Quote :

"some people value their time more than saving a few bucks by preparing most of their meals from scratch."

This is the current situation i am in. I still cook but often i do not feel the need to "save" money by budget grocery shopping and not eating out since with my job "time" is more scarce; most importantly i can afford it.

If i get laid off though coming up than you bet i'll be snipping coupons, not eating out, and cooking meals from ingredients that are cheaper. This can be done without necessarily forfeiting nutrition contrary to belief though it takes some work.

2/6/2009 4:35:09 PM

Quote :

"People in poverty spend money on overpriced junk food for the same reason that everybody else does. It's comforting, extremely convenient, packaged attractively, and advertised to us all damn day. It is very difficult for anyone to overcome the billion dollar advertising industry, especially people who don't have the time or energy to fight the messages that are continuously beamed at them from all directions."

[quote]

did you really just post this?


holy shit there is no hope for America.

2/6/2009 4:35:33 PM

Quote :

"Bridget refuses to blame anybody who is poor, doing drugs, or in trouble with the law... there's always some other reason beyond their control"

2/6/2009 4:41:36 PM

Quote :

"I can't tell you EXACTLY how many people are cheating the system, but I can tell you that I've had many friends who used to work at grocery stores commenting on the sheer number of people on food stamps who clearly did not need them nor would they qualify if they reported all their income."

Having been a cashier at the Avent Ferry Food Lion (apparently like so many others on this board), I don't remember asking people to whip out their W-2's and monthly expense spreadsheets when they tried to use food stamps so I could tell if they really needed them.

2/6/2009 4:45:35 PM

But, Judge Judy!

2/6/2009 4:49:44 PM

Quote :

"Prawn Star: I can't tell you EXACTLY how many people are cheating the system, but I can tell you that I've had many friends who used to work at grocery stores commenting on the sheer number of people on food stamps who clearly did not need them nor would they qualify if they reported all their income."

Dude, there was a thread about this a little while ago.

Food stamp programs are actually underenrolled--I'm talking about eligible people who are not getting food stamps.

Anyway, they advertised the things to try to get more people to sign up.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM. Reason : sss]

2/6/2009 4:51:15 PM

Quote :

"Bridget refuses to blame anybody who is poor, doing drugs, or in trouble with the law... there's always some other reason beyond their control."

Wins.
I can't fucking believe she went there....

Hey Bridget, do you read adbusters?
I'll sell you the 2 dozen or so that I've got. You'd love 'em.

Quote :

"Food stamp programs are actually underenrolled."

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2009 4:52:31 PM

^Went where?

2/6/2009 4:52:48 PM

^

Quote :

"It is very difficult for anyone to overcome the billion dollar advertising industry....continuously beamed at them from all directions"

2/6/2009 5:00:10 PM

^Fuck yeah, I took it there. I take it there all the time.

And you're a fool if you don't acknowledge the tremendous impact advertising has on the choices we make.

Why do you think it exists if not to influence us?

Also, what did you think of my other points? I wrote a lot more than that one line.

2/6/2009 5:06:54 PM

BTW: the average monthly benefits per person in 2008 was 101.53.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

2/6/2009 5:10:49 PM

^^That point and the other ones you made are simply excuses and rationalization for lazy, stupid behavior.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : 2]

2/6/2009 5:12:56 PM

^?

I didn't expect that from you.

I wrote 400 hundred words and not a single word appealed to you as a possible explanation for why people have difficulty eating healthy on their food stamps.

Stupid and lazy, huh?

2/6/2009 5:24:54 PM

Quote :

"you're a fool if you don't acknowledge the tremendous impact advertising has on the choices we make."

How did I not acknowledge it? I'm a long-time critic of certain advertising practices, but I'll never oppose their legality. I also don't like the unhealthy menus at some restaurants, but I'll never oppose their legality. I'm not exactly supportive of many industries that offer bad choices, but I'll never, ever oppose their legality. It is a free fucking country. Why do you think that the government should play a role in ensuring that no bad choices are available? (If that's what you're saying.)

Quote :

"Also, what did you think of my other points?"

Fluff. Everyone is dealt a different hand. Some get two pair, some get 9 high. Too fucking bad -- that's life. You accept that, right? Well, coming from a bad home with unhealthy habits, having to walk uphill to the nearest grocery, having to abstain from buying all those fun-looking shiny bags of junk food, etc... these are all just regular life challenges. They aren't, in any way, an excuse to not be responsible. Life is difficult.
If you're too stupid to learn what they teach in school about nutrition, and you then eat unhealthily, that is your fault. Some stupid and lazy people will fail to overcome life's challenges, and will need help -- and as I've said, that help should come solely from privately-funded sources.

In my opinion, BridgetSPK needs to start a meetup group to go around educating poor people about food choices, give some money to larger private groups doing the same, and stop trying to justify the welfare state.

2/6/2009 5:35:57 PM

Quote :

"I didn't expect that from you. I wrote 400 hundred words and not a single word appealed to you as a possible explanation for why people have difficulty eating healthy on their food stamps. Stupid and lazy, huh?"

what can I say, I like to change things up sometimes. Or rather, I'm having a bad day at work and feel like generalizing people. Whatever you want to think.

You put together a nice little synopsis of the sociological factors that impact poor people and their diets. It's obvious that you paid attention in your sociology classes. But the reality is that you CAN put together a decent diet off of $100 a month in food stamps. I've done it. Many others have. If people are gonna stuff their face with junk food and overpriced shit, that's their perogative. But I refuse to subsidize that kind of lifestyle, and I hate to hear people complain about what I believe is an ample budget.

I don't believe that all poor people are lazy and stupid. I think that their behavior can frequently be categorized in such terms, however, and harping on about the socioeconomic pressures that guide them into this behavior is simply rationalization and excuses. If I foolishly spent beyond my means and then went to my parents or my boss and begged for more money, they would tell me to look at my expenditures and figure out a way to cut back, and rightfully so. I don't think it's too much to ask that those on government assistance do the same. I believe in accountability, whether the person in question is smart, stupid, lazy, fat, ugly, disadvantaged, or whatever.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 5:49 PM. Reason : 2]

2/6/2009 5:49:08 PM

^AHA, I didn't pay attention in my sociology classes. I'm actually stupid and lazy.

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: How did I not acknowledge it? I'm a long-time critic of certain advertising practices, but I'll never oppose their legality. I also don't like the unhealthy menus at some restaurants, but I'll never oppose their legality. I'm not exactly supportive of many industries that offer bad choices, but I'll never, ever oppose their legality. It is a free fucking country. Why do you think that the government should play a role in ensuring that no bad choices are available? (If that's what you're saying.)"

I never said anything about legality and the government. All I did was point out that people eat this shit partly because it's so heavily advertised.

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: Fluff. Everyone is dealt a different hand. Some get two pair, some get 9 high. Too fucking bad -- that's life. You accept that, right? Well, coming from a bad home with unhealthy habits, having to walk uphill to the nearest grocery, having to abstain from buying all those fun-looking shiny bags of junk food, etc... these are all just regular life challenges. They aren't, in any way, an excuse to not be responsible. Life is difficult."

Life is difficult, of course. And given that difficulty, I don't think it's fair to strut around calling people stupid and lazy for struggling. You can't possibly know how hard it is for other people. The people who feel that they have "overcome" are always the worst about looking down on others, but that's still no excuse to judge perfect strangers.

We all know individuals that we can point to and be like "That guy is fucking lazy." But you shouldn't denigrate large groups of people with no attempt to understand the unappealing trends you observe.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2009 5:49:22 PM

I've been living on $25 per week for six monthes now. I get a lot of free food these days, but I managed fine without it. I eat extremely well. So what? These contests aren't educational, they're middle fingers directed at the poor. A way for privileged folks to convince themselves they've earned their higher status.

Yes, if you do the research, plan carefully, know how to cook, have a kitchen, and devote the time, you can feast on a few bucks a day. Wonderful. The reality is, people like convience. Prepared foods sell for a reason. Finger wagging from well-off dudes ain't going to change that.

2/6/2009 6:06:44 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe that all poor people are lazy and stupid. I think that their behavior can frequently be categorized in such terms, however, and harping on about the socioeconomic pressures that guide them into this behavior is simply rationalization and excuses. If I foolishly spent beyond my means and then went to my parents or my boss and begged for more money, they would tell me to look at my expenditures and figure out a way to cut back, and rightfully so. I don't think it's too much to ask that those on government assistance do the same. I believe in accountability, whether the person in question is smart, stupid, lazy, fat, ugly, disadvantaged, or whatever."

2/6/2009 7:07:19 PM

Quote :

"The reality is, people like convience. Prepared foods sell for a reason. Finger wagging from well-off dudes ain't going to change that."

The problem is, when well off guys waste their money on convenience and bitch about having no money, people look at them and tell them to stop being so wasteful. When poor people waste their money on convenience, people moan about the plight of the poor and how we need to raise taxes and welfare so they can enjoy convenience.

2/6/2009 7:18:43 PM

^2

What makes you think that any significant number of food stamp recipients wound up that way due to irresponsibility?

^

Quote :

"When poor people waste their money on convenience, people moan about the plight of the poor "

Could you give us an example of poor people wasting their money on convenience?



[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 7:23 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2009 7:20:47 PM

^ Anyone who can't feed two people for $300 / month

See also: cellphones (especially in addition to land lines), high speed internet and cable TV

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM. Reason : fg]

2/6/2009 7:34:38 PM

Quote :

"People in poverty spend money on overpriced junk food for the same reason that everybody else does. It's comforting, extremely convenient, packaged attractively."

Rock on. I just don't understand why said unhealthy habits should be subsidized. Quitting tobacco is hard, does that mean the government should be distributing cigarette stamps? Fuck no it doesn't.

Poor decision making skills should never be subsidized. If you're bound and determined to increase the funding for food stamps, hire more nutritionists who could provide inexpensive menu ideas to recipients. Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. This doesn't mean they have to be fat.

2/6/2009 7:39:37 PM

Quote :

"The problem is, when well off guys waste their money on convenience and bitch about having no money, people look at them and tell them to stop being so wasteful."

Eh, really? Countless folks can handily afford convenience. If people didn't spend money wastefully, vast sectors of the economy would disappear. Outside of the radical scene, I don't see much criticism for folks who buy nice things. Consumer culture rules America.

Quote :

"Jesus said that the poor will always be with us."

I hope we prove him wrong.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 8:50 PM. Reason : no offense]

2/6/2009 8:49:21 PM

Fact: The best way to keep a class of people underfoot in poverty is give them a government handout.

Theory: Mexican immagrants have a reputation for being hard workers. This is because in Mexico, if you don't have a job, you don't have any money, you don't eat.

Interesting Thought: Remember back to Katrina. What was the main reason people didn't leave NO even though they had a weeks notice a hurricane was coming? They didn't have a vehicle. How can a person hold down a job without a vehicle? Most people can't. How does a person survive without a job? Welfare. The people who stayed in NO for the hurricane were waiting for the government to help them out, because that is what they have been doing their entire life. Hence, "The Man" has been keeping them down, ironically by helping them out.


[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 9:52 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2009 9:36:28 PM

None taken. I don't believe in Jesus, nor do I believe in the inherit goodness (or evilness) of man. I think he's got a point though.

To eliminate poverty would mean to eliminate the ability of certain sectors of society to make bad decisions. This is a fundamental limit on liberty (and assume, for the sake of this argument that that freedom exists in a philosophical sense) which I'd prefer we not see.

2/6/2009 9:38:29 PM

Quote :

"Eh, really? Countless folks can handily afford convenience. If people didn't spend money wastefully, vast sectors of the economy would disappear. Outside of the radical scene, I don't see much criticism for folks who buy nice things. Consumer culture rules America. "

Really. People don't get criticized for buying nice things, they get criticized for buying nice things they can't afford. Note that there is plenty of hatred and disdain going about for well off folks that bought McMansions during the housing boom on a salary that could barely afford the payments before the interest rates went up. Note also that there is plenty of sympathy for the "poor" that maybe didn't buy a McMansion but still bought more house than they could afford, but in their case people claim it was the evil bankers that tricked them into buying the house.

I do agree that the amount of criticism has gone down, but I think that had to do with a society which is so well off (even our poor) that we don't talk about preventing people from starving to death, or freezing to death in the winter, we talk about them not being able to have high speed internet or have their own house or have steak for dinner. We've begun to look at luxuries as a right and an entitlement, so we don't criticize people for buying things that, realistically they shouldn't be buying.

2/6/2009 10:32:38 PM

Everybody acts like these hands are just magically dealt to people. Like, hey, kid, sorry to hear about your grandma getting sick. I know she worked hard for forty years, but healthcare is a luxury she didn't earn--you know how it is. But it's okay because honestly that public education you were getting was lame anyway--the only thing you're really gonna learn there is the importance of abstinence and obeying the rules of authority. Seriously, the "college track" that you weren't even on is a joke, and don't get us started on the "vocational" skills you were learning--AHAHA. So go ahead, get a job to help out the family. There are lots of opportunities in the private sector, especially in your area. Nobody's gonna take advantage of you like they did your grandmother. Capitalism is all about treating workers with dignity, we promise.

These things aren't just chance. The system is rigged to deal these hands.

And increasing the food stamp allowance is not the end of the world. It really doesn't cost that much. It's just something they use to distract us from important things like healthcare and education. It's especially good for drawing attention away from the amount of money we spend on corporate welfare. This shit appeals to the nastiest part of us, these horrible ideas we have about poor people being so dumb and lazy. It's bullshit.

In fact, the "stupid, lazy" bit you guys keep pulling out is just y'all's rationalizations to continue to support a system that so obviously perpetuates disparity and suffering.

Quote :

"Rock on. I just don't understand why said unhealthy habits should be subsidized."

?

I don't understand how people can work hard five, six days a week, subsidize everybody else's way of life by not making more than 18, 19 thousand dollars a year. And then people wanna talk shit about them for running out of food stamps.

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 4:37 AM. Reason : Better.]

2/7/2009 4:16:30 AM

Yes yes, we all know that you think that there's some grand conspiracy with the Man™ holding people down and there's just nothing that they themselves could ever do to change their situation because the Man™ won't let them do anything different. No one ever has to take responsibility for themselves because the Man™ and advertising control their every move.

But all that aside, it doesn't matter if increasing the allowance is the end of the world or if it costs that much, the point is, it's entirely unnecessary and there's no need to do it. Especially in a world where the money to increase it won't come from cutting government spending, but from an increase in the taxes for those who don't use the food stamps in the first place.

Quote :

"I don't understand how people can work hard five, six days a week, subsidize everybody else's way of life by not making more than 18, 19 thousand dollars a year. And then people wanna talk shit about them for running out of food stamps. "

Because if they're running out of food stamps, they're not spending them wisely. Look its real simple, food stamps provide up to $323 / month for two people, with benefits decreasing with ability to pay for your own food. $300 / month is more than enough to feed two people for a month, and not just ramen noodles either. $300 is enough to feed two people a number of meals including: hamburgers, steaks, beef and pork pot roast, stir frys, fried chicken, fried pork, various forms of pastas, sweet potatoes, corn, broccoli, milk, butter, carrots, green beans, cheeses, juices, stews and even a few frozen pre-prepped meals for when you "need" convenience. It is easy to keep to a $300 budget and still get all of that food, we do 90% of our shopping at one grocery store, and don't even look for special deals and manage to do all of that for under $300 / month. So when people give these folks shit for running out of food stamps, its because they already stick to a food stamp budget themselves and do just fine.

2/7/2009 9:45:14 AM

Quote :

"People in poverty spend money on overpriced junk food for the same reason that everybody else does. It's comforting, extremely convenient, packaged attractively, and advertised to us all damn day. It is very difficult for anyone to overcome the billion dollar advertising industry, especially people who don't have the time or energy to fight the messages that are continuously beamed at them from all directions."

i have to disagree with that. I still think advertising is a waste of time. I can't even the remember the last time I have bought ANYTHING food related because of an ad anywhere, and I dont think there is anything attractive about junk food packaging. The only reason I ever eat junk food is for convenience, ie if I am at work and hungry and I didn't bring a snack that day, I don't have much of an option if I want to grab a snack but to go to the vending machine, in which case 99% of the time I get a package of crackers. I really don't think it takes a lot of time or energy to "fight" advertisement. All it takes is someone with common sense and self control.

2/7/2009 10:06:02 AM

Quote :

"I don't think it's fair to strut around calling people stupid and lazy for struggling"

\ I never said people who "struggle" are "lazy and stupid". (Are you saying I did? You at least implied it.)

Let's see what I said:
"Generally, (read: generally,) most poor people are poor because they're stupid and/or irresponsible."
"If the reason they're poor is because they're dumb and lazy, then..."
"...people who fail to use books, internet, or other members of their community are stupid and lazy"
"Some stupid and lazy people will fail to overcome life's challenges, and will need help"

Nope, I never said anything remotely close to "calling people stupid and lazy for struggling"
(If I make a generalization, I'll tend to acknowledge that it's a generalization....)

People who are struggling, (currently jumping difficult hurdles, maybe falling down and having to get back up and keep going,) are not lazy. It's the people who look at the hurdles and say, "fuck it -- I'm just gonna drink this free gatorade." and never try, or try once and give up. That is lazy.

Quote :

"But you shouldn't denigrate large groups of people with no attempt to understand the unappealing trends you observe."

If you mean "denigrate" as in "criticize the character of", then yes, people in this "large group", that are defined by being "lazy and stupid" (because they're the only ones I'm referring to, and not all poor people) obviously deserve being denigrated, because they are lazy and stupid. However, if you mean "denigrate" as in "defame", then you're just wrong, as defamation involves "false statements injurious to a person's reputation" Nothing I've said is [knowingly] false. I've not said that all poor people are lazy and stupid. Furthermore, you implied that I've not made attempts to understand trends among poverty. In fact, I've put forth many ideas that clearly reveal that I do understand, let alone that I've attempted to -- but I guess I'll never understand as well as you. It looks a bit like anyone who [rightfully] dismisses the fluff from the last post of page 1 must necessarily be making "no attempt to understand"

Quote :

"The problem is, when well off guys waste their money on convenience and bitch about having no money, people look at them and tell them to stop being so wasteful. When poor people waste their money on convenience, people moan about the plight of the poor and how we need to raise taxes and welfare so they can enjoy convenience."

Exactly. You'll never hear BridgetSPK complain about the plight of rich people who lost their house after they unnecessarily bought a hummer because of the "billion dollar advertising industry....continuously beamed at them from all directions". But as soon as some poor people spend their milk money on junk food, she's all "OMG IT'S SO UNFAIR!"

Quote :

"Fact: The best way to keep a class of people underfoot in poverty is give them a government handout. Theory: Mexican immagrants have a reputation for being hard workers. This is because in Mexico, if you don't have a job, you don't have any money, you don't eat. Interesting Thought: Remember back to Katrina. What was the main reason people didn't leave NO even though they had a weeks notice a hurricane was coming? They didn't have a vehicle. How can a person hold down a job without a vehicle? Most people can't. How does a person survive without a job? Welfare. The people who stayed in NO for the hurricane were waiting for the government to help them out, because that is what they have been doing their entire life. Hence, "The Man" has been keeping them down, ironically by helping them out."

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Government hand-outs create and reinforce poverty.

Quote :

"Necessity is the mother of invention, my friend. if you dont force people to use their brains and fend for themselves at least some of the time, they wont."

Quote :

"These things aren't just chance. The system is rigged to deal these hands."

So what? Life isn't fair. It will never be fair. You can't, and no one should try to change that unchangeable fact. Welfare is just an additional "system", and a harmful and unnecessary one at that. Instead of supporting it, why not address this other "system" that is "rigged to deal these hands"? Why not address the cause of the problem, rather than creating unsustainable quick-fixes that address its symptoms? Private charity will always step up to the challenge -- however, stealing from some to attempt to make things fair for others is still stealing, and is inescapably immoral. What do you not understand about that?

Quote :

"And increasing the food stamp allowance is not the end of the world. It really doesn't cost that much."

And it's 100% unnecessary. Some people, it seems, don't understand what unnecessary means. (It means we don't need it.)

Quote :

"important things like healthcare and education."

Yeah, you have to steal much more of our earnings to pay for those.

Quote :

"drawing attention away from the amount of money we spend on corporate welfare"

I am opposed to all forms of government welfare. In fact, in my opinion, corporate welfare is much worse.

Quote :

"In fact, the "stupid, lazy" bit you guys keep pulling out is just y'all's rationalizations to continue to support a system that so obviously perpetuates disparity and suffering."

You're hopeless, I guess. If that's what you think about us, then I guess you'll never get it.
DISPARITY AND SUFFERING ARE A NATURAL PART OF EVERY LIVING POPULATION.
YOU WILL NOT CHANGE THAT. ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THAT INEVITBLY RESULT IN HARMING OTHERS.
YOU CANNOT WIN. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SUFFERING. YOU ARE A SILLY, FART-DREAMING, BLEEDING-HEART FOOL WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OF LOGIC, REALITY AND HUMAN NATURE. GET A GOD DAMN CLUE.

Quote :

"Man™"

lol

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 10:29 AM. Reason : ]

2/7/2009 10:08:55 AM

Quote :

"Exactly. You'll never hear BridgetSPK complain about the plight of rich people who lost their house after they unnecessarily bought a hummer because of the "billion dollar advertising industry....continuously beamed at them from all directions". But as soon as some poor people spend their milk money on junk food, she's all "OMG IT'S SO UNFAIR!" "

What? Are you kidding here? If someone loses their house because they bought a hummer, they are not rich, they are poor. You don't seem to understand what the words "rich" and "poor" mean. Your statement here is complete nonsense.

Quote :

""Fact: The best way to keep a class of people underfoot in poverty is give them a government handout. Theory: Mexican immagrants have a reputation for being hard workers. This is because in Mexico, if you don't have a job, you don't have any money, you don't eat. Interesting Thought: Remember back to Katrina. What was the main reason people didn't leave NO even though they had a weeks notice a hurricane was coming? They didn't have a vehicle. How can a person hold down a job without a vehicle? Most people can't. How does a person survive without a job? Welfare. The people who stayed in NO for the hurricane were waiting for the government to help them out, because that is what they have been doing their entire life. Hence, "The Man" has been keeping them down, ironically by helping them out." Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Government hand-outs create and reinforce poverty."

It looks like once again, you're forgoing rationality.

Your theory on why mexicans seem to work harder is wrong.

And your belief that more gov. handouts create poverty is also based on nothing. If you look at any other developed country that has less poverty than us, they generally have MORE government "handouts" and vice versa.

2/7/2009 10:25:25 AM

Quote :

"What? Are you kidding here? If someone loses their house because they bought a hummer, they are not rich, they are poor. You don't seem to understand what the words "rich" and "poor" mean. Your statement here is complete nonsense."

Excuse me? Are you a fucking idiot?

You said, " If someone loses their house because they bought a hummer, they are not rich, they are poor." Which is 100% wrong. If you owned your own house in the first place, and had the money to buy the hummer, YOU ARE RICH. Sure, after you lost your house because you spent your money on an expensive and unnecessary car, you're now poor, but I'm not talking about afterwords. Duh. Are you trolling? Poor people don't own their own house and could only dream of having the cash to buy a hummer. How the fuck could you be so goddamn stupid? For you to say that my statement here is complete nonsense, is more laughably ironic than anything I can think of. Who the fuck do you think you are?

Quote :

"If you look at any other developed country that has less poverty than us, they generally have MORE government "handouts" and vice versa."

Apples and oranges. Other countries generally don't count as comparisons, because they aren't america. They don't have our values. They may not even have the concept of individuals and private property. If think it's so good "over there", THEN GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

Quote :

"Your theory on why mexicans seem to work harder is wrong."

No, he makes a good point, whereas you just foam bullshit.

2/7/2009 10:40:56 AM

Quote :

"Stop buying overpriced junk food and learn how to cook. You will save a lot of money that way."

My food is expensive precisely because I can no longer buy junk food. My staple products cost 4 times as much as your staple products.

Thanks for making assumption though.

2/7/2009 10:49:12 AM

That is right. Government handouts do tend to reduce the government statistic known as "poverty". That does not make them desirable in a nation with a strong cultural tradition of self-sufficiency. The American people would must prefer you to spend money fixing the education system.

Really? Beans, rice, and a vitamin pill cost more than McDonalds?

I suspect you might still be eating junkfood, you are just preparing it yourself. Is meat a major ingredient in your home-cooked menu?

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/7/2009 10:51:20 AM

Quote :

"My food is expensive precisely because I can no longer buy junk food. My staple products cost 4 times as much as your staple products. Thanks for making assumption though."

Honest question: What in the world are you buying for food that you need a budget of $600 / month just to feed yourself?

2/7/2009 10:56:55 AM

haha, that is a serious food budget

2/7/2009 11:01:12 AM

Since when is there six weeks in a month?

since you must know, I have to live a gluten-free life.

2/7/2009 11:01:50 AM

300/2 people = 150 X 4 (for your majesty's menu) = 600

2/7/2009 11:07:38 AM

$100 a week x 4 = $400. I only have to feed myself.

2/7/2009 11:08:55 AM

Even at $400 / month, I have to wonder about what all you're buying and making. Admittedly I know very little about the needs of a gluten free diet, but just an examination of gluten free ingredients (http://www.celiac.com/articles/181/1/Safe-Gluten-Free-Food-List-Safe-Ingredients/Page1.html) it looks like the significant thing you need to avoid is heavily processed flours and their derived products. I can see that being a significant challenge, but to quadruple your food costs? Again honest asking, can you go into more detail?

2/7/2009 11:15:03 AM

5 lbs bag of regular multipurpose flour will cost you $5.00. A 24 oz bag of gluten free flour will set you back anywhere between $6-8. A loaf of bread will almost take 1 bag of that flour.

Oh and it isn't heavily processed flours. It's anything that contains, wheat, barely, rye, and processed oats.

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2009 11:20:57 AM

Quote :

" 400 HUNDRED WORDS "

2/7/2009 11:35:09 AM

Yeah, further reading seems to indicate that the ingredient list there is not very detailed. Is there a specific type of four that you need to use for things, or does any non wheat family flour pretty much work? It seems like this is a case where buying in bulk would work best, and you can get a 25lb bag of rice flour from the manufacturer for ~$25, bringing the costs in line with normal flour (http://www.bobsredmill.com/product.php?productid=4008).

Are flour and bread based products your biggest expense, or are there other expenses as well?

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 11:45 AM. Reason : asdf]

2/7/2009 11:42:09 AM

Different recipes call for different types of flour and blends. Depending on the flour used, there are different types of additives that you have to add. largest expense is having to find substitutes for different types of items that you would never expect to have gluten in them.

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2009 11:59:43 AM

Quote :

"Who gives a fuck about welfare? It's 1% of the federal budget. "

Yes -- most people on welfare are too stupid to drag themselves out of it. And laziness probably has something to do with it also.

Who gives a fuck.

Your choices are A) suck it up and pay or B) step over dead bodies on the way to work.

Don't forget all of the crime and looting that will accompany choice B. I, for one, would like to feel safe when I walk around knowing that the poor are pacified somewhat rather than "teaching them a lesson." I'm not a fucking teacher. I don't give a shit.

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2009 12:00:14 PM

Quote :

"food budget"

Let's not forget that small groups of neighbors, friends, family, etc. can all pool some of their money, alternate buying bulk items for the group, cook large meals for the group, or otherwise share the financial and labor burden involved in food shopping and preparation. Sharing and community is very important.

Quote :

"self-sufficiency"

...really extends to "small-group sufficiency" -- Everyone doesn't need to be their own fully-isolated hermit.
It's really about that line between being given something and taking something.

Quote :

"I, for one, would like to feel safe when I walk around knowing that the poor are pacified somewhat rather than "teaching them a lesson.""

No, them learning how to be responsible for themselves is paramount. Besides, it's not like there wouldn't still be charity -- it would just be funded solely from private sources. There would still be a "net" to catch people from hitting the very bottom -- it just wouldn't be funded by taxes. Sure, some small number of poor people will always "slip through the cracks" no matter what we do.... and the crime associated with that is far less a threat than the socialist-style welfare-state alternative.

2/7/2009 12:21:02 PM

You assume a lot.

Maybe in fairyland, the previously retarded learn lessons and get jobs, charities expand overnight to cover everyones welfare benefits, and monkeys fly out of my butt.

On earth, none of that shit happens.

I know. Its not fair that we give them .05 percent of our income. Its also not fair that they were born in abject poverty.

2/7/2009 2:09:05 PM

^

What a pointless post... (other than to demonstrate your stupidity.)

Quote :

"previously retarded learn lessons and get jobs"

....never said that.

Quote :

" charities expand overnight to cover everyones welfare benefits"

....never said that.

(straw-man = you arguing against something that no one has actually said.)

Quote :

"Its not fair that we give them .05 percent of our income"

It's taken from us, not given by us.

Quote :

"Its also not fair that they were born in abject poverty"

I did say, many times, that life isn't fair. (you=fail)

2/7/2009 2:34:34 PM

Ok. Well if you say something and then say you didn't say it then there's no point in continuing this further.

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Reason : I forgot the snide comments. So here --> FAIL and LOL]

2/7/2009 2:58:18 PM

→

2/7/2009 3:27:01 PM