Closed

Agree with Romnay-nay?

Completly	3.4%	[ 1 ]
He's trying to make a point. It's there.	20.7%	[ 6 ]
No, he sucks	75.9%	[ 22 ]
Total Votes:			[ 29 ]

[black_wing_angel]

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

deadroosters

i S o m m e r

Yes people abuse it, but do the people who need it, really need it? Like really do they?

Go back IRL and learn more about whether or not people need food to not die.

You do need food.

You do not need steak and lobster. There is a difference between "I'm hungry..." and "Boy, I could go for a Big Mac, right about now..."

Hey. My mom's on food stamps. You know what? Steak and lobster is a myth. Food stamps don't allow you to buy it. They give you a list of what you can buy with it, and most of it is cheap and unhealthy as ********]

It's called a metaphor. My point is that you do have a basic need to consume food for survival. However, a lot of the things people buy with government funding, is hardly the bottom of the barrel survival rations.

It shouldn't have to be, either. The healthier stuff is expensive. And yes, often steak is healthier than ground beef. It's leaner and a better cut of meat.

And? This isn't about living with a small luxury. You're not on assistance, so you can live "comfortably", unless you're actively disabled. You're on assistance to keep yourself alive. Presumably while you fight to get a job, or a better job. It's to help you get on your feet. Not to simply carry you.

[Marluxiana]

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

You do need food.

You do not need steak and lobster. There is a difference between "I'm hungry..." and "Boy, I could go for a Big Mac, right about now..."

Hey. My mom's on food stamps. You know what? Steak and lobster is a myth. Food stamps don't allow you to buy it. They give you a list of what you can buy with it, and most of it is cheap and unhealthy as ********]

It's called a metaphor. My point is that you do have a basic need to consume food for survival. However, a lot of the things people buy with government funding, is hardly the bottom of the barrel survival rations.

It shouldn't have to be, either. The healthier stuff is expensive. And yes, often steak is healthier than ground beef. It's leaner and a better cut of meat.

And? This isn't about living with a small luxury. You're not on assistance, so you can live "comfortably", unless you're actively disabled. You're on assistance to keep yourself alive. Presumably while you fight to get a job, or a better job. It's to help you get on your feet. Not to simply carry you.

The irony there being that most people on assistance aren't able to get a better job, and to remain healthy and not BECOME disabled and keep yourself out of the hospital, you need to eat healthy--and yet, all the actually healthy stuff isn't covered by food stamps and is hard to get on assistance, thus creating a spiral of making those with lower income unhealthier and in need of even more assistance in the medical sector and unable to get a better job because of their health.

[black_wing_angel]

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

You do need food.

You do not need steak and lobster. There is a difference between "I'm hungry..." and "Boy, I could go for a Big Mac, right about now..."

Hey. My mom's on food stamps. You know what? Steak and lobster is a myth. Food stamps don't allow you to buy it. They give you a list of what you can buy with it, and most of it is cheap and unhealthy as ********]

It's called a metaphor. My point is that you do have a basic need to consume food for survival. However, a lot of the things people buy with government funding, is hardly the bottom of the barrel survival rations.

It shouldn't have to be, either. The healthier stuff is expensive. And yes, often steak is healthier than ground beef. It's leaner and a better cut of meat.

And? This isn't about living with a small luxury. You're not on assistance, so you can live "comfortably", unless you're actively disabled. You're on assistance to keep yourself alive. Presumably while you fight to get a job, or a better job. It's to help you get on your feet. Not to simply carry you.

The irony there being that most people on assistance aren't able to get a better job,

Now, when you say "can't get a better job", do you mean that they are physically incapable of performing a job that would pay better? Or that the hiring pool sucks?

Because I'll grant you that the hiring pool DOES suck. But that's pretty much the only limitation that most people actually have. And even that, can generally be overcome, with proper decision making. Number one, going to your local career center, and taking a few classes on proper resume building, and interview etiquette, and so on.

Unless you have a swastika tattooed on your forehead, I don't think many people are "simply unhirable". They just don't want to put forth the requisite effort.

I worked through a temp agency for more than 4 years, once. And I had coworkers coming and going, regularly. And I'd estimate about 35% of them, were just lazy bastards, only there to meet the criteria to continue their government assistance. And yes, some of them were quite vocal about it. Even my own BOSS would only schedule himself 3 days a week, and then claim partial unemployment...

I respect that some people genuinely need assistance, and are actually trying. But the rest of them, I'd just as soon see on the street, where they deserve to be.

[Marluxiana]

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

It's called a metaphor. My point is that you do have a basic need to consume food for survival. However, a lot of the things people buy with government funding, is hardly the bottom of the barrel survival rations.

It shouldn't have to be, either. The healthier stuff is expensive. And yes, often steak is healthier than ground beef. It's leaner and a better cut of meat.

And? This isn't about living with a small luxury. You're not on assistance, so you can live "comfortably", unless you're actively disabled. You're on assistance to keep yourself alive. Presumably while you fight to get a job, or a better job. It's to help you get on your feet. Not to simply carry you.

The irony there being that most people on assistance aren't able to get a better job,

Now, when you say "can't get a better job", do you mean that they are physically incapable of performing a job that would pay better? Or that the hiring pool sucks?

Because I'll grant you that the hiring pool DOES suck. But that's pretty much the only limitation that most people actually have. And even that, can generally be overcome, with proper decision making. Number one, going to your local career center, and taking a few classes on proper resume building, and interview etiquette, and so on.

Unless you have a swastika tattooed on your forehead, I don't think many people are "simply unhirable". They just don't want to put forth the requisite effort.

I worked through a temp agency for more than 4 years, once. And I had coworkers coming and going, regularly. And I'd estimate about 35% of them, were just lazy bastards, only there to meet the criteria to continue their government assistance. And yes, some of them were quite vocal about it. Even my own BOSS would only schedule himself 3 days a week, and then claim partial unemployment...

I respect that some people genuinely need assistance, and are actually trying. But the rest of them, I'd just as soon see on the street, where they deserve to be.

Health actually makes a big dent in what you can do. If you are healthy, you take less sick days. If you take just too many sick days, no matter how genuine the sickness is, you're fired. And that firing goes on your work record. Now, say you're perpetually unhealthy because you can't afford healthy foods and you're eating nothing but hamburger helper and water, because it's really all you can afford. Suddenly, you're not holding down jobs because you spend more time in bed sick than at work, and therefore you are unable to get a better job because no one wants to hire you because you have a bunch of firings on your record, and thus you end up unable to afford better food.

Self-perpetuating cycle, just like the 1% wants.

What SHOULD be done is that healthy food should be made cheaper or be a priority for food stamps and whatnot, thus eliminating the health factor.

[black_wing_angel]

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

It's called a metaphor. My point is that you do have a basic need to consume food for survival. However, a lot of the things people buy with government funding, is hardly the bottom of the barrel survival rations.

It shouldn't have to be, either. The healthier stuff is expensive. And yes, often steak is healthier than ground beef. It's leaner and a better cut of meat.

And? This isn't about living with a small luxury. You're not on assistance, so you can live "comfortably", unless you're actively disabled. You're on assistance to keep yourself alive. Presumably while you fight to get a job, or a better job. It's to help you get on your feet. Not to simply carry you.

The irony there being that most people on assistance aren't able to get a better job,

Now, when you say "can't get a better job", do you mean that they are physically incapable of performing a job that would pay better? Or that the hiring pool sucks?

Because I'll grant you that the hiring pool DOES suck. But that's pretty much the only limitation that most people actually have. And even that, can generally be overcome, with proper decision making. Number one, going to your local career center, and taking a few classes on proper resume building, and interview etiquette, and so on.

Unless you have a swastika tattooed on your forehead, I don't think many people are "simply unhirable". They just don't want to put forth the requisite effort.

I worked through a temp agency for more than 4 years, once. And I had coworkers coming and going, regularly. And I'd estimate about 35% of them, were just lazy bastards, only there to meet the criteria to continue their government assistance. And yes, some of them were quite vocal about it. Even my own BOSS would only schedule himself 3 days a week, and then claim partial unemployment...

I respect that some people genuinely need assistance, and are actually trying. But the rest of them, I'd just as soon see on the street, where they deserve to be.

Health actually makes a big dent in what you can do. If you are healthy, you take less sick days. If you take just too many sick days, no matter how genuine the sickness is, you're fired. And that firing goes on your work record. Now, say you're perpetually unhealthy because you can't afford healthy foods and you're eating nothing but hamburger helper and water, because it's really all you can afford. Suddenly, you're not holding down jobs because you spend more time in bed sick than at work, and therefore you are unable to get a better job because no one wants to hire you because you have a bunch of firings on your record, and thus you end up unable to afford better food.

If you can afford all of that Hamburger Helper, you can afford a few salads, and other meals.

Also, fun biology fact: I have what "the experts" call a "piss poor diet". It primarily consists of meat and starch. Very little genuine vegetables. Yet, upon having a general health evaluation for my insurance, I literally ACED it. I have absolutely no health risks, of any kind.

What you eat might play a role in your health, but it's not a catch-all.

[Marluxiana]

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

Marluxiana

black_wing_angel

And? This isn't about living with a small luxury. You're not on assistance, so you can live "comfortably", unless you're actively disabled. You're on assistance to keep yourself alive. Presumably while you fight to get a job, or a better job. It's to help you get on your feet. Not to simply carry you.

The irony there being that most people on assistance aren't able to get a better job,

Now, when you say "can't get a better job", do you mean that they are physically incapable of performing a job that would pay better? Or that the hiring pool sucks?

Because I'll grant you that the hiring pool DOES suck. But that's pretty much the only limitation that most people actually have. And even that, can generally be overcome, with proper decision making. Number one, going to your local career center, and taking a few classes on proper resume building, and interview etiquette, and so on.

Unless you have a swastika tattooed on your forehead, I don't think many people are "simply unhirable". They just don't want to put forth the requisite effort.

I worked through a temp agency for more than 4 years, once. And I had coworkers coming and going, regularly. And I'd estimate about 35% of them, were just lazy bastards, only there to meet the criteria to continue their government assistance. And yes, some of them were quite vocal about it. Even my own BOSS would only schedule himself 3 days a week, and then claim partial unemployment...

I respect that some people genuinely need assistance, and are actually trying. But the rest of them, I'd just as soon see on the street, where they deserve to be.

Health actually makes a big dent in what you can do. If you are healthy, you take less sick days. If you take just too many sick days, no matter how genuine the sickness is, you're fired. And that firing goes on your work record. Now, say you're perpetually unhealthy because you can't afford healthy foods and you're eating nothing but hamburger helper and water, because it's really all you can afford. Suddenly, you're not holding down jobs because you spend more time in bed sick than at work, and therefore you are unable to get a better job because no one wants to hire you because you have a bunch of firings on your record, and thus you end up unable to afford better food.

If you can afford all of that Hamburger Helper, you can afford a few salads, and other meals.

Also, fun biology fact: I have what "the experts" call a "piss poor diet". It primarily consists of meat and starch. Very little genuine vegetables. Yet, upon having a general health evaluation for my insurance, I literally ACED it. I have absolutely no health risks, of any kind.

What you eat might play a role in your health, but it's not a catch-all.

Oh, you want a medal?

Hamburger Helper is cheap. That's why so many poor people buy it. A salad that you pick up pre-packaged? Isn't actually all that healthy. It's soaked in pesticides and all sorts of s**t.

And what works for you doesn't work for everyone. It's very hard to maintain a balanced diet when you're poor.

No, it's not a catch-all. But every little bit helps. Or are you all for people getting sick over and over just because they can't afford a balanced diet?

[MachineMuse]

@Marluxiana & Black_Wing_Angel

Don't forget the time component. Preparing a real salad from scratch takes a lot of time and effort, which you can't afford when you're running between your 3 jobs, not to mention the time you have to spend shopping for it because lettuce gets gross in less than a week.

Personally, as a poor/starving student with variable time constraints, almost all my meals consist of rice, lentils, and frozen veggies with whatever seasoning I feel like. But even that takes more time and effort than, say, a microwaved TV dinner. And part of the reason I like it is because I was raised on healthy food - hamburger helper makes me feel sick (actually, most foods with a lot of raw glutamate do that). If you learn instead to go for those highly-preserved foods, healthy food will taste weird.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-develop-growing-up-poor/

I'm glad to hear that you're healthy, black_wing_angel, but you're an exception, not the rule.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Gurosin of Tyria

Old Blue Collar Joe

Gurosin of Tyria

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

GunsmithKitten

Romney's comment finally cemented all along one of the biggest gripes I have with the GOP; namely, it's a state of mind where your content of character is determined by your income.

Not just being unemployed makes you worthy of scorn, but if you're not making enough money, you're also deserving of being unconsidered.

So yea, Romney baby, screw you, screw your party, and screw the horse you rode in on.

I like how he managed to nail two big conservative demographics: enlisted members of the military and the elderly.

Nah. It's the left attempting to claim they're part of the deadbeat brigade Romney was talking about, the professional mooches.

So does that mean that Romney is so incompetent that he cant figure out what the number really means? Or does he really believe what he said?

Both are pretty ******** bad.

And honestly speaking, with his fake a** smile, and his Mormon background, i tend to believe he actually believes what he said.

When romney picks up babies they cry, when Obama picks up babies, they stop crying.
That is a huge ******** test of character.

I am sick of Conservatives ******** up this country, and denying people rights.

Does he know how many states there are?
Babies? Oh s**t. That's ******** hilarious.
Obama has proven he has no character and is quite content when American's die in the line of duty. But don't go ******** with criminals and illegals.
I'm sick of liberals making excuses for every sack of s**t out there and wanting to turn the folks that actually pay the ******** light bill as evil and not worth respect, and that they're bad guys.

Content?

Like how bush was when he went and declared war with the wrong country for a reason that didn't even exist?

You mean like covering up the murder of an American border patrol agent with guns that were illegally ran by government order? Or the drone strike of an American citizen who wasn't a combatant? Maybe you mean a 500 BILLION dollar loan that was 'expedited' to a company that was going under anyway, because they were his political masters? Maybe you're talking about bombing Libya without congressional approval?
And...last I heard, Bush wasn't running.