No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

[Tea Time]

: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:

[Beetkvass]

: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.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

: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.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

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

Edited June 5, 2011 by priscilla

[Tea Time]

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:

[justamouse]

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. Edited June 5, 2011 by justamouse
killed a kitteh

[kalanamak]

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.

[elizabeth]

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.

[kalanamak]

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).

[justamouse]

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:

[Cheryl in NM]

: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.

[elizabeth]

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.

[Joanne]

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.

[Joanne]

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.

[cindergretta]

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. :-/

[Cheryl in NM]

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.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Cheryl in NM

[cdrumm4448]

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%!

[Cheryl in NM]

 

:iagree: completely! Our government has really made some bad decisions!

[cdrumm4448]

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.

[cindergretta]

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.

[Meriwether]

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.

[Joanne]

 

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.

[Mrs Mungo]

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?

[Slartibartfast]

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:

[Cheryl in NM]

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!

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

[Cheryl in NM]

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.

[emeraldjoy]

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.

[emeraldjoy]

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

[Mrs Mungo]

 

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.

[Cheryl in NM]

?! 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.

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

[Mrs Mungo]

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."

[Slartibartfast]

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.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Sis

[Embassy]

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.

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

 

I'm so sorry :grouphug:

[Cheryl in NM]

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.

 

Nope, but there are poor people in NM that do not speak properly either. See, I say "do" not, you say "can" not. How insulting to assume that just because someone is poor they cannot physically speak properly.

 

I never denied what Mrs Mungo said, I just happen to think it's more insulting than educating people how to eat right and budget. See, earlier in this thread I was told it was insulting to provide food preparation and financial education to the poor because it assumes that they are stupid. Never mind that it's the responsible thing to do if you change the system to provide only staples (as I suggested). But Mrs Mungo's post says that they can't speak right and aren't educated.

[Mrs Mungo]

Nope, but there are poor people in NM that do not speak properly either. See, I say "do" not, you say "can" not. How insulting to assume that just because someone is poor they cannot physically speak properly.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

WHERE did I say CAN not? I didn't.

 

Here are quotes from me:

"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?"

 

and

 

"I have personally seen people not get specific jobs because they did not speak well enough."

 

WHERE, pray tell, did I say anyone is physically incapable of speaking properly? Are you going for a record of how many times I can prove you wrong in a 48 hour period?

 

I never denied what Mrs Mungo said, I just happen to think it's more insulting than educating people how to eat right and budget. See, earlier in this thread I was told it was insulting to provide food preparation and financial education to the poor because it assumes that they are stupid. Never mind that it's the responsible thing to do if you change the system to provide only staples (as I suggested). But Mrs Mungo's post says that they can't speak right and aren't educated.

YOU are the one who made assumptions about all people on assistance. I didn't freaking SAY anything in that post about people on assistance, I brought up barriers to people pulling themselves out of generational poverty in response to someone who said motivation should be enough. Those barriers do NOT apply to everyone on assistance and I never said they did! I'm sorry you are so confused, but at this point I am pretty darn sure it isn't my fault.

[cindergretta]

Nope, but there are poor people in NM that do not speak properly either. See, I say "do" not, you say "can" not. How insulting to assume that just because someone is poor they cannot physically speak properly.

 

I never denied what Mrs Mungo said, I just happen to think it's more insulting than educating people how to eat right and budget. See, earlier in this thread I was told it was insulting to provide food preparation and financial education to the poor because it assumes that they are stupid. Never mind that it's the responsible thing to do if you change the system to provide only staples (as I suggested). But Mrs Mungo's post says that they can't speak right and aren't educated.

 

I think part of the issue here is that poor eating habits and poor financial habits are not only vices of the poor. And there are many poor who suffer from neither. Likewise, there are plenty on middle and high income earners with poor diets and lousy financial skills.

 

Your assertion to teach poor people how to eat a healthy diet and manage money was insulting because it assumes that by nature of being poor, they can do neither.

 

OTOH, stating that many people entrenched in generataional poverty in "ghetto" areas lack the ability to just improve their situation is (IMO) different because it is addressing the fact that many attend schools with poor statistics, low test scores, high teacher turn over, constant exposure to "lingo" rather than language, etc.

 

Many people on assistance are in this situation. MANY are NOT. (emphasis, not yelling) Mrs Mungo was speaking to those who are considered "welfare queens" or "too lazy" to better themselves. You were speaking to ALL who receive assistance. Big difference. Not everyone on assistance needs "educating" on budgeting and healthy eating. Some on assistance don't have the means to better themselves because the situation in which they find themselves is utterly isolating, kept within their own community.

[Slartibartfast]

Nope, but there are poor people in NM that do not speak properly either. See, I say "do" not, you say "can" not. How insulting to assume that just because someone is poor they cannot physically speak properly.

 

How I am more insulting by treating it like an accent than calling them lazy?

 

That does not make sense to me, could you explain how I am being insulting?

 

 

I never denied what Mrs Mungo said, I just happen to think it's more insulting than educating people how to eat right and budget. See, earlier in this thread I was told it was insulting to provide food preparation and financial education to the poor because it assumes that they are stupid. Never mind that it's the responsible thing to do if you change the system to provide only staples (as I suggested). But Mrs Mungo's post says that they can't speak right and aren't educated.

 

I think it is more of a problem that poor people cannot get to a decent grocery store without a long bus ride. You cannot teach them about vegetables if they do not have easy acess to them.

 

No one said anyone is stupid. That is a falsehood.

 

I do not think you actually have any perception at all regarding the poor and their reality.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Sis

[justamouse]

Nope, but there are poor people in NM that do not speak properly either. See, I say "do" not, you say "can" not. How insulting to assume that just because someone is poor they cannot physically speak properly.

 

I never denied what Mrs Mungo said, I just happen to think it's more insulting than educating people how to eat right and budget. See, earlier in this thread I was told it was insulting to provide food preparation and financial education to the poor because it assumes that they are stupid. Never mind that it's the responsible thing to do if you change the system to provide only staples (as I suggested). But Mrs Mungo's post says that they can't speak right and aren't educated.

 

I keep thinking I'm reading a different thread when I read some of your answers. She doesn't say that AT ALL. You are misinterpreting her answer and refusing to believe her at her word when she clarifies.

 

Not cool.

[Mrs Mungo]

Are email subscriptions to threads working now? I have to go to bed at some point.

[LittleIzumi]

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).

 

For me, our food stamp allowance is just enough for me to get our food for the month if I'm careful, so I couldn't use it for anything else anyway. I think a lot of people would be tempted to just blow it if they had money to use on anything. "Just this once," you know? Even I would be, on occasion. There are separate programs to help with utilities & such here as well.

 

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.

 

In our case, FS ARE our means out. It is because of FS that I can stay with the kids while dh gets his degrees (and works FT). But unless you have a large change in circumstances, it would be hard to get out of the system. If you get a raise or cut an expense, you lose corresponding benefits so you aren't any better off, and sometimes worse. It's hard to dig out when any time you aid your own situation, it's knocked right back down on the o ther side.

[Cheryl in NM]

[quote name=cindergretta;2797610

Your assertion to teach poor people how to eat a healthy diet and manage money was insulting because it assumes that by nature of being poor' date=' they can do neither.

 

Actually, what I said was that I didn't think FS recipients should buy soda with FS, or that they should buy junk food. I offered a suggested solution to what I see as a flawed system. I said I thought people should only be allowed to purchase "staples" with FS and then should be educated in how to cook nutritionally with those staples. Educating FS recipients after such a drastic change to the system is the only responsible thing to do. I thought it was obvious. People who are used to buying corn dogs, hot dogs, chips, soda, and other pre-made items may not fully understand how to use staples to provide a balanced menu for their families. I'm not saying ALL FS recipients eat a junk food diet.

 

I also said that financial education would benefit people on FS as well. I don't know many people who wouldn't benefit from financial education in some form or other.

 

I may eat junk food, but I'm doing it with my own money.

[cindergretta]

I may eat junk food, but I'm doing it with my own money.

 

If you *honestly* want to know why people aren't listening to you or aren't hearing you, it is the above. How insulting.

 

As it happens, I *am* using my OWN taxes for my FS. We pay IN way more than we get back out in FS. I already stated that.

 

You insult and then accuse others of being insulting.

 

This will go nowhere.

[MorganClassicalPrep]

In our case, FS ARE our means out. It is because of FS that I can stay with the kids while dh gets his degrees (and works FT). But unless you have a large change in circumstances, it would be hard to get out of the system. If you get a raise or cut an expense, you lose corresponding benefits so you aren't any better off, and sometimes worse. It's hard to dig out when any time you aid your own situation, it's knocked right back down on the o ther side.

:iagree:

 

I also said that financial education would benefit people on FS as well. I don't know many people who wouldn't benefit from financial education in some form or other.

 

Sorry but this just made me laugh.

Financial education would do me no good. We live on less than 13K a year and pay 700 a month in rent. I hazard to say such a generalization- but financial education would be no good for many people I know on various types of assistance. The money just isn't there, and no amount of financial education is going to change that.

(And I'm curious when this financial education should happen? Everyone I know on assistance is working/in school, doesn't leave much time for all these extra "education" programs you think should be implemented.)

[Cheryl in NM]

Just for clarification...

 

My post number 751 was in response to Sis's post 749 which I quoted. The "you say "can" not" part was in direct response to Sis's quoted post #749.

 

People have refused to believe me at my word throughout this whole thread. I've been called a liar and stupid (post deleted). All of this because my opinion and life experience is not popular or appreciated. I do not live in an urban area like you, I live in a rural area. Things are different here and I've posted from my experience and made that clear all throughout this thread. You came in after 3 days of posting. Have you read them all? Have you followed all the links? I just could not let the hypocrisy pass. I was called insulting for my idea of setting up a new system and teaching people how to use that system. "someone else" said that poor people can't get jobs because they are uneducated and can't speak properly. That is hypocrisy IMO.

 

I have a reputation on this board of noting and apologizing when I am wrong. I have a good reputation on this board, even if many do not agree with what I say.

[justamouse]

I may eat junk food, but I'm doing it with my own money.

 

Well that's a morally superior statement. Gobsmackingly insulting.

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, what I said was that I didn't think FS recipients should buy soda with FS, or that they should buy junk food. I offered a suggested solution to what I see as a flawed system. I said I thought people should only be allowed to purchase "staples" with FS and then should be educated in how to cook nutritionally with those staples. Educating FS recipients after such a drastic change to the system is the only responsible thing to do. I thought it was obvious. People who are used to buying corn dogs, hot dogs, chips, soda, and other pre-made items may not fully understand how to use staples to provide a balanced menu for their failies. I'm not saying ALL FS recipients eat a junk food diet.

 

I also said that financial education would benefit people on FS as well. I don't know many people who wouldn't benefit from financial education in some form or other.

 

I may eat junk food, but I'm doing it with my own money.

 

 

check out the food at your local gas station next time you are there. Often that is their options.

 

congrats on denying hot dogs. You just denied a lot of kids protien.

[Cheryl in NM]

If you *honestly* want to know why people aren't listening to you or aren't hearing you, it is the above. How insulting.

 

As it happens, I *am* using my OWN taxes for my FS. We pay IN way more than we get back out in FS. I already stated that.

 

You insult and then accuse others of being insulting.

 

This will go nowhere.

 

:confused: My husband goes to work. His paycheck goes into the bank. I go to the store. Sometimes I buy junk food. I buy it with his wages, not a broken government system.

 

Exactly who am I insulting? Maybe it's insulting to me that some people (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone on this website!) feel entitled to soda with FS money.

[Mrs Mungo]

Just for clarification...

 

My post number 751 was in response to Sis's post 749 which I quoted. The "you say "can" not" part was in direct response to Sis's quoted post #749.

 

Direct quote from you:

"But Mrs Mungo's post says that they can't speak right and aren't educated."

 

I was called insulting for my idea of setting up a new system and teaching people how to use that system. "someone else" said that poor people can't get jobs because they are uneducated and can't speak properly. That is hypocrisy IMO.

 

Except, that's not what happened.

 

You said the system should be changed to teach them proper nutrition, totally ignoring the many posts I made and articles I linked explaining why that isn't possible for everyone, no matter HOW much they know about nutrition.

 

I made a post addressing a totally different issue: whether motivation is enough to get one out of generational poverty.

 

These are totally different things!