Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are stereotyping and you want everyone to pay a price by being shamed for the small percentage that does manage to game the system. That is truly crazy.
Again with the broad sweeping accusations.
Yes, I think the welfare-recipient woman who threw out $1000 on a TV (that I myself would never splurge on) and then complain that taxpayers aren't giving her enough SHOULD be ashamed.
it IS my business when a welfare recipient throws out $1000 on an expensive TV when my taxes go to provide them the food they can't afford on their own.
And in the interview, she didn't say someone gave her the TV or that she bought it when she had a job (which was never). She was indignant that the interviewer, who after all is helping pay for the food she says she can't afford, asked her how she was able to afford an expensive luxury like that.
LIberals need to lose the attitude that welfare recipients are entitled to do whatever they want with money they get from other people.
You can get a 55" flat TV these days for about $225. Even fancier ones like maybe Samsung are around 500. You can still have an opinion about spending that much of course, just throwing out how much they actually cost.
Yes, I think the welfare-recipient woman who threw out $1000 on a TV (that I myself would never splurge on) and then complain that taxpayers aren't giving her enough SHOULD be ashamed.
You know the cost of her TV? Flat Screen TV's have become very affordable but again, you want others to be shamed for the ones you perceive as being fraudulent and that makes no sense.
It appears that you are struggling to make this idea look totally awful. Now you created this strawman in which stores are going to offer SNAP recipients free delivery and you will somehow end up paying for it. Nowhere is free delivery mentioned, If the recipient can't pay for delivery they can't utilize the service, how hard is that to understand?
I don't trust this. I suppose it depends on the delivery fee. I do know that when the idea of Medicaid recipients paying even a small co-pay, like five dollars, or premium comes up all hell breaks loose from the left because everything should be totally free for them. I can't imagine we will burden Poor people with these delivery fees. And again, if the fees exist for this group, the truly poor may not be able to swing it. That isn't really fair now is it.
You implied I would be just fine with people starving to death. Those aren't fighting words?
That's absolutely untrue. You claimed that it was unlikely that if we cut off benefits that the poor would steal food from us to which I responded as follows:
Quote:
My bad..you're right when people are starving they will just sit down quietly and die.
That does not infer anything about how you would feel about a person starving to death.
You can get a 55" flat TV these days for $225. Even fancier ones like maybe Samsung are around 500. You can still have an opinion about spending that much of course, just throwing out how much they actually cost.
This instance was from many years ago, when such a TV cost $1000. I remember the story because I was in the market for a new TV and had to restrict myself to a smaller one for around $500. It was a shock to read that someone on welfare paid $1000, and then had the chutzpah to say that Americans were being cheap in the amount of food stamps she was getting.
That welfare mother deserves criticism. She doesn't get a pass because she's poor.
And, to give more details (I have an excellent memory, because the story was so outlandish), she was complaining that she had to give her kids Fritos for lunch because she couldn't afford to buy a decent lunch. And THAT is when the interviewer asked about the TV.
Now tell me, do you not see the problem with that? She has money for a $1000 TV but not enough to buy a few cans of tuna, a tomato, and a loaf of bread - meaning we need to give her more?
That's absolutely untrue. You claimed that it was unlikely that if we cut off benefits that the poor would steal food from us to which I responded as follows:
That does not infer anything about how you would feel about a person starving to death.
OK. I see you did not mean that * I * would be fine with people starving to death. I'm glad we straightened that out.
A) you're implying that I'm Christian. Wrong. (Talk about painting an entire group of people with a stereotype.)
B) where did I paint an entire group of people as freeloaders? I criticized the IRRESPONSIBLE woman on food stamps who bought a $1000 TV and then complained that other people weren't giving her enough food stamp money.
What I see is that, to some liberals, we are never allowed to criticize the behavior of a poor person (or a Muslim, for that matter).
I did not think you were Christian. I stated "Judeo-Christian," as altruism is also one of the principal tenets of Judaism.
Criticize whomever you wish--just expect a reaction or discussion about it. That's the way it works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
