snopes.com  


Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Fauxtography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:09 AM
missy_pooh_1997's Avatar
missy_pooh_1997 missy_pooh_1997 is offline
 
Join Date: 30 September 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,273
Default

Ive been alot of things,but ignorant has never been one of them. You just say after you budgeted you barely had enough money for gas,but its plausible for someone else in your postion to be able to afford all the other things that I said. I also mentioned security escorting people out for trying to sell foodstamps,but surprisingly noone had anything to say about that? Is that okay as well? Is that someone who desperately needs the food if they are selling the card for cash? I could really care less if anyone agrees with my opinion. I dont need a cheering section to keep me going.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:11 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,939
Jaded

Quote:
Originally Posted by missy_pooh_1997 View Post
If you are happy to punch a clock everyday in order to help support adults who can usually sustain themselves if they budgeted better,then thats your opinion. The things I see everyday do not afford me that luxury and I dont agree with what I see.
Ahemm, I'm not going to say that I'm the world's expert on money management. Indeed, I'm not even going to claim to be mediocre at it, but most people on food stamps work. They are called the working poor. They simply don't make enough money to live. I'm sure that's because they don't know how to manage money. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the job they have and the job their spouse has doesn't pay a living wage. I'm sure that you know about every aspect of every person's personal life that you wait on. Yes, there are cheats. So what? There are bad rich people, middle class people, all people that take advantage of the system in one way or another. The question is why is all the vitriol saved for the least of our society? I think the answer to that question could be pretty enlightening.

Oh and to whomever it was bitching about bottle deposits? I used them to put gas in my car so I could get to work. What a lazy piece of crap I was huh? Why didn't those worthless bureaucrats drug test me and humiliate me more than I already was? Oooo, how about a lie detector test? Or a search and seizure of food items that the "tax paying public" has decided that poor people don't deserve at the exit to the super market? They should make sure that it's as public and humiliating as possible. That would teach those poor people their place.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:16 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missy_pooh_1997 View Post
You may want to go back and actually read what I wrote and not just the parts you like.
I read the whole thing.

Your comments remind me of the screeds I hear from people who complain that "everybody" gets disability, even though they don't really deserve it, but here I am, entirely worthy, but for some reason the system is biased against me and my honesty." It is an ill-informed statement.

Quote:
I sat and had a 45 minute conversation with a customer in Samy's nails b/c I recognized her and she waved hello. She does not work and she gets $800/month in foodstamps and is also on Section 8 housing. She said she did fast food work and they cut all of her services ,so she said it was no point in her working. She was working poor so she purposely got fired. She seems to be a perfectly pleasant woman to chat with,but she's working the system and I assume she doesnt care who knows it. So I didnt have to judge or assume when she volunteered the info.
If she's getting $800 a month in food stamps, that means she's got 5 people in her family. So, she's married with three kids or single with 4. Depending upon the age of her children, when she was working her fast food job, she would have to find some way to pay for child care for some or all of them.

It wasn't likely that she was able to budget $800 a month for groceries from her wages, and it wasn't likely that she was able to pay rent, child care, utilities and food for 5 people out of her fast food job wages.

And that is the most likely scenario.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:27 AM
HelloLlama's Avatar
HelloLlama HelloLlama is offline
 
Join Date: 13 June 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,829
Default

Nobody here ever claimed that there aren't people who game the system. But just because you know a couple of people who have done so doesn't mean you or anyone else has a right to treat everyone on assistance as though they're a criminal. Nor does it give you the right to question what they purchase with their bridge card. Or a right to judge whether they are deserving of assistance based on how they are dressed.

And it certainly doesn't justify putting demeaning, and probably expensive, regulations in place, just to stop a handful of cheats.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:30 AM
Troodon Troodon is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2004
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LizzyBean View Post
And to get back to the OP as an example, a "poor" person has every damn right to have lobster and steak once in a while, just like someone not on food stamps. If they want to buy those and then budget out the rest of the month with ramen and toast, that's their business. No one has the right to tell someone else how to use their benefits. The second we start telling people what they can and can't buy, we're getting into a slippery slope that we really shouldn't be going down. Because, quite frankly, when I was buying the food I bought 98% good stuff, and 2% "bad" stuff like ice cream or soda for me and my son. You know why? Because we deserve treats too, just like regular people. The little things make life bearable, especially when you're living a depressing life like I was. Sometimes ice cream can be a God send.
As I see it, the issue is not that poor people don't have the right to save up some food stamps to buy lobster and steak occasionally, but that if poor people can save up food stamps at all, that means that they could have survived if given fewer food stamps.

Now, I personally think that cutting wasteful spending should start with oil subsidies and the defense budget, and food stamps are such a small issue that they wouldn't even make it onto my list. On the other hand, if instead of paying a dollar of my taxes (the fraction I estimate goes to food stamps) I was given a choice of keeping a dollar or giving it to an anonymous poor person who I would never see so that he could afford a treat, I think I'd keep the dollar. I know that sounds terrible, but is it really worse than not donating a spare dollar to charity?
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:35 AM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troodon View Post
As I see it, the issue is not that poor people don't have the right to save up some food stamps to buy lobster and steak occasionally, but that if poor people can save up food stamps at all, that means that they could have survived if given fewer food stamps.
"Are there no poorhouses?"
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:38 AM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Yeah, we wouldn't those poor people getting a few extra calories. As I mentioned above, they're probably already fat anyway, in addition to being lazy and stupid and greedy.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:46 AM
Tzarina's Avatar
Tzarina Tzarina is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2005
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 7,038
Default

I was on WIC when the Peanut was born, I worked full time, but didn't make a lot of money. And since I was off work for 5 months on bed rest, having the kid and then having another surgery just after I had her, I qualified. I stopped getting WIC after a year, even though I still qualified. I couldn't stand the way people treated me. I recall being at a party and hearing a friend go on about welfare mothers on WIC. I was mortified at the tone he used.

I see people at the grocery store using their SNAP cards and buying store brands and healthy foods for their families. They end up buying a lot of frozen stuff, but it seems that they're just trying to buy things to last them through the month.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 25 May 2011, 01:48 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troodon View Post
As I see it, the issue is not that poor people don't have the right to save up some food stamps to buy lobster and steak occasionally, but that if poor people can save up food stamps at all, that means that they could have survived if given fewer food stamps.
SNAP is meant to go a little farther than basic survival, though (basic survival has a pretty crappy nutritive value). The fungibility of money means that some people are going to be able to choose to merely survive for a while and then perhaps splurge on slightly better food once in a while. There's not really a way around that unless you change SNAP to only pay for the most basic gruel (which would pose certain problems) or if you go with the...novel...idea of force-marching the needy to cafeterias where they can get the cheapest serving of food possible with a bonus helping of shame.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 25 May 2011, 02:04 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,939
Default

Cafeterias? Ha! Armatures. I think we should re-introduce public stocks. Then the good upstanding "tax paying" citizens can throw what food they think the worthless poor deserve at the faces of said poor. Then the fun would continue as the leeches gather the hurled food items, thank their superior neighbors for the generous largess, and head for home (the appropriate cardboard box out of sight of course). This is the perfect solution: Economy, tax payer choice, appropriate humiliation, entertainment, fun for the whole community, and you can be damn sure that very few people would wish to be on benefits. Only the most desperate/starving would do it, as well it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 25 May 2011, 02:54 AM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

I'll be completely honest the notion of somebody using food stamps to buy lobster and steak does sorta hit me in my emotional anger bone (wherever that is, I think its near the hyoid).


That said even if you considered this wrong and wanted to fight it you'd end up spending far more trying to stamp it out then you would just accepting that it goes on. Cutting off your nose to spite your face as it were.

ETA:

Quote:
The second we start telling people what they can and can't buy, we're getting into a slippery slope that we really shouldn't be going down.
Don't we already have limitations to what can and cannot be bought?

-MB

Last edited by Mickey Blue; 25 May 2011 at 03:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 25 May 2011, 03:13 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,939
Default

When we were using "grub stubs" We often bought a family pack of cheap steaks. These were called "Ball Tip Sizzlers" or something. Anyway they were just a bit more expensive than ground chuck. I don't buy hamburger. I think it's a waste of money because most of it melts off as fat and you're left with hardly any meat. One time we bought New York Strips that were sold as a whole loin. It's not something we did often and the only reason we did that one time was because it was a hell of a price and the store cut them for free.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 25 May 2011, 03:20 AM
Ana Ng's Avatar
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
I'll be completely honest the notion of somebody using food stamps to buy lobster and steak does sorta hit me in my emotional anger bone (wherever that is, I think its near the hyoid).
I shall belabor the point to ask again if the same "emotional anger bone" was hit when the same execs that sunk the banks and tanked our economy were handed multi-million dollar bonuses paid with tax funds. People who there was no question of need, no nebulous bourgeois goods involved- just pure greed. Did that make you angry?

And Missy, should there have been restrictions on what was bought with those funds? The bailout funds? Should execs have only been able to spend them on mid-range Bentleys instead of the top of the line ones? Maybe just so-so coke? Moet instead of Cristal? Or something?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 25 May 2011, 03:22 AM
Jahungo's Avatar
Jahungo Jahungo is offline
 
Join Date: 23 May 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 5,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ana Ng View Post
I shall belabor the point to ask again if the same "emotional anger bone" was hit when the same execs that sunk the banks and tanked our economy were handed multi-million dollar bonuses paid with tax funds
Since you insist on dragging the thread this way - do you have a cite for the claim that it was the same executives that "sunk the banks and tanked our economy" that got the bonuses?
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 25 May 2011, 03:22 AM
Ana Ng's Avatar
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,351
Default

ETA: And yes, those people had a job. And if their job was analogous to a low paid job, they would have emptied the cash register on a nightly basis and finally started a fire lighting a joint that burned down a nearby town. Did they deserve bonuses at all?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 25 May 2011, 03:25 AM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

I think that a lot of what was going on in terms of bank bailouts and TARP funds and all that was above my head in terms of macroeconomics so to some degree I figured "Well all those experts seem to think its a good idea.."

But to answer yes, I did not think it was fair that people were losing their homes and the banks were getting bailed out. And then when the banks took all sorts of bonuses for themselves and went on fancy company retreats and then didn't even properly loan out money as was intended I was even more pissed off.

They helped to create the problem in the first place, then they cried that they were too big to fail and if they went under they'd take the rest of us with them, then they used the money we gave them (or some of it at least) to give themselves huge bonuses instead of hiring back people or loaning out funds to people to help slow the economic destruction, then they had the gaul to suggest that really it was unfair of the taxpayer to think anything different.

To turn it around however.. They were given benefits by the government with no strings attached as to how to use them (or so I"m told, which is how they got away with giving themselves bonuses), if you feel that people should be able to use government benefits however they please why are you concerned how the banks used them? If you are upset that the government gave them the money in the first place, or upset that there weren't enough safeguards to ensure the money was used appropriately fine, but why do you care that they gave themselves bonuses when it was their money to spend as they wish?

As for me, I hold the idea that if the taxpayers are giving you money then its not unreasonable to have some kind of restrictions on how its used. We have them for welfare and we should have had them (or at least had more or better) for the banks.

-MB
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 25 May 2011, 03:26 AM
Ana Ng's Avatar
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahungo View Post
Since you insist on dragging the thread this way - do you have a cite for the claim that it was the same executives that "sunk the banks and tanked our economy" that got the bonuses?
Well, it's relevant. We have people who feel these feelings about handouts to the poor- people who it is nearly impossible live in that much luxury- and yet feel no similar scorn toward very, very rich individuals receiving swimming pools full of the same taxpayer funds.

I could look and see, but the idea stands. Very rich men who did not deserve money paid from taxpayer funds. Whether they were the exact individuals who were responsible is irrelevant because the end result is the same. We have no way of knowing who needs food stamps, and yet people are begrudging someone a manicure or a phone. But scads of money was handed out to people who demonstrably did not need it, and there is no similar demand to account for every penny spent.

What I am pointing out is the root of these feelings, not the particulars of the situation. Welfare is welfare. Drug test the people receiving the most first. Stipulate they live on beans and water. Then we'll talk.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 25 May 2011, 03:29 AM
Troodon Troodon is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2004
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
SNAP is meant to go a little farther than basic survival, though (basic survival has a pretty crappy nutritive value). The fungibility of money means that some people are going to be able to choose to merely survive for a while and then perhaps splurge on slightly better food once in a while. There's not really a way around that unless you change SNAP to only pay for the most basic gruel (which would pose certain problems) or if you go with the...novel...idea of force-marching the needy to cafeterias where they can get the cheapest serving of food possible with a bonus helping of shame.
I don't like the idea of giving someone my money unless they totally, absolutely need it (even then I don't like it but I'll do it), so I'm not pleased by seeing food-stamp receipts for lobster and steak, but I don't propose any changes to the current food stamp system. It's not perfect, but as far as I can tell, it's working fairly well. I think all the changes proposed in this thread so far are entirely impractical.

In fact, I'm actually worried by how a lot of people in the USA have been turned from feeling a twinge of frustration at seeing something like this receipt (which I think is natural) to frothing rage at their own perceived exploitation by the poor. It's a lot like the way many people want to cut foreign aid to balance the budget when in fact foreign aid spending is relatively tiny compared to the real causes of the deficit. There are plenty of powerful and unscrupulous people who benefit when public outrage is focused elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 25 May 2011, 03:31 AM
Ana Ng's Avatar
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
I think that a lot of what was going on in terms of bank bailouts and TARP funds and all that was above my head in terms of macroeconomics so to some degree I figured "Well all those experts seem to think its a good idea.."
Your first mistake. These people are welfare scammers, too. Don't feel because they have more they're better able to judge whether they deserve your money. It was shameful.

Quote:
To turn it around however.. They were given benefits by the government with no strings attached as to how to use them (or so I"m told, which is how they got away with giving themselves bonuses), if you feel that people should be able to use government benefits however they please why are you concerned how the banks used them? If you are upset that the government gave them the money in the first place, or upset that there weren't enough safeguards to ensure the money was used appropriately fine, but why do you care that they gave themselves bonuses when it was their money to spend as they wish?

As for me, I hold the idea that if the taxpayers are giving you money then its not unreasonable to have some kind of restrictions on how its used. We have them for welfare and we should have had them (or at least had more or better) for the banks.

-MB
Well, ideally, I think that private citizens, rich or poor, are entitled to privacy, period. Yet, there has been legislation proposed or enacted in several states to drug test welfare recipients or those on unemployment assistance. A proposal to ensure a foster children never receive a new pair of sneakers or pants. Disgusting, demeaning ideas meant only to further shame the poor and working poor.

My point is not that either idea is right or correct. It is that we only, as a society, wish to shame the most helpless, the people we don't want to be. It's sad and wrong and we all need to look at that as individuals.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 25 May 2011, 04:12 AM
Sister Ray's Avatar
Sister Ray Sister Ray is offline
 
Join Date: 03 July 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 5,034
Heavt breathing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
And all food stamp recipients are on unemployment?

None of them work?
As someone who's in Illinois and has received food stamps for three years now, to keep getting them you need to either: be employed, be enrolled in the Employment and Training Program, or be disabled.

And I have seen people trying to sell food stamps for cash. They are idiots, but that doesn't make the program any less useful.

Judging people by one purchase isn't helpful anyway. One week I bought with food stamps a frozen pizza, a twelve pack of coke, and ice cream at one store and frozen peas, carrots, bananas, watermelon slices, whole wheat rolls, and yogurt at another. Am I good for one purchase and not the other?

Sister "the stuff was on sale at different stores" Ray
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mother Teresa stamp protest Jenn Religion 94 18 March 2013 09:15 PM
Christian tramp stamp hstarr Fauxtography 52 10 August 2010 04:28 PM
"Tramp stamp" = anal sex snopes NFBSK 44 13 April 2008 04:00 PM
Christians urged to “Stamp out” Royal Mail Christmas hoax snopes Religion 0 12 December 2007 02:46 PM
Twin Towers stamp snopes Fauxtography 14 30 June 2007 03:49 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.