Food Stamps and the $41 Cake (1 Viewer)

[FatMax]

What if she cuts the $41 cake into slices, and then sells those slices to people for a total of $50? Does that change anyone's answer?Now what if the people she sells the slices to are also on assistance?Oh yeah, and she spends her $9 ice cream cake profit on two pints of ice cream, which she consumes herself.

No enough information. What brand are the pints she buys for herself?

 

[Sweet J]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What if she cuts the $41 cake into slices, and then sells those slices to people for a total of $50? Does that change anyone's answer?Now what if the people she sells the slices to are also on assistance?Oh yeah, and she spends her $9 ice cream cake profit on two pints of ice cream, which she consumes herself.

No enough information. What brand are the pints she buys for herself?

They are Haagen Daz but she had a coupon but she bought them on Tuesday and the supermarket has double coupon Wedesdays.

 

[Chaka]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

A ban on bacon is the final straw that would bring about the revolution.

 

[[icon]]

It's an agenda dressed up as concern trolling. Might there be legitimate issues regarding the snap program? Maybe. But thats not what an editorial in the WSJ is trying to do. This isn't journalism.

wow.Fine. The problem is now being brought up by ME, and by other people in this thread who weren't involved in the bank issues. NOW is it okay to pull our heads out of the sand and address the issue? Just because ewe have a big problem and a small problem, doesn't mean we can't talk about the small problem too. Start a thread about the banking crisis and discuss it in there.... but don't pretend there isn't a welfare/assistance problem as well.

 

[bostonfred]

What if she cuts the $41 cake into slices, and then sells those slices to people for a total of $50? Does that change anyone's answer?Now what if the people she sells the slices to are also on assistance?Oh yeah, and she spends her $9 ice cream cake profit on two pints of ice cream, which she consumes herself.

No enough information. What brand are the pints she buys for herself?

They are Haagen Daz but she had a coupon but she bought them on Tuesday and the supermarket has double coupon Wedesdays.

Sounds foreign. No dice.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

I dont consider social security a handout. Social security disability, yes. Regular, no. I think pension and benefits questions fall under a wage discussion, not a handout. I don't agree with the current structure in many scenarios, but it is not a handout.

 

[Jackstraw]

It's an agenda dressed up as concern trolling. Might there be legitimate issues regarding the snap program? Maybe. But thats not what an editorial in the WSJ is trying to do. This isn't journalism.

wow.Fine. The problem is now being brought up by ME, and by other people in this thread who weren't involved in the bank issues. NOW is it okay to pull our heads out of the sand and address the issue? Just because ewe have a big problem and a small problem, doesn't mean we can't talk about the small problem too. Start a thread about the banking crisis and discuss it in there.... but don't pretend there isn't a welfare/assistance problem as well.

Fine but do I have to pretend the WSJ editorial page isn't a hack filled propaganda fish wrap?

 

[Sweet J]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.

If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.

I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.

On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

I dont consider social security a handout. Social security disability, yes. Regular, no. I think pension and benefits questions fall under a wage discussion, not a handout. I don't agree with the current structure in many scenarios, but it is not a handout.

I see what we are doing: If we don't CALL something a handout, then we don't have to worry wether a person is wasting the money. Even though we are handing them money. And they are spending it.

 

[badmojo1006]

I want cake

 

[Zow]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not.

That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

I'll give you my bacon when you pry it from my cold, greasy hands.

 

[[icon]]

It's an agenda dressed up as concern trolling. Might there be legitimate issues regarding the snap program? Maybe. But thats not what an editorial in the WSJ is trying to do. This isn't journalism.

wow.Fine. The problem is now being brought up by ME, and by other people in this thread who weren't involved in the bank issues. NOW is it okay to pull our heads out of the sand and address the issue? Just because ewe have a big problem and a small problem, doesn't mean we can't talk about the small problem too. Start a thread about the banking crisis and discuss it in there.... but don't pretend there isn't a welfare/assistance problem as well.

Fine but do I have to pretend the WSJ editorial page isn't a hack filled propaganda fish wrap?

Me asking you to not have the opinion that WSJ has a strong agenda would be rather foolish on my part. I can agree strongly that their journalistic integrity has taken a hit over the years... no doubt.

 

[Hang 10]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.

If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.

I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.

On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

I dont consider social security a handout. Social security disability, yes. Regular, no. I think pension and benefits questions fall under a wage discussion, not a handout. I don't agree with the current structure in many scenarios, but it is not a handout.

I see what we are doing: If we don't CALL something a handout, then we don't have to worry wether a person is wasting the money. Even though we are handing them money. And they are spending it.

"Old people" spent a lifetime paying into social security and then get their own money back.. Welfare it's not.

 

[Joe T]

We collectively lost 16 trillion in wealth during this recession due to epic greed in the financial sector. But I'm sure the problem is $41 ice cream cakes. About 390 billion of them or so by my count.

Classic misdirection.

Poor people could cart fee crap out of stores in wheelbarrows and never touch the amount stolen from us with pen and paper.

Plus has anyone offered anything beyond an anectdote in this thread to tell us what the scope of the problem with food stamps is? Or are we just going by our fee fees?

My conservative brother in laws story is he saw a fat black lady buy a quicktrip sammich one time with a snap card. Case closed for him. All deadbeats. Everyone of them.

PS: No one has ever done a minute in jail for any of it. Put somebody from JP morgan in jail and then lets talk about food stamps.

For what?

 

[Joe T]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

Uh, the old people are getting back the money they paid in (ie Social Security).But the fact that you do not see the difference here is not surprising at all.

 

[Sweet J]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

 

[Joe T]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

 

[Sweet J]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

Uh, the old people are getting back the money they paid in (ie Social Security).But the fact that you do not see the difference here is not surprising at all.

So you are saying that people should ONLY get what they paid into it, and nothing more?Is that how it works? No minimum payments? No "payments run out at age 93 because we've used up your kitty"? Are you sure about that?

 

[Sweet J]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Joe T]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

Uh, the old people are getting back the money they paid in (ie Social Security).But the fact that you do not see the difference here is not surprising at all.

So you are saying that people should ONLY get what they paid into it, and nothing more?Is that how it works? No minimum payments? No "payments run out at age 93 because we've used up your kitty"? Are you sure about that?

No, I'm trying to point out that you are an idiot. Is that simple enough?

 

[humpback]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

You're just making it worse.

 

[Joe T]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

By working.Next question.

 

[Sweet J]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

Uh, the old people are getting back the money they paid in (ie Social Security).But the fact that you do not see the difference here is not surprising at all.

So you are saying that people should ONLY get what they paid into it, and nothing more?Is that how it works? No minimum payments? No "payments run out at age 93 because we've used up your kitty"? Are you sure about that?

No, I'm trying to point out that you are an idiot. Is that simple enough?

Yeah, I thought so.

 

[Sweet J]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

You're just making it worse.

Please, enlighten me.

 

[Hang 10]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

By working.Next question.

 

[Sweet J]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

By working.Next question.

You sure are hard up to make sure poor people are the only ones who have to justify their sucking off the government teet. I'm sure you have an excuse for the morgage deduction, as well.

 

[Joe T]

Dear Sweet J,

Please go back and retake 6th grad social studies. Come back to this thread when you are done.

TIA

 

[Sweet J]

I still disagree no matter what fictitious scenario that you throw at me.If she can afford to waste 41 dollars on a cake she is receiving too much money. If she can't afford to waste the money and sacrifices nutrition for herself or anybody else then she is making a poor decision with money that is not hers and was not intended for that purpose.I have zero issues with extremely strict standards regarding any public assistance. Whether it be welfare, social security disability, or whatever other forms.On a side note, I like the way you have approached this thread.

We give old people money simply for being old. We give Federal employees money simply for paying into their retirement accounts. Two "handouts" that I think about just off the top of my head. Do those differ from other types of "public assistance"? Do we really want to get in the business of telling old people that they can't spend money on bacon becuase it is bad for them? I thought you guys were the Small Government guys?

Uh, the old people are getting back the money they paid in (ie Social Security).But the fact that you do not see the difference here is not surprising at all.

So you are saying that people should ONLY get what they paid into it, and nothing more?Is that how it works? No minimum payments? No "payments run out at age 93 because we've used up your kitty"? Are you sure about that?

No, I'm trying to point out that you are an idiot. Is that simple enough?

Oh, by the way, feel free to answer the questions?

 

[Chaka]

Argument by insult. That's always productive.

 

[Sweet J]

Dear Sweet J,Please go back and retake 6th grad social studies. Come back to this thread when you are done.TIA

 

[Sweet J]

Argument by insult. That's always productive.

I find it fascinating.

 

[Joe T]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

By working.Next question.

You sure are hard up to make sure poor people are the only ones who have to justify their sucking off the government teet. I'm sure you have an excuse for the morgage deduction, as well.

Hey Dupa,A lot of people get a matching portion of their retirement even if they're not a government employee. It is part of your employment agreement and I've got news for you: it is not free.(Hope this helps. But have a strong feeling it won't.)

 

[Sweet J]

Hey Dupa,A lot of people get a matching portion of their retirement even if they're not a government employee. It is part of your employment agreement and I've got news for you: it is not free.(Hope this helps. But have a strong feeling it won't.)

It's a benefit the government gives. Does not need to. Lots and lots of people get benefits they do not need to be given. Take the mortgage deduction. Take unemployment. Take tax breaks. Welare. Medicade. All things that the government gives that it does not have to. Yet you want to get in the food stamp recipient's business about what is "ok" to spend. I wonder why?

 

[Joe T]

I'm done. I will assume that Sweet J is all schtick at this point. Even Timscochet would comprehend the difference between welfare and social security.

 

[humpback]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

You're just making it worse.

Please, enlighten me.

It's already been answered- your matching retirement payments are part of the benefits you receive for working. Same with salary, health benefits, etc.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm done. I will assume that Sweet J is all schtick at this point. Even Timscochet would comprehend the difference between welfare and social security.

Come back when you are ready to talk about how a person can get more benefits from SS than they pay into (even assuming interest). I'm assuming you will have some excuse for why this is different, but I am always curious. When you are ready, I'll be here.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This guy sees someone buy a ####### cake, decides its too expensive for them, then pats himself on the back for being able to afford a costco membership, a car, the time and gas to go across town 20 extra minutes on the weekend, the space in his home to store huge boxes of bulk goods, and the money to spend on things today that he wont use until tomorrow. But he doesn't take the time to ask if this is a single mom who is trying to help her kid have a cake with his friends so he will have some self confidence and wont feel like the poor kid who can't have a birthday party for reasons that have nothing to do with him, or if this mother is dealing with some other life issues like mental illness, substance abuse, or unemployment, or if this mother has the luxury to go on longer trips to the store or if it means that shed have to bring her youger baby in a car seat she can't afford or leave them with a babysitter who can't be bothered to watch a kid for a couple hours while she gets a two gallon jar of mayonnaise. He just says, this ladys stupid, and we shouldn't give her money anymore. Maybe he can spit on some homeless people on the way home and make himself feel even better.

No one should be buying a $41 cake with public benefits. Sorry.

"Mom, all I want for my birthday is an icecream cake like Charlie had at his party" What's a mom to do? Maybe the only way she could afford to get him anything at all was to starve herself for several weeks and buy a cake with the food stamps she saved up.. You don't know all the circumstances

My mom told me no we can't afford it plenty of times. ####, I'm a grown man (kinda) and she still won't buy me the GI Joe with the RPG accessories.

If your parents spent less than $40 on you on your B-day, that's your problem.. I don't think it's unreasonable to spend $40 on a child, on his B-day.. I just spent $400 on my son's B-day..

 

[Sweet J]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

You're just making it worse.

Please, enlighten me.

It's already been answered- your matching retirement payments are part of the benefits you receive for working. Same with salary, health benefits, etc.

Fair enough. You are welcome to tackle Mortgage Deduction and SS payouts (getting paid more than you put in). Unless you are advocating cutting people off from SS at some point. And good luck with that, by the way.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm confused about what the argument is here.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

There are two main differences between SS and SNAP (food stamps)/TANF(welfare).

1) Social Security has separate accounting.

2) SNAP/TANF are means tested.

It's not an accurate understanding of Social Security to think that people are getting back money they put in. Current retirees are effectively being paid by the active workforce. Someone might get back for less (adjusted for inflation) or far more than they paid during their working life depending on how long they live, etc. Payments are also scaled based on lifetime contributions.

Means testing is the bigger issue. The accounting mechanism is somewhat irrelevant IMO, as all the money eventually ends up flowing into and out of the general treasury. However, means testing means that there is a specific minority receiving benefits, and there is generally no expectation that the support will be required. It's still a safety net, and it offers a similar insurance benefit as SS and Medicare, but there is little to no expectation for most people of the taxes going into SNAP/TANF being returned as a benefit one day.

 

[Hang 10]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

You're just making it worse.

Please, enlighten me.

It's already been answered- your matching retirement payments are part of the benefits you receive for working. Same with salary, health benefits, etc.

Fair enough. You are welcome to tackle Mortgage Deduction and SS payouts (getting paid more than you put in). Unless you are advocating cutting people off from SS at some point. And good luck with that, by the way.

A tax deduction isn't a handout either.

 

[Chaka]

I'm confused about what the argument is here.

Cake

 

[Sweet J]

A tax deduction isn't a handout either.

That's rich. I mentioned earlier in the thread, and it went unanswered. Two neighbors, one rents, one owns. One pays thousands less in federal taxes than the other. Call it what you want. It's free money.

 

[rick6668]

Sweet j, I gotta disagree on your last points because the two "handouts" you cite are arguably income. Food stamps are certainly not. That said I got no issue with the sentiment that, under the current system, it shouldn't matter to us what food this woman buys or why. She isn't getting any more money so we can simply hope she budgeted for this. Be impossible to police this regardless.

Wait -- Social security benefits. When it was first created, someone had to come up with the idea that old people needed a security net. They were "given" money. Whether we call that "income" or not seems like a meaningless distinction (what about AFDC; people get cash - is that "income"?). And I have retirement "matching" paid for by the federal government. I am "given" money for FREE. I don't have to do anything, and the government will put in thousands of dollars into my retirement account, and I can spend that however I want. How is that not a handout? Again, I am being given money and doing nothing for it in return. It's not based on anything that I've "paid" in. It's free. It's a handout. I'm sure the government has a purpose for that -- it wants to encourage retirement spending. But the government has a "purpose" for food stamps, as well. It wants to encourage non-starvation.

You might want to consider not posting any more. Ever.

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

By working.Next question.

You sure are hard up to make sure poor people are the only ones who have to justify their sucking off the government teet. I'm sure you have an excuse for the morgage deduction, as well.

Hey Dupa,A lot of people get a matching portion of their retirement even if they're not a government employee. It is part of your employment agreement and I've got news for you: it is not free.(Hope this helps. But have a strong feeling it won't.)

Up next, Sweet J discusses how government employee's salary is a handout as well.

 

[Sweet J]

There are two main differences between SS and SNAP (food stamps)/TANF(welfare).

1) Social Security has separate accounting.

2) SNAP/TANF are means tested.

It's not an accurate understanding of Social Security to think that people are getting back money they put in. Current retirees are effectively being paid by the active workforce. Someone might get back for less (adjusted for inflation) or far more than they paid during their working life depending on how long they live, etc. Payments are also scaled based on lifetime contributions.

Means testing is the bigger issue. The accounting mechanism is somewhat irrelevant IMO, as all the money eventually ends up flowing into and out of the general treasury. However, means testing means that there is a specific minority receiving benefits, and there is generally no expectation that the support will be required. It's still a safety net, and it offers a similar insurance benefit as SS and Medicare, but there is little to no expectation for most people of the taxes going into SNAP/TANF being returned as a benefit one day.

Yes.

 

[humpback]

Please tell me how a federal employee "earns" his matching retirement payments from the federal government? I'll hang up and listen.

You're just making it worse.

Please, enlighten me.

It's already been answered- your matching retirement payments are part of the benefits you receive for working. Same with salary, health benefits, etc.

Fair enough. You are welcome to tackle Mortgage Deduction and SS payouts (getting paid more than you put in). Unless you are advocating cutting people off from SS at some point. And good luck with that, by the way.

Mortgage deduction is part of our insane tax code where we try and influence behavior. I'd prefer to get rid of it, but that would crush the already weak housing market.People can get more out of SS than they put in because it's a pool based on life-expectancy- some get out more than they put in, some less. Your benefits are based on your contributions though.These things are all very different from food stamps (and I'm not advocating getting rid of them by the way).

 

[mr roboto]

Q: HOW CAN A DISCUSSION ABOUT ICE CREAM CAKE TURN INTO A POLITICAL #####FEST?

A: Post it in the FFA.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Low interest student loans seem like a handout. Anybody disagree with that one?

 

[Chaka]

Low interest student loans seem like a handout. Anybody disagree with that one?

If they are I hope we get an ROI. At the very least, I imagine the better educated you are the less likely you are to need food stamps.