Argument I just got in re: Food Stamps

• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  LJ;872926 wrote:Well the problem is, let's say my wife and I both went broke. It would cost $400 to cancel our 2 cell phone lines, or we could pay the cheapest plan at like $55 per month and have the use of 2 phones. Obviously 1 of those choices is the much smarter financial decision.

  But that's what's wrong with this economy... why are we entering ourselves into contracts that we can't afford?! You're saying it would cost you $400 to cancel your two cell phones. Why would you put yourself into that situation if there's even the chance that you might be forced to cancel and you couldn't afford it?
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  Sonofanump;873087 wrote:It's a luxury item by both the normal definition and the economic definition.
  
  $400 is how many weeks of food?

  Hear, hear. 4 weeks? 6 weeks?
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  O-Trap;873250 wrote: So you're not a fan of people going out and pounding the pavement looking for work? Huh, I would have thought differently.

  You're being difficult. Of course I am a fan of people going out and pounding the pavement looking for work. I'm saying, when they have a prospect that needs to call them (but the argument was I need a cell phone), then stay at home and wait for that call. After the call, go back to pounding the pavement looking for work [if need be]. It's not an all or nothing. It's a "use some intelligence / common sense."
  
  Damn. Stop being so difficult people. Again... this is a perfect situation... if people would put half the effort that they do into making excuses, then we wouldn't have the sack of shits this country is filled with!
• LJ

  

  Scarlet_Buckeye;873303 wrote:But that's what's wrong with this economy... why are we entering ourselves into contracts that we can't afford?! You're saying it would cost you $400 to cancel your two cell phones. Why would you put yourself into that situation if there's even the chance that you might be forced to cancel and you couldn't afford it?

  It's wrong that I enter a contract that has a fee of $400 to cancel 2 cell phones I will never cancel? So it's also wrong to get a car loan? Or a mortgage? Because you know not many people can pay off their $100,000 mortgage if they lost their job.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  LJ;873339 wrote:It's wrong that I enter a contract that has a fee of $400 to cancel 2 cell phones I will never cancel? So it's also wrong to get a car loan? Or a mortgage? Because you know not many people can pay off their $100,000 mortgage if they lost their job.

  Why would you enter a contract that you're not okay with? I'm not trying to point fingers / push blame.... I'm simply curious as to why you would enter a contract if you're not okay with the $400 cancel fee? These things are hidden at the time you SIGN the contract?!
• rydawg5

  if this thread is a reflection of how majority of a chritian society wants to help the poor or views the poor, then this country is going to crumble on itself.
  
  i think the food stamp system is not well run nor is it efficient, but lets error on the side of helping those in need even if a few benefit who shouldnt
• LJ

  

  Scarlet_Buckeye;873353 wrote:Why would you enter a contract that you're not okay with? I'm not trying to point fingers / push blame.... I'm simply curious as to why you would enter a contract if you're not okay with the $400 cancel fee? These things are hidden at the time you SIGN the contract?!

  I said I AM ok with it because I never plan on cancelling. Also, it wasn't hidden. Right there in big bold type it said "$200 per line to cancel. The Rep mentioned a few times "$200 per line to cancel". I said it makes more sense to keep the phone and just go to a lower rate plan. Then not only do we still have our only phone lines (we have no home phone, no need to pay for 3 phones) but we will also have a more manageable payment. You would still see us with smart phones. What do you want us to do? Sell phones that are already paid for and get new ones so that people could preceive us differently? give me a break.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  rydawg5;873368 wrote:if this thread is a reflection of how majority of a chritian society wants to help the poor or views the poor, then this country is going to crumble on itself.
  
  i think the food stamp system is not well run nor is it efficient, but lets error on the side of helping those in need even if a few benefit who shouldnt

  You're bringing in ideals that not everyone shares the same belief in. The validity/realness of religion is debatable. Let's try to solve that issue another day. Today, we are trying to solve something tangible, something real - i.e., people wrongly mooching off of governmental aid programs.
• rydawg5

  so disregard the principles this country was founded on? in reference to your rebuttal of a "majority christian nation". or just disregard what makes the USA special which is being humane. How you treat the poor is a reflection of your goodness. IMO
• Skyhook79

  

  Scarlet_Buckeye;873380 wrote:You're bringing in ideals that not everyone shares the same belief in. The validity/realness of religion is debatable. Let's try to solve that issue another day. Today, we are trying to solve something tangible, something real - i.e., people wrongly mooching off of governmental aid programs.

  I would much rather be part of a society that helps the poor and people who are out of work for whatever reasons vs being in a society, like many other countries, who do not help their poor and separate them from the rest of society. There is fraud and people who "game" the system in a lot of areas not just Food Stamp recipients. I agree efforts should be taken to eliminate as much fraud as you can in ANY Gov't program. Including Medicare, Pell Grants,Medicaid, Social Security and Fema recipients, Income tax etc,etc,etc. But to eliminate helping people totally is just plain wrong.
• rydawg5

  Skyhook79;873388 wrote:I would much rather be part of a society that helps the poor and people who are out of work for whatever reasons vs being in a society, like many other countries, who do not help their poor and separate them from the rest of society. There is fraud and people who "game" the system in a lot of areas not just Food Stamp recipients. I agree efforts should be taken to eliminate as much fraud as you can in ANY Gov't program. Including Medicare, Pell Grants,Medicaid, Social Security and Fema recipients, Income tax etc,etc,etc. But to eliminate helping people totally is just plain wrong.

  +1.. you mean dontfeel superior to the poor? You dont think you should regulate if they can have kids without YOUR permission? they shouldnt be a lesser people? sheesh..crazy libs!
• FatHobbit

  

  rydawg5;873393 wrote:You dont think you should regulate if they can have kids without YOUR permission?

  I don't care if someone wants to have kids. They don't need my permission. But if they can't afford the ones they have now, is it crazy to think maybe they shouldn't be popping out anymore? And maybe we shouldn't be rewarding them with more money when they do...
• Skyhook79

  

  Scarlet_Buckeye;873297 wrote:There's a huge difference between the two, and if you can't see it, then I don't know what to tell you.
  
  For one, receiving Pell Grants is usually because the government sees you as a prospect and is trying to help provide you with the education you need to better yourself and make a decent income / wage so that you're not riding the welfare train for the next 10+ years.
  
  HUGE difference, pal.

  No, receiving a Pell Grant is because you qualified for it because your income level is low. Same as Food Stamps. Should people who receive Pell Grants be allowed to have cell phones? Flatscreen TV's, Have children? Be drug tested?
• Skyhook79

  

  FatHobbit;873400 wrote:I don't care if someone wants to have kids. They don't need my permission. But if they can't afford the ones they have now, is it crazy to think maybe they shouldn't be popping out anymore? And maybe we shouldn't be rewarding them with more money when they do...

  Maybe both Parents had jobs when they had the children and then found themselves unemployed during the 4 year recession like millons of people did??
• rydawg5

  FatHobbit;873400 wrote:I don't care if someone wants to have kids. They don't need my permission. But if they can't afford the ones they have now, is it crazy to think maybe they shouldn't be popping out anymore? And maybe we shouldn't be rewarding them with more money when they do...

  Honestly, I do think that's crazy. What if someone gets prego that can support up to 1 kid, and she finds out shes having triplets..do we now abort them or force them into adoption?
• FatHobbit

  

  Skyhook79;873403 wrote:Maybe both Parents had jobs when they had the children and then found themselves unemployed during the 4 year recession like millons of people did??

  I'm fine with that. What many people have a problem with is people having more kids so they get more support. (I don't even know if that's a real or common problem, but that's what I was responding too.)
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  FatHobbit;873400 wrote:I don't care if someone wants to have kids. They don't need my permission. But if they can't afford the ones they have now, is it crazy to think maybe they shouldn't be popping out anymore? And maybe we shouldn't be rewarding them with more money when they do...

  Hear, hear.
• Sonofanump

  rydawg5;873382 wrote:so disregard the principles this country was founded on?

  
  Please expand. I am pretty sure you have no grasp on the principles this country was founded on.
• rydawg5

  Just seems like cold blooded views to me.
• rydawg5

  Sonofanump;873414 wrote:Please expand. I am pretty sure you have no grasp on the principles this country was founded on.

  okay, Mufasa.
• Sonofanump

  Tobias Fünke;873254 wrote:No to restricting the use of phones. That's idiotic. While smartphones are ridiculous, so is the idea of cutting someone off from the outside world.

  
  I don't care if they have a cell phone, it's their choice how they spend their money, just don't ask me to pay for their food if they can afford a luxury item.
• Skyhook79

  

  FatHobbit;873410 wrote:I'm fine with that. What many people have a problem with is people having more kids so they get more support. (I don't even know if that's a real or common problem, but that's what I was responding too.)

  I'm sure that happens, how often IDK, like I said a certain amount of people are going to "game" the system. Thats why fraud control should be a part of it.
  But there are more legitimate needs out there and we as a society or Gov't should not turn our backs on them.
• LJ

  

  Sonofanump;873429 wrote:I don't care if they have a cell phone, it's their choice how they spend their money, just don't ask me to pay for their food if they can afford a luxury item.

  Is a home phone a luxury item?
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  Skyhook79;873401 wrote:No, receiving a Pell Grant is because you qualified for it because your income level is low. Same as Food Stamps. Should people who receive Pell Grants be allowed to have cell phones? Flatscreen TV's, Have children? Be drug tested?

  I would say no. People who receive Pell Grants should NOT have flatscreen TVs, should not be sporting smartphones, and probably shouldn't be having children either since (a) they are busy with attending school (and likely working too) and (b) they obviously do not have the means to take care of the child.
• Sonofanump

  rydawg5;873422 wrote:okay, Mufasa.

  Okay, James Taggart.