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.
Most people in that circumstance would be using a cart (used to be called a "granny cart") to haul the groceries home. That's how it's done. To assume the groceries are carried all the way home is ridiculous. The carts are used for hauling clothes to and from the laundromat, as well. How do people not know this?
Yup. When I lived in a city apartment, I always had my cart with me in the trunk of the car. That's because sometimes I couldn't find a parking space close by and had to haul my groceries a few blocks - sometimes even further. Of course, I could have paid to have them delivered to the door, but I was young and not earning much money. The delivery fee could have fed me breakfast for a week (a box of cereal and a carton of milk), and I was on a tight budget. So I allocated that money to food rather than convenience.
If I were young again and in a similarly right budget, it would irk me even more that my taxes were subsidizing someone else's delivery fee when I couldn't afford it for myself.
(As I've said throughout this thread, this does not apply to elderly or disabled. I'd have no problem helping them with the delivery fee.)
And to the poster who accused us of not giving to charity, I give a lot more percentage-wise than your millionaire Bernie hero.
Your point doesn't stand. The only reason SOME people are forced to pay others' food, clothing, housing, and medical bills is because liberals won't step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are and donate enough voluntarily to fund the cost of assistance programs. It's quite evident that not even liberals support such programs if they're expected to pay for them by choice.
My point stands, and your attempt to make it about something else is only a deflection, and a very weak one at that.
If you dont like the delivery program, take it up with Herr Trump, because his government imposed it.
That's what happens when you call them out on their lack of sufficient charitable giving while insisting others be forced to pay for their pet welfare programs.
This is Donald Trumps program.
Take it up with him, and stop trying to frame others for it.
Do you think the people who brag loudest about being so generous actually give to people they obviously resent?
The answer is no.
If charitable giving was enough to support the poor, we would not have the programs Trump is forcing us to pay for.
1) How was I proven wrong? You didn't like what I revealed, as written about it the Washington Post, so you say it isn't true. Liberal tact: call people you disagree with "liars"
2) It's NOT their own money when they are getting food stamps! Any money they are spending on delivery fees could (and should) better go to food, which we are subsidizing.
Ex: I give my teen $25 a week, because she needs to buy school lunches. Instead, she spends $15 of that on cigarettes, and then complains to me that $25 a week for lunch isn't enough.
3) Not sure what article you are talking about? The WaPo article? Of COURSE I read it.
That's like saying none of your money is your own if you live on a paved road because any money you're spending on anything at all should go toward maintaining your road instead of letting the government do it. If you eat meat, you should be spending your own money to ensure that the meat in the USA is safe rather than living off of the taxes of vegetarians. If you're buying lipstick or flowers or a candle for your house, you're basically stealing.
I mean, do you realize how absurd you sound? Any money that anyone spends on anything is taking funds from taxpayers because they're utilizing public education, USDA-inspected food, city-paved streets, and so on. Keep in mind that SNAP-recipients overwhelmingly work, so they're paying taxes just like you are. Some of their taxes are going toward keeping the park in YOUR neighborhood mowed, even if they don't have a way to get to the park themselves!
As for your example with your teen, you give her $25/week for school lunch. Then she sells a jacket of hers at a consignment shop and uses the $8 to get pizza with her friends. You accuse her of stealing and scream that the $8 she made should have been put toward her school lunch rather than toward food that you did not approve of and that is less healthy than the slop they serve at school (doubtful, but we'll go with it).
The "didn't read the article, did you?" comment went under someone else's comment. That person assumed that SNAP was now paying for delivery because they didn't read the article in the OP.
Most people in that circumstance would be using a cart (used to be called a "granny cart") to haul the groceries home. That's how it's done. To assume the groceries are carried all the way home is ridiculous. The carts are used for hauling clothes to and from the laundromat, as well. How do people not know this?
That photo was probably taken in an affluent area of NY. The woman herself looks rich, and there's a girl in a private school uniform behind her. If the well-off can cart their groceries (and laundry), why can't the poor people whom we are already subsidizing?
My point stands, and your attempt to make it about something else is only a deflection, and a very weak one at that.
Actually, it's a key point. If liberals think public assistance programs are oh so very important, why won't they step up and voluntarily fund them themselves? Why do they insist on forcing others to pay for them?
I'm sorry but if you are already getting something free that is paid for by the taxpayers, then you can at least make a little effort on your part to go get the groceries.
And before some posts about the old and disabled, I know those people already have organizations, and in many cities, the government to help with that. The rest of the abled bodied free loaders need to get off their behinds and go get the groceries themselves.
Actually, it's a key point. If liberals think public assistance programs are oh so very important, why won't they step up and voluntarily fund them themselves? Why do they insist on forcing others to pay for them?
It's a deflection from what I said. I made a point, and you deflect my trying to offer something else as opposed to addressing my point.
Besides, its Trump who is forcing you to pay for it.
Do you think the people who brag loudest about being so generous actually give to people they obviously resent?
The answer is no.
If charitable giving was enough to support the poor, we would not have the programs Trump is forcing us to pay for.
That's like saying none of your money is your own if you live on a paved road because any money you're spending on anything at all should go toward maintaining your road instead of letting the government do it. If you eat meat, you should be spending your own money to ensure that the meat in the USA is safe rather than living off of the taxes of vegetarians. If you're buying lipstick or flowers or a candle for your house, you're basically stealing.
I mean, do you realize how absurd you sound? Any money that anyone spends on anything is taking funds from taxpayers because they're utilizing public education, USDA-inspected food, city-paved streets, and so on. Keep in mind that SNAP-recipients overwhelmingly work, so they're paying taxes just like you are. Some of their taxes are going toward keeping the park in YOUR neighborhood mowed, even if they don't have a way to get to the park themselves!
As for your example with your teen, you give her $25/week for school lunch. Then she sells a jacket of hers at a consignment shop and uses the $8 to get pizza with her friends. You accuse her of stealing and scream that the $8 she made should have been put toward her school lunch rather than toward food that you did not approve of and that is less healthy than the slop they serve at school (doubtful, but we'll go with it).
You'd doing the liberal thing again: taking things to the (false) extreme in order to defend bad financial decisions of the poor people to whom we are providing food, reduced rents, cash, school lunches, Medicaid, etc., etc.
And YOUR example with the teen is absurd. You missed a key point: what if I had GIVEN her the money to buy a jacket so she wouldn't be cold, and then she sold it on EBay to buy pizza for herself and her friends. That's not what I gave her the money for.
(And yes, people are selling their food stamps.)
News flash: Poor people to whom we provide substantial financial assistance are not ENTITLED to spend money however they want. A good portion of that money is ours, and money (and its equivalents, like food stamps) is fungible.
That photo was probably taken in an affluent area of NY. The woman herself looks rich, and there's a girl in a private school uniform behind her. If the well-off can cart their groceries (and laundry), why can't the poor people whom we are already subsidizing?
Great point. Using a cart to haul groceries and laundry is a COMMON sight in urban and even many suburban areas regardless of the socioeconomic level of the neighborhood. Why? Because it's so convenient.
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.
The carts are used for hauling clothes to and from the laundromat, as well. How do people not know this? 
