankruptcy-government-loan_n_1721043.html[/QUOTE]

Best Buy has cut at least 2,400 jobs in the past year alone...

By the way, thanks for pointing out yet another case of corporate welfare gone wrong. You listen to too much talk radio but have no idea how to properly apply the facts they twist and pound into your head...
 
anyone hear the news report about the women in ohio saying OBAMA is good cause he gave her a FREE PHONE and MITT sucks cause he did not give her anything for free....


I cant put my finger on it but who the hell does she sound like in hollywood... I heard a voice like that before but i cant think who the hell she sounds like and its driving me crazy
 
[quote name='slidecage']anyone hear the news report about the women in ohio saying OBAMA is good cause he gave her a FREE PHONE and MITT sucks cause he did not give her anything for free....


I cant put my finger on it but who the hell does she sound like in hollywood... I heard a voice like that before but i cant think who the hell she sounds like and its driving me crazy[/QUOTE]

So, rather than give any sort of answer as to why corporate welfare is tolerable to you (except for Solyndra, of course, which the conservative talk radio blowhards taught you to hate and throw out in reply to any liberals who challenge you), you'd rather change the topic to some anecdote unsupported in any way except for what you apparently heard in some "news report"?

Great job slidecage, keep letting talk radio tell you what to think, you fucking simpleton.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It's a bit of a stretch to call it a fraud when those selling the cards are taking a loss on them. Most of the predatory action is on those buying the cards. Not to mention that you have to be pretty creative with the paltry amount you get from selling the cards. It's not like they're shopping at LV, Neimans, or buying the latest luxury car.[/quote]
They aren't taking a loss on the cards since they got them for free. What difference does it make where they are shopping with the cash if they aren't using it as the program intended?

[quote name='dohdough']
I mean shit, the woman on your broken 2nd link gets a whopping $326 a month to feed 1 adult and 2 kids. That's $10 a day. So what if half the city gets assistance. Are there enough well-paying jobs to get them off of it? Even from that little preview of the article, it's not saying what you think it is.[/quote]
$10 a day isn't that low if the person is willing to coupon and cook from scratch.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So, rather than give any sort of answer as to why corporate welfare is tolerable to you (except for Solyndra, of course, which the conservative talk radio blowhards taught you to hate and throw out in reply to any liberals who challenge you), you'd rather change the topic to some anecdote unsupported in any way except for what you apparently heard in some "news report"?

Great job slidecage, keep letting talk radio tell you what to think, you fucking simpleton.[/QUOTE]


no really i want to know like i said its driving me crazy, my friend heard it too on the news and said the same thing

who the hell does this lady sound like

then i get back on topic but was wondering if anyone knew
 
[quote name='Clak']90k around here and you could live in the ritzy neighborhoods. I'd love to make 90k a year.[/QUOTE]

Same here. Hell, I live in a very nice area in my city and I make around 70k. I couldn't afford a house in this area, but apartments/condos are well within my budget (though it helps not having a car loan or credit card debt--just student loans). House I'd have to move out into the 'burbs to afford anything, but I have no desire to have a house right now anyway. Doesn't make sense when living by yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These welfare queens buy their cars and

how the hell do they do this on

welfare they shouldn't able to do this
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I don't think anyone actually is in favor of welfare fraud which is why it makes it so much easier to the Republicans to rally against it. They like to prop up these stories of abuse as if it's indicative of an entire systematic failure. It's not; give me any program, public or private and there's a good chance there's been some type of fraud involved. And if the Republicans were genuine in their efforts to root out all fraud affecting the government they would have been much more proactive in the housing market collapse than just throwing up their hands and saying "free market." What about all the money missing from Iraq reconstruction?[/QUOTE]

Railing against welfare queens works because it's a simple story.

With the mortgage crisis, you try and explain credit default swaps, financial derivatives, etc and people's eyes glaze over. They don't get it, the rich know it, and they exploit us like the chumps we are.

With welfare queen it's a simple story - the story of a woman sitting at home popping bonbons while you bust your hump just to end up with barely enough to scrape by. You're carrying her on your back and it's why you never get ahead. It's not a true story, but it's simple. And in politics simple>true
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']They aren't taking a loss on the cards since they got them for free. What difference does it make where they are shopping with the cash if they aren't using it as the program intended?[/quote]
Is this a serious question??? The purchasing power of $1 is $1. If they get a quarter for every EBT card dollar, they see a 75 cent loss. How they get it is irrelevant in terms of purchasing power.

Where they don't spend it is relevant when they're characterized as spending it on thousand dollar items every month or items that eclipse their monthly allotment, which aren't remotely close to the truth.

Where they spend it becomes less relevant in terms of "intended purpose" when the fast food industry and Big Box stores are constantly lobbying to allow those cards to be used at those places.

$10 a day isn't that low if the person is willing to coupon and cook from scratch.
Click to expand...
Yeah...a single person taking care of two kids is so easy that getting on public transportation, going to a supermarket, carrying enough food for the week, prepping it, cooking it, and cleaning up afterwards are trivial things. Buy hey, let's just play "Pretend Pauper" and say that $10 can buy a 25lb bag of rice that can last over a month. All they need is water and they're good to go right?:roll: fucking asshole.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']In a world where "Public Assistance" isn't meant to assist and, instead, is meant to be the sole source of support...[/QUOTE]
Yeah...it's not like there's a 5 year limit for adults right?:roll:

And if it was so easy, they why isn't everyone on it? Why aren't you on it if they have all those great things?
 
So... are you saying that people shouldn't be using Public Assistance as their sole means of support?

Because, in that case, the story you're going on about, the lady is getting an additional $10/day to assist her own daily food budget.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... are you saying that people shouldn't be using Public Assistance as their sole means of support?

Because, in that case, the story you're going on about, the lady is getting an additional $10/day to assist her own daily food budget.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...let's harp on the semantics of "assistance." I have another word for you to learn. It's pedant. As in you're a pedantic shitheel.

[quote name='UncleBob']http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2008/CostofFoodFeb08.pdf

Don't know the ages of anyone in that household, but the two highest age groups for children and the medium age group for an adult woman has you spending $426/month on the "Thrifty" plan. Chipping in about $4/day doesn't seem too crazy when the $10/day is supposed to be assisting you.[/QUOTE]
Since you like pulling up charts, why don't you look up how much income you need to be getting that whopping $326 a month. And while you're at it, go find an inflation calculator for your 5 year old numbers.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah...it's not like there's a 5 year limit for adults right?:roll:

And if it was so easy, they why isn't everyone on it? Why aren't you on it if they have all those great things?[/QUOTE]

Take a word, wrench free of all common sense and context. Instant hilarity.

Food Stamps aren't stamps any more, they don't count.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Take a word, wrench free of all common sense and context. Instant hilarity.

Food Stamps aren't stamps any more, they don't count.[/QUOTE]
What means context?:drool:
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']$10 a day isn't that low if the person is willing to coupon and cook from scratch.[/QUOTE]

You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You have no idea what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

Really? It is entirely possible to feed three people for less than $10 a day if you want to. It may require some work, but maybe that is the issue.
 
Whoops. I forgot that DD is from the land of happy thoughts - where the meanings of words vary depending on how DD wants to use them.

Oh, and yeah - the chart is four years old... and the article is from 2011. So, going by the BLS, $426 in 2008 would be... $445.07 in 2011. Take out the $326 in assistance, you're left with $119.07 that the mother needs to come up with on her own... or $3.97 per day...

Someone go back and remind me what my original number was again?

Double Down, DD.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Whoops. I forgot that DD is from the land of happy thoughts - where the meanings of words vary depending on how DD wants to use them.

Oh, and yeah - the chart is four years old... and the article is from 2011. So, going by the BLS, $426 in 2008 would be... $445.07 in 2011. Take out the $326 in assistance, you're left with $119.07 that the mother needs to come up with on her own... or $3.97 per day...

Someone go back and remind me what my original number was again?

Double Down, DD.[/QUOTE]
I'm not the one harping on the word "assistance;" you are. That's why I called you a pedantic shitheel.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Really? It is entirely possible to feed three people for less than $10 a day if you want to. [/quote]

Show your work.

It may require some work, but maybe that is the issue.
Click to expand...

Classy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top