Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

My3Boys

No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

Recommended Posts

I am, truly, happy for her. I contacted every major insurance company in our state asking about individual coverage (meaning for the family, not sponsored by an employer). I was declined by every one. One representative even LAUGHED at me when I shared my kids' medical diagnoses. He told me flat out that they don't cover people who are sick.

 

Tara

 

We worked with an independent agent who helped us to apply to the three major insurance companies who do business with independent insureds in the state of Texas. Two turned me down because I am on B12 shots. I don't even have a diagnosis. The B12 shots cost about $30 a year, including needles (I self-inject) and they are not covered by any insurance because they are a vitamin, despite the fact that, for me, they are medically necessary. Yet, based on that fact, I was turned down by the first two insurance companies and was rated up significantly by the last one, who did agree to insure me. ("Rated up" = The insurance company charges you a 25% or 50% higher monthly premium to insure you due to your medical issues.) Two of my three kids were rated up for things as benign as ear infections. Conditions were excluded, including anything related to my dd's clubfoot. If you can get can even get coverage, it will price many people out of the market.

 

Texas has a high risk insurance pool which covers those who are uninsurable by other companies. It has expensive premiums and high deductibles. That was my last house on the block. Fortunately, I didn't need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas has a high risk insurance pool which covers those who are uninsurable by other companies.

 

I know some states have this. Unfortunately, ours doesn't. We do have insurance, through my husband's employer. Unfortunately, it costs $1800 a month. Unfortunately, dh hasn't worked full time in 8 months. *sigh* Fortunately, I love my part-time job in the neighborhood beer and liquor store. :)

 

Tara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know some states have this. Unfortunately, ours doesn't. We do have insurance, through my husband's employer. Unfortunately, it costs $1800 a month. Unfortunately, dh hasn't worked full time in 8 months. *sigh*

 

Tara

 

:grouphug: I understand being in situations that you never expected yourself to be in. It can happen to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My hubby's company has all ready in place that if the mandate for "business with 50 employees have to pay for 60% of their health insurance" comes about, they will fire each and every one of them. They will rehire as contract employees, 1099. NO benefits, no vacation, no build up of time off, no health care, no anything. a loop hole the health bill never addressed. Companies do not have to have employees. They can for the most part contract it all out.Desperate in this economy to keep a job, most employees if not all will sign up as 1099. What else can they do and where else can they go? Even fast food is not hiring. we are crossing our fingers that I will be out of school and working by that time. Commission sales has enough stress. Add to it the worry that you won't be asked back the next week because your sales were bad.......:001_huh:

 

And I think such a mandate is stupid. The reason it doesn't kick in until 2014 is because of all the preliminary work that must be done-health care exchanges, etc. Like someone said above, companies that provide good benefits have loyal, hardworking employees. Firing everyone so that you don't have to give them benefits is probably going to mean your employees are always going to be looking for something better, something that feels more permanent. It is foolish on the part of the company, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it should be a crime to utter the phrase "your child is uninsurable."

It IS a crime. Just not one that they can be arrested for :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I think such a mandate is stupid. The reason it doesn't kick in until 2014 is because of all the preliminary work that must be done-health care exchanges, etc. Like someone said above, companies that provide good benefits have loyal, hardworking employees. Firing everyone so that you don't have to give them benefits is probably going to mean your employees are always going to be looking for something better, something that feels more permanent. It is foolish on the part of the company, imo.

 

YEa it's stupid. BUt in sales....you're not looking for hardworking and loyal. You're looking for who can sale the most this week, this month. Nothing matters as long as you can back whatever with a high dollar amount. And I do mean nothing. the work behavior is horrendous sometimes. Sales people are always looking for the next best thing. And a company that falls under the mandate may not be able to pay 60%. For my hubby that means they will pay $720 a month per employee verses the $100 they pay now. 36,000 a month vs 5000. They are not going to do it. And when they do this, pretty much every car place in this state will too. They all offer the same type of pay plans and benefits. And since some of them are owned by dealers that are multi state with multi lots, this will travel beyond my state. Their rationale is better to be a contract employee than no job at all because we closed.

 

We can rationale it all day and debate pros and cons but the reality is they have weighed the pros and cons with their lawyers, accountants and the IRS and this is how they plan to survive. And yea while the company is making money, they aren't making enough to survive that much of their bottom line going out in addition to the increase in business insurance in addition to the new tax from the state and county. They are going to cut where they can. And we have no choice but to swallow it until a better job opens up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well plenty of Catholics disagree, and academia is HARDLY the institution to whine about the issues. They are practically putting young people into positions of indentured servants to make sure they keep their jobs, so I don't want to hear their philosophical/theological, irrational, certainly not Catholic, and not true to the idea of subsidiarity ramblings.

 

It is not moral to keep people perpetually in a cycle of poverty by supporting programs that never have to account for actual results. It is not moral to be so completely irresponsible with public funds as to drive an entire nation into bankruptcy with borrowed funds from future generations.

 

And if that organization is so concerned with Catholic teaching, then where is their outrage against law makers so fond of abortion? MIA. Give me a break. I have already explained (ignored), that Christ did not mandate government taxation but individual charity. That picture makes a pretty good Monty Python style joke.

 

This convinces no one who is not part of that choir already, and it definitely is not the position of the Vatican. Repeating it and adding :iagree: signs does not make it correct.

 

 

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/ Ahem. I think that if memory serves these bishops are in fact speaking from authority given them by the Vatican.

 

This site is the American Catholic Bishops, not the Catholic academics who sent out the letter to Boehner.

 

The Catholic Bishops POV from the site you linked:

We support self-sufficiency and self-determination as the best strategies for change. We support projects that break the cycle of poverty for good. Find out more about CCHD and the programs that are changing people’s lives.

 

It is my view that this statement supports what I said, so thank you for posting it.

 

If you have a Vatican website that supports the letter sent to Boehner that was linked and given as proof of the Catholic POV, by all means, post it. Posting that Catholics support taking care of the poor doesn't cut it. Forced charity through taxation is not a principle of Christianity. The elimination of free will is never a principle of Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YEa it's stupid. BUt in sales....you're not looking for hardworking and loyal. You're looking for who can sale the most this week, this month. Nothing matters as long as you can back whatever with a high dollar amount. And I do mean nothing. the work behavior is horrendous sometimes. Sales people are always looking for the next best thing.

 

As a salesperson for ten years (with a Master's degree), I take offense to these statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This site is the American Catholic Bishops, not the Catholic academics who sent out the letter to Boehner.

 

The Catholic Bishops POV from the site you linked:

 

 

It is my view that this statement supports what I said, so thank you for posting it.

 

If you have a Vatican website that supports the letter sent to Boehner that was linked and given as proof of the Catholic POV, by all means, post it. Posting that Catholics support taking care of the poor doesn't cut it. Forced charity through taxation is not a principle of Christianity. The elimination of free will is never a principle of Christianity.

 

You are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, on the other side, what I see is post after post of a long list of responsibility, hard work, frugality, and other Boy-Scout type characteristics offered with the clear implication that people on assistance doesn't also have and express those characteristics.

 

*Thank you.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This site is the American Catholic Bishops, not the Catholic academics who sent out the letter to Boehner.

 

The Catholic Bishops POV from the site you linked:

 

 

It is my view that this statement supports what I said, so thank you for posting it.

 

If you have a Vatican website that supports the letter sent to Boehner that was linked and given as proof of the Catholic POV, by all means, post it. Posting that Catholics support taking care of the poor doesn't cut it. Forced charity through taxation is not a principle of Christianity. The elimination of free will is never a principle of Christianity.

 

The USCCB adopted its current name in July 2001. The organization is a registered corporation based in Washington, DC. As with all bishops' conferences, certain decisions and acts of the USCCB must receive the recognitio, or approval of the Roman dicasteries, which are subject to the immediate and absolute authority of the Pope.

 

What elizabeth way trying to show you was that they HAVE the approval of the Magesterium.

 

And, is you read through their teachings and links, they absolutely say that is the job of the more affluent to help the poor.

 

Not to mention in the gospels. :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know what all of those circumstances are like. Truly, it sucks to get poorer and poorer while there are not enough jobs and the savings run dry, and it really, really sucks to go without needed shoes and books. I just don't think anyone owes me or my children candy or food so we can relax or be comforted by corn syrup! I find that attitude to be mind-boggling.

 

The world does not owe me a living! And I should not be made by the government to provide for any children but my own.

 

As a Christian, my husband works for two reasons, both of which are proscribed by the Apostle Paul:

 

1. Work to provide for your own family.

2. Work to share with those in need.

 

And we do share. My husband gives to several different charities. He will go without lunch himself rather than stiff the local mission of the money he has promised. He does it out of love and not out of obligation.

 

He doesn't want to pay ever more taxes to provide food stamps to able-bodied people who are strangers to him because he wants his full pay to have money to people within his life who need his help. He doesn't want to pay for public schools, either, because he wants his money to provide an education for his own children and for children of his acquaintance who could benefit from his help.

 

We are getting very radical around here, wanting the reward of our sweat to go for the purposes we choose instead of the purposes chosen by a government and a society whose values are so decidedly different from our own.

 

Independence. Freedom. Brotherly love. These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

 

 

Brilliant post! :hurray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, I've only been through 7 pages and find a good bit offensive and hurtful. After having been on them before my opinion is different than it would have been before. Do you know what it's like to have an already meager come get slowly reduced so you are barely covering basic bills and minimal food with nothing extra? Nothing extra meaning shoes, clothes, books. In the mean time your savings are being slowly depleted because of the income reduction and you are eating into your food storage. You hold on to hope the income will improve. But nope you lose your job while you are at rock bottom with no savings at all.

 

Then you have food stamps. Which are now your largest source of income or support while your family helps you out a little and you desperately search for any kind of work to bring in more income. When you are in that place there is nothing extra to set aside for any treats at all. There's nothing extra because you can't meet basic needs. When you are in that position sometimes it's just nice to relax with a soda because you have no money for real treats. And it's nice to fill your kids stockings with candy that qualifies for Food Stamp coverage because you really don't have money for presents. Sure the soda and candy are crap! But even people who were "stupid" enough to run through their savings and then lose their job still like a little comforting crappy food every now and then! And it's still food even if it's nutrient profile is no better than a bag of sugar or a jar of corn syrup.

 

So knowing what it's like to have nothing but Food Stamps I would never begrudge someone soda with FS's. I don't assume the worst of them daring to need Food Stamps and feel like the food type needs to be tightly controlled so as to prevent them wasting the tax dollars of more deserving citizens.

:grouphug: It's especially irritating when you consider that the extras are around $1. One stinkin' dollar so you don't feel like the lowest piece of dirt in the pile. But OH NO, you shouldn't even get to choose to spend that ONE STINKIN' DOLLAR on comfort food. I guess struggling folks or the working poor don't deserve comfort. That's what it boils down to, right? Because if you aren't making it work then you shouldn't feel good ever.

 

Perhaps we should start making fs and welfare recipients wear signs or have their faces branded so we can all stand up and judge them as they shop. Wouldn't that be nice? We could ride our high horses into the store and keep a close eye on them to make sure that they don't step out of line.

 

What's funny is how very Dickens it all sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The USCCB adopted its current name in July 2001. The organization is a registered corporation based in Washington, DC. As with all bishops' conferences, certain decisions and acts of the USCCB must receive the recognitio, or approval of the Roman dicasteries, which are subject to the immediate and absolute authority of the Pope.

 

What elizabeth way trying to show you was that they HAVE the approval of the Magesterium.

 

And, is you read through their teachings and links, they absolutely say that is the job of the more affluent to help the poor.

 

Not to mention in the gospels. :glare:

 

Here, from the link you posted:

 

A group of prominent Catholic academics have signed a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, on the occasion of his forthcoming commencement address at the Catholic University of America.

 

A group of "prominent Catholic academics" does not equate to United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This letter references the Bishops comments on the budget, but that is not the same as the Magisterium endorsing this particular letter to this particular politician. Please post a link from the Vatican website that references Boehner if they have endorsed this letter.

 

It is not doubt true that the Bishops are very concerned about a budget that will cause hardship to vulnerable citizens, and that is a valid concern. I trust they are very concerned with the immediate consequences of massive budget changes for people who have become dependent on the system for their needs. I share their concern! It is devastating to have made millions of people dependent on a system that is not sustainable. This, however, is quite different than the Catholic Church actually teaching that it is the duty of the affluent to have constructed such an unsustainable structure in the first place. That is why the welfare state is morally reprehensible in the first place. Making promising that you cannot keep and beholding future generations to burdens they cannot carry will cause this to happen eventually, one way or another.

 

Again, teaching that it is the job of the more affluent to help the poor is a Catholic teaching, but equating that to taxing the rich is a perversion of Christian teaching. It eliminates the personal connection and responsibility of individuals to care for their neighbor, and it breaks the rule of subsidiarity. Another problem with this letter, as I pointed out, is that no such letter has been directed at politicians promoting abortion friendly laws, which is well known to be against the teachings of the Magisterium.

 

Making it look like the Catholic Church throws the full weight of the Magisterium behind specific US policies or programs for helping the poor, and that Catholics that do not approve of each and every one of them are out of step with the teachings of the Catholic Church, is very misleading, irresponsible, and even underhanded, IMO.

 

Originally Posted by Dulcimeramy

Yes, I know what all of those circumstances are like. Truly, it sucks to get poorer and poorer while there are not enough jobs and the savings run dry, and it really, really sucks to go without needed shoes and books. I just don't think anyone owes me or my children candy or food so we can relax or be comforted by corn syrup! I find that attitude to be mind-boggling.

 

The world does not owe me a living! And I should not be made by the government to provide for any children but my own.

 

As a Christian, my husband works for two reasons, both of which are proscribed by the Apostle Paul:

 

1. Work to provide for your own family.

2. Work to share with those in need.

 

And we do share. My husband gives to several different charities. He will go without lunch himself rather than stiff the local mission of the money he has promised. He does it out of love and not out of obligation.

 

He doesn't want to pay ever more taxes to provide food stamps to able-bodied people who are strangers to him because he wants his full pay to have money to people within his life who need his help. He doesn't want to pay for public schools, either, because he wants his money to provide an education for his own children and for children of his acquaintance who could benefit from his help.

 

We are getting very radical around here, wanting the reward of our sweat to go for the purposes we choose instead of the purposes chosen by a government and a society whose values are so decidedly different from our own.

 

Independence. Freedom. Brotherly love. These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

:iagree:

Yes, it is brilliant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder.....

 

Do you people wear shoes in your house?

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

 

Here, yes. When I was in the States, never! It's so rude to bring outside nastyness in . :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:grouphug: It's especially irritating when you consider that the extras are around $1. One stinkin' dollar so you don't feel like the lowest piece of dirt in the pile. But OH NO, you shouldn't even get to choose to spend that ONE STINKIN' DOLLAR on comfort food. I guess struggling folks or the working poor don't deserve comfort. That's what it boils down to, right? Because if you aren't making it work then you shouldn't feel good ever.

 

Perhaps we should start making fs and welfare recipients wear signs or have their faces branded so we can all stand up and judge them as they shop. Wouldn't that be nice? We could ride our high horses into the store and keep a close eye on them to make sure that they don't step out of line.

 

What's funny is how very Dickens it all sounds.

 

We should be giving them the comfort food ourselves. Shame on us, shame, shame, shame on us for ever having let the government do so much of it for us. There is no excuse for us thinking that if we had the government do it then we would not have to worry about it any more. :crying:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:grouphug: It's especially irritating when you consider that the extras are around $1. One stinkin' dollar so you don't feel like the lowest piece of dirt in the pile. But OH NO, you shouldn't even get to choose to spend that ONE STINKIN' DOLLAR on comfort food. I guess struggling folks or the working poor don't deserve comfort. That's what it boils down to, right? Because if you aren't making it work then you shouldn't feel good ever.

 

Perhaps we should start making fs and welfare recipients wear signs or have their faces branded so we can all stand up and judge them as they shop. Wouldn't that be nice? We could ride our high horses into the store and keep a close eye on them to make sure that they don't step out of line.

 

What's funny is how very Dickens it all sounds.

 

 

Well, that's because all the "hard workers" out there feel like every last dollar or dime is stolen directly from their actual pockets and they resent it. Everyone likes to give each other a hearty pat on the back about how horrible it is because they are all so sure they'd never be in those shoes. I mean with the level of unemployment out there it's ironic how everyone likes to assume it's just welfare queens out there using food stamps.

 

I will never be so arrogant and judgmental again. My husband worked 60 hour weeks leading up to getting laid off at that time, without a dime to our names. And I do not believe for one minute all the women out there pontificating about how the government has no right to steal their money and give it to others would not also get food stamps if their husbands lost his job and they ran out of their savings and had nothing. I never in a million years would have considered it before that point.

 

I get ideals. I know the government excels mostly at wasting money. I know some people are lazy mooches. But sometimes the money is put to good use. There is a reason we don't have families lined up at soup kitchens right now. It's food stamps! And the nitpicking over soda is really not about soda. It's clear in this thread that what it's about is people resenting that anyone gets food stamps at all.

 

Thanks for the hug. I needed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:grouphug: It's especially irritating when you consider that the extras are around $1. One stinkin' dollar so you don't feel like the lowest piece of dirt in the pile. But OH NO, you shouldn't even get to choose to spend that ONE STINKIN' DOLLAR on comfort food. I guess struggling folks or the working poor don't deserve comfort. That's what it boils down to, right? Because if you aren't making it work then you shouldn't feel good ever.

 

Perhaps we should start making fs and welfare recipients wear signs or have their faces branded so we can all stand up and judge them as they shop. Wouldn't that be nice? We could ride our high horses into the store and keep a close eye on them to make sure that they don't step out of line.

 

What's funny is how very Dickens it all sounds.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should be giving them the comfort food ourselves. Shame on us, shame, shame, shame on us for ever having let the government do so much of it for us. There is no excuse for us thinking that if we had the government do it then we would not have to worry about it any more. :crying:

 

A civil society does not let people fall through the cracks. I consider America a civil society.

 

I don't think those in need should have to be at the whim and mercy of individuals or groups. Social safety nets provided by the government hopefully do not judge those in need and remain neutral so to speak.

 

We are still free as individuals to be charitable and our tax code supports this with tax write offs:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A civil society does not let people fall through the cracks. I consider America a civil society.

 

I don't think those in need should have to be at the whim and mercy of individuals or groups. Social safety nets provided by the government hopefully do not judge those in need and remain neutral so to speak.

 

We are still free as individuals to be charitable and our tax code supports thsi with tax write offs:D

 

Nowhere have I said that all programs should be eliminated. I have seen no one suggest this. I have suggested they should be proven to be effective, which is just common sense, but it does not always happen with government programs. I don't think we should have to be at the whim and mercy of the government. See, this gets us nowhere, does it? Guilt trips do not take the place of honest evaluation of the effectiveness of programs.

 

I was listening to NPR when they were talking about budget cuts, cuts on NPR. A caller called in and praised NPR generously, kindly, and then she said she was really sorry but that she thought it should be cut from the budget.

 

She then admitted that if it was cut she would then donate. "I know I should be doing that anyway, but I really would if it no longer was funded by taxes." :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here, from the link you posted:

A group of "prominent Catholic academics" does not equate to United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This letter references the Bishops comments on the budget, but that is not the same as the Magisterium endorsing this particular letter to this particular politician. Please post a link from the Vatican website that references Boehner if they have endorsed this letter.

 

keep reading

 

It is not doubt true that the Bishops are very concerned about a budget that will cause hardship to vulnerable citizens, and that is a valid concern. I trust they are very concerned with the immediate consequences of massive budget changes for people who have become dependent on the system for their needs.
this is your opinion on your interpretation, not expressly written in the letter, and yet you are extrapolating that their opinion and yours agree? Show me on the Vatican website, as you say.

 

I share their concern! It is devastating to have made millions of people dependent on a system that is not sustainable.

 

Your opinion, not fact

 

 

This, however, is quite different than the Catholic Church actually teaching that it is the duty of the affluent to have constructed such an unsustainable structure in the first place.
your opinion, and here, read this. Yes, it's from the US Conference of Bishops, but with notes from Vatican teachings and, since this is a US argument, valid. It's on Catholic healthcare, but directly applies to this conversation. Why:

 

Second, the biblical mandate to care for the poor requires us to express this in concrete action at all levels of Catholic health care. This mandate prompts us to work to ensure that our country's health care delivery system provides adequate health care for the poor. In Catholic institutions, particular attention should be given to the health care needs of the poor, the uninsured, and the underinsured.8

 

(And here's the footnote for you:)

 

8. Pope John Paul II, On Social Concern, Encyclical Letter on the Occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of "Populorum Progressio" (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis) (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1988), no. 43.

 

 

That is why the welfare state is morally reprehensible in the first place.
your opinion. My opinion (which agrees with the academics and theologians) is that it is the morally upstanding thing for this country to do. Why do many more not come out and say so? Because many of those people accept help and are embarrassed when they are judged. Read some posts in this thread is you doubt me, of those courageous enough to post.

 

Making promising that you cannot keep and beholding future generations to burdens they cannot carry will cause this to happen eventually, one way or another.

 

opinion

 

Again, teaching that it is the job of the more affluent to help the poor is a Catholic teaching, but equating that to taxing the rich is a perversion of Christian teaching.

 

is it? Really? And where is this to come about by taxing? Prove it to me and how it conflicts with church teaching. I'm a new revert. Catechize me.
It eliminates the personal connection and responsibility of individuals to care for their neighbor, and it breaks the rule of subsidiarity. Another problem with this letter, as I pointed out, is that no such letter has been directed at politicians promoting abortion friendly laws, which is well known to be against the teachings of the Magisterium.
Perhaps not a letter, but not unnoticed. You didn't read the NYT article on it.

and

 

When Mr. Obama, who is not Catholic, was invited to receive an honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame in 2009, there was an outcry from politically conservative Catholics because of his support for abortion rights. A few bishops said the university should withdraw the invitation, but the university administration held firm. Protesters showed up to picket.

 

or this one

 

The bishops, for instance, had pushed hard for language in President Obama's healthcare law last year to ensure that no federal money went to support abortion services, much to the consternation of supporters of abortion rights. The church has also pushed for amnesty for illegal immigrants, and has traditionally been a voice for immigrants' rights.

 

(I'm throwing amnesty in there cause it just makes me happy and gets the no universal healthcare people particularly twitchy)

Making it look like the Catholic Church throws the full weight of the Magisterium behind specific US policies or programs for helping the poor, and that Catholics that do not approve of each and every one of them are out of step with the teachings of the Catholic Church, is very misleading, irresponsible, and even underhanded, IMO.

Here is a letter, written by Bishop Stephen E. Blaire, of Stockton, California, chair of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice, and Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, New York, chair of the Committee on International Justice and Peace. (google it and you can access the PDF of the original letter) this is a PR release of the letter and highlights of its contents.

 

“We …wish to clearly acknowledge the difficult challenges that the Congress, Administration and government at all levels face to get our financial house in order: fulfilling the demands of justice and moral obligations to future generations; controlling future debt and deficits; and protecting the lives and dignity of those who are poor and vulnerable,” wrote the bishops. At the same time, in the letter they offer several moral criteria based on Catholic Social Teaching to help guide difficult budgetary decisions.

 

 

Though the bishops do not offer a detailed critique of entire budget proposals, they do ask Senators to consider the human and moral dimensions of several key choices facing the Congress.

 

 

 

“Access to affordable, life-affirming health care remains an urgent national priority. We recognize that the rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs need to be addressed, but we urge that the needs of the poor, working families and vulnerable people be protected,” the bishops said. “Cost cutting proposals should not simply shift health care costs from the federal government to the states or directly to beneficiaries.”

 

 

And here's an article with a link to the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Dolan letter to Boehner, wherein he states, "Budgets are moral statements."

 

A singularly significant part of our duty as pastors is to insist that the cries of the poor are heard, and that the much needed reform leading to financial discipline that is recognized by all never adds further burdens upon those who are poor and most vulnerable, nor distracts us from our country’s historic consideration of the needs of the world’s suffering people. The late Blessed Pope John Paul II was clear about this when he said: “When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenseless and the poor have a claim to special consideration” (Centesimus Annus, 10, citing Rerum Novarum, 37). In any transition that seeks to bring new proposals to current problems in order to build a better future, care must be taken that those currently in need not be left to suffer.
First off, this whole argument is really about class warfare. That's all it is. It's just got a political facade on it to disguise it's ugliness. I think it's morally reprehensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are all impeded by a government eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

 

I am sincerely curious as to your opinion on WHY a government (well, this government) is eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This site is the American Catholic Bishops, not the Catholic academics who sent out the letter to Boehner.

 

The Catholic Bishops POV from the site you linked:

 

 

It is my view that this statement supports what I said, so thank you for posting it.

 

If you have a Vatican website that supports the letter sent to Boehner that was linked and given as proof of the Catholic POV, by all means, post it. Posting that Catholics support taking care of the poor doesn't cut it. Forced charity through taxation is not a principle of Christianity. The elimination of free will is never a principle of Christianity.

 

I have never been so happy about the decision I made that being a decent person was more important than identifying myself as a "christian." I no longer identify as one at all. Truly. Count me out. Unregulated free market is just another golden calf in my estimation. Dance around it , sacrifice your freedom of conscience to ascribe to its tenets, whatever you need to do to avoid the cognitive dissonance you must live with. However, do not dare to proclaim it as the only authentic Catholic Christianity . At minimum you should preface it as the" version/type of christianity" that you believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh. I have food stamps and if they want to disallow soda, whatever.

 

It is odd, thinking about this long thread, that if barring sodas upsets some people, why are they not upset the money is for food only? It seems to me directing funds to a needy person but saying ONLY FOOD is much more limiting than saying only food and no pop. It seems such a small item compared to the huge limitation of money on food (and not rent, or medicine, or electricity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never been so happy about the decision I made that being a decent person was more important than identifying myself as a "christian." I no longer identify as one at all. Truly. Count me out. Unregulated free market is just another golden calf in my estimation. Dance around it , sacrifice your freedom of conscience to ascribe to its tenets, whatever you need to do to avoid the cognitive dissonance you must live with. However, do not dare to proclaim it as the only authentic Catholic Christianity . At minimum you should preface it as the" version/type of christianity" that you believe in.

 

Cognitive Dissonance, that's the wording I was looking for.

 

and, :grouphug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:grouphug: It's especially irritating when you consider that the extras are around $1. One stinkin' dollar so you don't feel like the lowest piece of dirt in the pile. But OH NO, you shouldn't even get to choose to spend that ONE STINKIN' DOLLAR on comfort food. I guess struggling folks or the working poor don't deserve comfort. That's what it boils down to, right? Because if you aren't making it work then you shouldn't feel good ever.

 

Perhaps we should start making fs and welfare recipients wear signs or have their faces branded so we can all stand up and judge them as they shop. Wouldn't that be nice? We could ride our high horses into the store and keep a close eye on them to make sure that they don't step out of line.

 

What's funny is how very Dickens it all sounds.

 

You know, I've just got to share what happened to me today. I'm not on FS. Dh and I have been having a junk food/movie day. We have this a few times a year. We buy soda, chips, candy and spend the weekend in our skivvies watching movies while ds is visiting my mom. Well, I was $2 short when the cashier rang up the order. I apologized and told him to take the chips out. The older man standing next to me in line told me "I would pay that for you if you were eating healthy." I kid you not! He said this to a perfect stranger who was asking NOTHING of him! I laughed and told him I understood and turned back to the cashier. I was not offended, I did not ask for help. Then....the older gentleman proceeded to tell me that I was being irresponsible and killing myself. I ignored him. As I walked away he said, "You're going to give yourself diabetes." I still ignored him. I was LOL inside because I could only think of this thread and all the people that told me I'd feel different if the shoe was on the other foot. Well, I didn't. I agreed with him on the first comment and ignored the other two, which, by the way, I consider to be in poor taste and just plain rude!

 

The general public does not feel that others are "entitled" to junk food. I didn't shrivel or take offense when it happened to me, in public, while purchasing junk food. My opinion was asked in this thread about using FS for soda. I gave my opinion in a public forum when asked, not unsolicited in the checkout line to someone currently purchasing junk food. This is why I'm so surprised that so many have become offended as if I (and others in this thread) was behaving like the older gentleman mentioned above. It's just not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing it was you and not me. I would not have been gracious. I am not even the least bit interested in input from a stranger. That was unspeakably rude . I am not a small woman and am constantly barraged by idiots over what I eat or the coffee I drink etc. They are speaking from a place of ignorance. I am on steroid therapy for RA safer than the meds that cause leukemia in some patients. I am getting a cane soon and will use it to jab at people who dare to presume to know what I should be doing without knowing my particular disability. Suffice it to say if you were a man NO WAY would this schmuck have mouthed off to you. Tell me where he lives and I will give him a big poke next month with my awesome cane(jabbing) instrument of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, I've just got to share what happened to me today. I'm not on FS. Dh and I have been having a junk food/movie day. We have this a few times a year. We buy soda, chips, candy and spend the weekend in our skivvies watching movies while ds is visiting my mom. Well, I was $2 short when the cashier rang up the order. I apologized and told him to take the chips out. The older man standing next to me in line told me "I would pay that for you if you were eating healthy." I kid you not! He said this to a perfect stranger who was asking NOTHING of him! I laughed and told him I understood and turned back to the cashier. I was not offended, I did not ask for help. Then....the older gentleman proceeded to tell me that I was being irresponsible and killing myself. I ignored him. As I walked away he said, "You're going to give yourself diabetes." I still ignored him. I was LOL inside because I could only think of this thread and all the people that told me I'd feel different if the shoe was on the other foot. Well, I didn't. I agreed with him on the first comment and ignored the other two, which, by the way, I consider to be in poor taste and just plain rude!

 

The general public does not feel that others are "entitled" to junk food. I didn't shrivel or take offense when it happened to me, in public, while purchasing junk food. My opinion was asked in this thread about using FS for soda. I gave my opinion in a public forum when asked, not unsolicited in the checkout line to someone currently purchasing junk food. This is why I'm so surprised that so many have become offended as if I (and others in this thread) was behaving like the older gentleman mentioned above. It's just not the same thing.

 

Cheryl,

 

It is not a valid comparison. The reason I was all over your posts wasn't because you didn't think food stamps should cover soda. I never once defended soda as a diet possibility.

 

What I was all over your posts about was the assumptions about the behavior, thinking, work ethic, and character of people on assistance.

 

I've never had anyone comment on the content of my food. However, I have been the person behind a person in line. Right before (literally a week or two) things tanked for me financially, I was behind a couple at Kroger. They were an interracial, young couple. She was pregnant. They were alone, but some of their cart suggested already born children. They were paying with WIC vouchers (WIC is restrictive). They ran out of WIC vouchers before they ran out of food. They asked the cashier to put the rest back. I paid for it and gave it to them.

 

The next week, I qualified for assistance myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good thing it was you and not me. I would not have been gracious. I am not even the least bit interested in input from a stranger. That was unspeakably rude . I am not a small woman and am constantly barraged by idiots over what I eat or the coffee I drink etc. They are speaking from a place of ignorance. I am on steroid therapy for RA safer than the meds that cause leukemia in some patients. I am getting a cane soon and will use it to jab at people who dare to presume to know what I should be doing without knowing my particular disability. Suffice it to say if you were a man NO WAY would this schmuck have mouthed off to you. Tell me where he lives and I will give him a big poke next month with my awesome cane(jabbing) instrument of justice.

 

:grouphug: My dd, now 14, has just lost the weight she gained when she was first diagnosed with JRA and put on steroids. She was diagnosed 6 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being against soda being purchased with FS is fine. We receive so little in FS that I would never waste them on it anyway.

 

Where the thread starts to go off the rails is when people start throwing around adamant " my tax dollars" in self righteous indignation. It is when people get preachy and judgmental about what people do and the choices they make, all holier - than - thou.

 

For me personally, exempt soda. Fine. But when it moves into "all junk food should be banned," I get downright twitchy. Yeah, I want the gov't telling me what is healthy - NOT. As I stated earlier in the thread, given lobbies and subsidies and special interests, I would bet organic would be banned while hot dogs are approved. :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sincerely curious as to your opinion on WHY a government (well, this government) is eager to teach entitlement to the masses.

 

Not directed towards me but my thought is that if our government were to get smaller congressmen would have to get other jobs. Remember, in the days of the founding fathers being a congressman was a volunteer position. I think they might do a better job if their only motivation was to better America. Just my humble opinion. No animosity intended.

 

It is odd, thinking about this long thread, that if barring sodas upsets some people, why are they not upset the money is for food only? It seems to me directing funds to a needy person but saying ONLY FOOD is much more limiting than saying only food and no pop. It seems such a small item compared to the huge limitation of money on food (and not rent, or medicine, or electricity).

 

There have been a few people that mentioned they'd like to see soap and such purchased. I do know that there are programs that provide cash assistance. I think the government intends soap and such to be purchased from that.

 

Good thing it was you and not me. I would not have been gracious. I am not even the least bit interested in input from a stranger. That was unspeakably rude . I am not a small woman and am constantly barraged by idiots over what I eat or the coffee I drink etc. They are speaking from a place of ignorance. I am on steroid therapy for RA safer than the meds that cause leukemia in some patients. I am getting a cane soon and will use it to jab at people who dare to presume to know what I should be doing without knowing my particular disability. Suffice it to say if you were a man NO WAY would this schmuck have mouthed off to you. Tell me where he lives and I will give him a big poke next month with my awesome cane(jabbing) instrument of justice.

 

LOL, Dh said the same thing! I just didn't see any need to engage the man. Besides, he's the one that looked like an idiot. FWIW, I'm fully willing to admit that I am overweight because of poor eating habits. I know I don't need chips, candy, soda and.... Strawberry Mike's, but, alas, I'm not perfect.

 

:lol: Jabbing people with your cane! :lol: That just struck me as so funny! BTW, I am overweight, I'm not sure he would have said anything had I been slim with big h**ters, like 20 years ago. :glare:

 

Cheryl,

 

It is not a valid comparison. The reason I was all over your posts wasn't because you didn't think food stamps should cover soda. I never once defended soda as a diet possibility.

 

What I was all over your posts about was the assumptions about the behavior, thinking, work ethic, and character of people on assistance.

 

I've never had anyone comment on the content of my food. However, I have been the person behind a person in line. Right before (literally a week or two) things tanked for me financially, I was behind a couple at Kroger. They were an interracial, young couple. She was pregnant. They were alone, but some of their cart suggested already born children. They were paying with WIC vouchers (WIC is restrictive). They ran out of WIC vouchers before they ran out of food. They asked the cashier to put the rest back. I paid for it and gave it to them.

 

The next week, I qualified for assistance myself.

 

Joanne,

 

Again, I am truly sorry that my words have hurt you. I've explained more than once in this thread that my opinions come from my experiences and that is all I can speak on. I haven't said that there are no people on aid that are honest. I still stand by the things I've said, but am sorry that they hurt you. BTW, I, too have paid for people's groceries, when i was on FS I also used my FS to pay for peoples groceries. Just because my views differ doesn't mean I'm an ogre and have no heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should be giving them the comfort food ourselves. Shame on us, shame, shame, shame on us for ever having let the government do so much of it for us. There is no excuse for us thinking that if we had the government do it then we would not have to worry about it any more. :crying:

 

I absolutely, positively agree with you 100%!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where the thread starts to go off the rails is when people start throwing around adamant " my tax dollars" in self righteous indignation. It is when people get preachy and judgmental about what people do and the choices they make, all holier - than - thou./QUOTE]

 

It is actually the money we earn (not some fantasy Monopoly money) that is removed by the government and placed in the collective pot to be spent any which way someone else decides. Pardon me if I would like to see it spent frugally and with some common sense.

 

Stop arguing about pop and food stamps, and discuss the real problem. Why can't more people pull THEMSELVES out of poverty one step at a time? Some would say discrimination, others would say lack of motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, news flash - it is taxes we paid, too. We get less than half of our federal tax back. We get $1200 a YEAR in FS. Believe me, we paid WAY more. And I already showed how little of the federal budget goes to FS. If it truly is frugality you are so concerned about, there are MUCH bigger fish to fry. :-/ This one is just easy. It is really easy to sit around and judge others and what they are doing and claim concern for financial responsibility. But FS are NOT the issue. Social programs in general aren't much of an issue.

 

Read the budget. See how much of * our* tax dollars are actually spent helping the needy or down and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where the thread starts to go off the rails is when people start throwing around adamant " my tax dollars" in self righteous indignation. It is when people get preachy and judgmental about what people do and the choices they make, all holier - than - thou./QUOTE]

 

It is actually the money we earn (not some fantasy Monopoly money) that is removed by the government and placed in the collective pot to be spent any which way someone else decides. Pardon me if I would like to see it spent frugally and with some common sense.

 

Stop arguing about pop and food stamps, and discuss the real problem. Why can't more people pull THEMSELVES out of poverty one step at a time? Some would say discrimination, others would say lack of motivation.[/QUOTE]

 

A majority of the people who have lived in generational poverty and gotten out of it, did so because a mentor taught them how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stop arguing about pop and food stamps, and discuss the real problem. Why can't more people pull THEMSELVES out of poverty one step at a time? Some would say discrimination, others would say lack of motivation.

 

Because the working poor is a system that is nearly impossible to transcend. We lost our food stamp benefits disproportionately when my income increased. I was honest and reported the income. The food stamp benefit was eliminated: but the increase in my pay was substantially less than the food stamp benefit.

 

Because the working poor have to make choices like I did about a month ago. I woke up, wanting to go to work, but couldn't get out of bed due to extreme dizzyness. I did not have $ in either of my bank accounts to pay for a doctor's office visit (just for reference, Dh, to whom I've been married going on 6 years, has seen me sick 2 times). I couldn't walk easily and could barely move. My only option was an ER (we are uninsured).

 

1 month later, I have a $6000 ER bill and the knowledge that I have a brain lesion - but no means to follow up on that.

 

Because gas is nearly $4.00 a gallon and I work 30 miles away at both my jobs.

 

Because there are not many scholarships available for post-graduates. There are no grants. Living paycheck to paycheck, I could not wait and save to attend.

 

Because child support, even though it is not being paid regularly, works against me when applying for benefits.

 

Because any deviation from my budget derails for many weeks. I am in the red now because last month, a 15 year old truck we have spend $2500 trying to keep running died for the last time (we could rename it Lazarus, and Jesus could come back and this truck is still toast).

 

Because my DH has meds he needs that aren't on the $4 WalMart list.

 

Because the healthiest foods are not the cheapest. Teens (I've got 3) like volume.

 

Discrimination? I'm not sure where that comes from. What are you assuming about assistance recipients?

 

Lack of motivation? LMAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stop arguing about pop and food stamps, and discuss the real problem. Why can't more people pull THEMSELVES out of poverty one step at a time? Some would say discrimination, others would say lack of motivation.

 

Have you read studies on how ethnic names negatively affect a person's job prospects?

 

Have you read about schools in squallor as depicted in books by Kozol?

 

Have you thought about how someone without a basic education, who hasn't been taught the same life skills you were would do that?

 

Have you thought about how someone's speech affects their job prospects? They don't teach elocution classes in school and the poor often face discrimination from *both sides* if they try to better themselves?

 

Look at what Dawn said about what her dh requires out of the employees in his *lawn care* business.

 

You can have all of the desire and motivation in the world. If you don't have the skill set or education, how are you going to go about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's because all the "hard workers" out there feel like every last dollar or dime is stolen directly from their actual pockets and they resent it. Everyone likes to give each other a hearty pat on the back about how horrible it is because they are all so sure they'd never be in those shoes. I mean with the level of unemployment out there it's ironic how everyone likes to assume it's just welfare queens out there using food stamps.

 

I will never be so arrogant and judgmental again. My husband worked 60 hour weeks leading up to getting laid off at that time, without a dime to our names. And I do not believe for one minute all the women out there pontificating about how the government has no right to steal their money and give it to others would not also get food stamps if their husbands lost his job and they ran out of their savings and had nothing. I never in a million years would have considered it before that point.

 

I get ideals. I know the government excels mostly at wasting money. I know some people are lazy mooches. But sometimes the money is put to good use. There is a reason we don't have families lined up at soup kitchens right now. It's food stamps! And the nitpicking over soda is really not about soda. It's clear in this thread that what it's about is people resenting that anyone gets food stamps at all.

 

Thanks for the hug. I needed it.

 

:grouphug::grouphug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read studies on how ethnic names negatively affect a person's job prospects?

 

Have you read about schools in squallor as depicted in books by Kozol?

 

Have you thought about how someone without a basic education, who hasn't been taught the same life skills you were would do that?

 

Have you thought about how someone's speech affects their job prospects? They don't teach elocution classes in school and the poor often face discrimination from *both sides* if they try to better themselves?

 

Look at what Dawn said about what her dh requires out of the employees in his *lawn care* business.

 

You can have all of the desire and motivation in the world. If you don't have the skill set or education, how are you going to go about it?

 

IMHO, these questions are way more insulting than my suggestion of only offering staples to be purchased with FS and then educating the FS recipients on how to feed their families with those staples. Way more insulting than my suggestion to offer financial education so recipients can learn how to budget and be frugal. On this board we routinely have discussions about how to be frugal and almost every who posts in those threads learns something. We also have discussions about weight loss, diet and exercise. But to assume that poor people don't know how to talk and don't know how to get themselves out of poverty and accuse my ideas of being insulting is priceless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheryl, lifting yourself out of poverty (as per the person I replied to) is going to take a LOT more than frugality. You completely ignored the questions I actually asked and jumped to some serious conclusions about my own background.

 

Eta: please quote where *I* said anyone was insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheryl, lifting yourself out of poverty (as per the person I replied to) is going to take a LOT more than frugality. You completely ignored the questions I actually asked and jumped to some serious conclusions about my own background.

 

ummm, what conclusions are those?

 

and...it's a public forum, anyone is allowed to respond to your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the working poor is a system that is nearly impossible to transcend. We lost our food stamp benefits disproportionately when my income increased. I was honest and reported the income. The food stamp benefit was eliminated: but the increase in my pay was substantially less than the food stamp benefit.

 

Because the working poor have to make choices like I did about a month ago. I woke up, wanting to go to work, but couldn't get out of bed due to extreme dizzyness. I did not have $ in either of my bank accounts to pay for a doctor's office visit (just for reference, Dh, to whom I've been married going on 6 years, has seen me sick 2 times). I couldn't walk easily and could barely move. My only option was an ER (we are uninsured).

 

1 month later, I have a $6000 ER bill and the knowledge that I have a brain lesion - but no means to follow up on that.

 

Because gas is nearly $4.00 a gallon and I work 30 miles away at both my jobs.

 

Because there are not many scholarships available for post-graduates. There are no grants. Living paycheck to paycheck, I could not wait and save to attend.

 

Because child support, even though it is not being paid regularly, works against me when applying for benefits.

 

Because any deviation from my budget derails for many weeks. I am in the red now because last month, a 15 year old truck we have spend $2500 trying to keep running died for the last time (we could rename it Lazarus, and Jesus could come back and this truck is still toast).

 

Because my DH has meds he needs that aren't on the $4 WalMart list.

 

Because the healthiest foods are not the cheapest. Teens (I've got 3) like volume.

 

Discrimination? I'm not sure where that comes from. What are you assuming about assistance recipients?

 

Lack of motivation? LMAO.

 

Thanks for your story, tis a very, very powerful one.....wonderfully real post that moved me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read studies on how ethnic names negatively affect a person's job prospects?

 

Have you read about schools in squallor as depicted in books by Kozol?

 

Have you thought about how someone without a basic education, who hasn't been taught the same life skills you were would do that?

 

Have you thought about how someone's speech affects their job prospects? They don't teach elocution classes in school and the poor often face discrimination from *both sides* if they try to better themselves?

 

Look at what Dawn said about what her dh requires out of the employees in his *lawn care* business.

 

You can have all of the desire and motivation in the world. If you don't have the skill set or education, how are you going to go about it?

 

perfect set of questions; thanks so much for the food for thought.

e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and...it's a public forum, anyone is allowed to respond to your posts.

 

?! Did I imply otherwise? I did not. I said my answer should be read in context. Certainly you aren't required to do so, but it helps if you want an actual meaningful conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
?! Did I imply otherwise? I did not. I said my answer should be read in context. Certainly you aren't required to do so, but it helps if you want an actual meaningful conversation.

 

Cheryl, lifting yourself out of poverty (as per the person I replied to) is going to take a LOT more than frugality. You completely ignored the questions I actually asked and jumped to some serious conclusions about my own background.

 

Eta: please quote where *I* said anyone was insulting.

 

There's your implication.

 

You didn't answer my question. I didn't make any assumptions about you or your background. I responded to your post that I viewed as insulting.

 

When I suggested changing the system and then educating the recipients on how to use the new system I was told the idea that the recipients needed education was insulting. I didn't say *you* said I was insulting; that I was called insulting and that *your* questions were insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's your implication.

 

No, that is not what that means. What I meant was, "this was in reply to a specific thing, said by the poster I quoted. You must look at it in context to understand that statement."

 

You didn't answer my question. I didn't make any assumptions about you or your background. I responded to your post that I viewed as insulting.

 

 

Let me quote you:

"But to assume that poor people don't know how to talk and don't know how to get themselves out of poverty and accuse my ideas of being insulting is priceless!"

 

Your conclusion there is that I am making an assumption, instead of speaking from experience. I have personally seen people not get specific jobs because they did not speak well enough. It is a must in certain circles. It isn't snobbery, it is reality.

 

When I suggested changing the system and then educating the recipients on how to use the new system I was told the idea that the recipients needed education was insulting. I didn't say *you* said I was insulting; that I was called insulting and that *your* questions were insulting.

 

Here is your quote:

" But to assume that poor people don't know how to talk and don't know how to get themselves out of poverty and accuse my ideas of being insulting is priceless"

 

This definitely implies you think I did both things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I never said or implied that everyone in poverty faced all of those specific issues. I was bringing up challenges faced by many of those entrenched in generational poverty. I was saying that it would take more than "motivation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But to assume that poor people don't know how to talk and don't know how to get themselves out of poverty and accuse my ideas of being insulting is priceless!

 

Do you live in a major city??

 

I live in Kansas city, in an urban area, you can bet your boots there are a lot of people in poverty here who cannot speak properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...