Friday will be a bad day to be hungry.

[IlarMeilyr]

"Just because YOU'VE been poor" followed by my user name?

No. I read you just fine.

No. You didn't read me very well at all. Not unexpected.

YOU intoned that YOU had been "poor" as though that fact somehow qualified you to pontificate authoritatively. It doesn't.

I then turned to your rather silly thesis.

When I directed my attention to THAT, it DID change the use of the word "you." Thus, as is often the case, YOU got confused. You MUST be used to that by now. You clearly have had a lifetime's worth of experience being totally confused. Still, you said what you said and it was lame.

Now, back to reality:

I don't care about whether you've been poor or not. That factor is irrelevant to the thesis you are offering.

If the government funds (rounding off the numbers here) a "poor" family of four a maximum of about $630.00 per month for food but, then, ADDS roughly $30.00 per month to that allotment on an allegedly temporary basis, THEN it is not CUTTING the amount GIVEN to the poor to terminate the TEMPORARY additional allotment at the end of the "temporary" time-period established at the outset.

The government didn't GIVE a "raise." The government granted a TEMPORARY increase --

and then, as the word "temporary" itself actually denotes, the increase terminated.

There has LONG been a debate about the wisdom of making "the poor" dependent on the dole. But putting that part of the discussion on a back burner, I am just throwing the flag on YOUR own OP argument.

Granting a hand-out of "X" dollars per month -- plus a temporary "Y" dollars per month -- does NOT constitute a "cut" when the period for the temporary additional amount of "Y" dollars per month comes to its predesignated end.

If you'd been properly educated, you would know that you should have used the word "one" rather than "you." All this could have been easily averted if you spoke proper English.

If YOU had a proper education (at least one that stuck) you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. For, as you SHOULD know, the use of the word "you" is understood in our idiom to refer either to the singular or to the plural.

Must suck to be you.

In any event, your limited grasp of proper English grammar is not the issue. What IS the issue is your inability to employ logic.

But don't let that deter you, Boopie. Muddle on poor lass.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

By a literal reading of the ignorant thread headline, is it fair to assume that poor deluded, illogical and addled Boopie imagines that there are "good days" to be hungry?

 

[alan1]

I can but try.

People on SNAP need to get a job.

Grandma is on SNAP. Therefore, grandma needs to get a job.

I'm pretty sure grandma is on social security, not SNAP.
I guess that's why I didn't understand the point. The point was wrong.
Oddly enough, you understood it. I guess that makes you wrong.

You're pretty sure? You are probably wrong. A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP. Therefore and ergo - no. You're wrong, again/still/some more.

Really? it is?
Perhaps you can direct me to information to support your claim that "A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP", please define "great many" while you are at it.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm pretty sure grandma is on social security, not SNAP.
I guess that's why I didn't understand the point. The point was wrong.
Oddly enough, you understood it. I guess that makes you wrong.

You're pretty sure? You are probably wrong. A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP. Therefore and ergo - no. You're wrong, again/still/some more.

Really? it is?
Perhaps you can direct me to information to support your claim that "A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP", please define "great many" while you are at it.

I'd love to stay here and entertain you, but I start work now. And you're just whining because - well, apparently that's what you do.

You're just as capable of hitting Google as I am.

Or am I wrong about that, too.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You're pretty sure? You are probably wrong. A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP. Therefore and ergo - no. You're wrong, again/still/some more.

Really? it is?
Perhaps you can direct me to information to support your claim that "A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP", please define "great many" while you are at it.

I'd love to stay here and entertain you, but I start work now. And you're just whining because - well, apparently that's what you do.

You're just as capable of hitting Google as I am.

Or am I wrong about that, too.

It would have been easier and more honest if you'd just admitted that you had no facts to support your claim.

 

[alan1]

"We have calls all the time, ‘I'm without food. Can you help me a little bit this week; I have nothing to eat.' We had a lady in the office last week saying she needed food. We cover up, we fixed her a basket of food enough to hold her over a couple of weeks," said Council member Brenda Pointer.

Officials at the Council also expect a higher demand on their daily meal program, especially as the temperatures continue to drop. Pointer said often seniors must cut back on their heating expenses in order to afford food.

Elderly SNAP recipients turn to food banks after cuts - WAFF-TV: News, Weather and Sports for Huntsville, AL

Nice, now tell me the age of the person and if they were actually on SS. Nothing in the article proves that the recipient was elderly.
Actually, nothing in the article proves that the recipient was in need, it just states that they were.
I am glad that they have a "basket" large enough to "hold her over a couple of weeks". Must be a large basket.
But, the good news is that an independent charity is providing for her. Charitable people do stuff like that. Us charitable people would have more money for charity if the government wasn't taking it from us for their chosen charity.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

After thinking about it, it doesn't make sense to say Friday was a bad day to be hungry. The first of the month is when the benefits get loaded on the cards, so the poor would have their full allotment.

Nov 30th is probably the day that it would be bad to be hungry, it would seem.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

After thinking about it, it doesn't make sense to say Friday was a bad day to be hungry. The first of the month is when the benefits get loaded on the cards, so the poor would have their full allotment.

Nov 30th is probably the day that it would be bad to be hungry, it would seem.

What day would it be good to be hungry?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

After thinking about it, it doesn't make sense to say Friday was a bad day to be hungry. The first of the month is when the benefits get loaded on the cards, so the poor would have their full allotment.

Nov 30th is probably the day that it would be bad to be hungry, it would seem.

What day would it be good to be hungry?

Thanksgiving, because the hungrier you are, the more bird you can eat.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

After thinking about it, it doesn't make sense to say Friday was a bad day to be hungry. The first of the month is when the benefits get loaded on the cards, so the poor would have their full allotment.

Nov 30th is probably the day that it would be bad to be hungry, it would seem.

What day would it be good to be hungry?

Thanksgiving, because the hungrier you are, the more bird you can eat.

Ah.

You are wise beyond Boopie's years.

 

[alan1]

You're pretty sure? You are probably wrong. A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP. Therefore and ergo - no. You're wrong, again/still/some more.

Really? it is?
Perhaps you can direct me to information to support your claim that "A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP", please define "great many" while you are at it.

I'd love to stay here and entertain you, but I start work now. And you're just whining because - well, apparently that's what you do.

You're just as capable of hitting Google as I am.

Or am I wrong about that, too.

I guess google didn't give you the results you wanted, so now you want to make it my responsibility to prove your claims. Intelligence doesn't work that way.

 

[BlackSand]

What day would it be good to be hungry?

Every day you have a Jenny Craig meeting ...

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What day would it be good to be hungry?

Every day you have a Jenny Craig meeting ...

.

WRONG!

The ideal is to feel full and satisfied.

 

[laughinReaper]

BAD DAY FOR BOMQEESHA AND HER 14 BABY THUGS

I gotta agree with Leno on this, America is the only country in the world where being poor means being fat. Does Bomqeesha look like she's going hungry to you? lol

 

[skookerasbil]

This thread is gay

 

[PixieStix]

I was in the grocery store today, and there was this couple of females (looked like mother and daughter) That had 2 carts over filling stacked so high all I could see was the mom's head. Guess how they paid? And guess what else, I had no choice but to stand watch and think.

 

[Pauli007001]

No. You didn't read me very well at all. Not unexpected.

YOU intoned that YOU had been "poor" as though that fact somehow qualified you to pontificate authoritatively. It doesn't.

I then turned to your rather silly thesis.

When I directed my attention to THAT, it DID change the use of the word "you." Thus, as is often the case, YOU got confused. You MUST be used to that by now. You clearly have had a lifetime's worth of experience being totally confused. Still, you said what you said and it was lame.

Now, back to reality:

I don't care about whether you've been poor or not. That factor is irrelevant to the thesis you are offering.

If the government funds (rounding off the numbers here) a "poor" family of four a maximum of about $630.00 per month for food but, then, ADDS roughly $30.00 per month to that allotment on an allegedly temporary basis, THEN it is not CUTTING the amount GIVEN to the poor to terminate the TEMPORARY additional allotment at the end of the "temporary" time-period established at the outset.

The government didn't GIVE a "raise." The government granted a TEMPORARY increase --

and then, as the word "temporary" itself actually denotes, the increase terminated.

There has LONG been a debate about the wisdom of making "the poor" dependent on the dole. But putting that part of the discussion on a back burner, I am just throwing the flag on YOUR own OP argument.

Granting a hand-out of "X" dollars per month -- plus a temporary "Y" dollars per month -- does NOT constitute a "cut" when the period for the temporary additional amount of "Y" dollars per month comes to its predesignated end.

If you'd been properly educated, you would know that you should have used the word "one" rather than "you." All this could have been easily averted if you spoke proper English.

If YOU had a proper education (at least one that stuck) you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. For, as you SHOULD know, the use of the word "you" is understood in our idiom to refer either to the singular or to the plural.

Must suck to be you.

In any event, your limited grasp of proper English grammar is not the issue. What IS the issue is your inability to employ logic.

But don't let that deter you, Boopie. Muddle on poor lass.

Proper English Grammer?
Such a thing is non existent.
Much as proper English spelling.

Language is an art, not a science.
Shakespeare?
Terrible and inconsistent grammar.
His spelling was worse.

English is not a language subject to the almost mathematical accuracy of some Arabic dialects, or some Asian languages.
As a language it has a greater freedom than French or Italian.
Ask Chaucer.

 

[Esmeralda]

Actually, they have to qualify by taking an entrance exam to get into a high school.

And what are you going to do with them when they fail the entrance exam? Huh? Every kid in America has to go to school until the age of 16. That is required. How can we require that on the one hand but disallow them from entering school because they fail an entrance exam? What will you do, put them back in middle school, with younger, littler kids? What if they fail the high school entrance exam year after year? Do you keep them in middle school until the age of 16 then let them drop out? You want a country with an even higher rate of drop outs than we already have? People need to get it into their thick skulls this isn't Japan and you cannot do things the way they do them in Japan. Not to mention the very high suicide rate they have among teenagers there becaue of the pressure the culture puts on them.

First, all I stated was the fact of what happens in Japan - not whether I agreed or not.

Secondly, as to your question, if they can't pass an entrance exam, would that not be a great indicator of their not receiving a quality education? And an indicator something needs to change?

Once again, I am not advocating one way or the other. You seem to, though, willing to just push a child through a system whether they have mastered it our not. Tell me where that kid will be in another 5 years? If we got them through without their having mastered it, would the chance of suicide not then occur as well? We are just prolonging the inevitable, rather than helping them to learn how to succeed in life.

No, in no way did I advocate pushing children through a system they have not 'mastered.' But you cannot keep a large, mature child back in middle school when all his/her contemporaries are in high school. All schools in America, primary through high school, have special needs teachers and special need classes. We let kids into high school no matter what their ability and have them work with special needs teachers. The fact their abilities are low is not the fault of the schools but the fault of special needs these kids have regarding social, cognitive, or emotional issues. This is what is different in America as opposed to Japan: such problems are much more common in America, or at least more often recognized. We don't push our kids to succeed despite their special needs or abilities; we don't push success on our kids to the point they are regularly committing suicide.

Not everyone is equal. Not everyone is destined to do well academically. My position is that certain kids should be tracked for college and others for vocational studies. When schools accept that as a way of functioning, everyone will be happier

 

[Unkotare]

Proper English Grammer [sic]?
Such a thing is non existent.
Much as proper English spelling.

Language is an art, not a science.
Shakespeare?
Terrible and inconsistent grammar.
His spelling was worse.

English is not a language subject to the almost mathematical accuracy of some Arabic dialects, or some Asian languages.
As a language it has a greater freedom than French or Italian.
Ask Chaucer.

Wow. All other arguments on this thread aside, you are way off here.

 

[Bfgrn]

Please tell me what the "valid point" is, because I missed it.
Perhaps you can communicate it in a manner that I can understand.

I can but try.

People on SNAP need to get a job.

Grandma is on SNAP. Therefore, grandma needs to get a job.

I'm pretty sure grandma is on social security, not SNAP.
I guess that's why I didn't understand the point. The point was wrong.
Oddly enough, you understood it. I guess that makes you wrong.

You are wrong...

47M Americans hit by food stamp cuts starting today

Vulnerable populations will be hardest hit by the cuts. In New York, more than 1 million elderly people or those with disabilities will feel the impact, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank. About 2.3 million children in both California and Texas will be affected.

In California overall, the cuts will affect more than 4 million residents and will amount to the equivalent of losing roughly 21 individual meals per month, based on calculations used by the Department of Agriculture, the San Jose Mercury News reports.

Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, head of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks, says the state's charities and food pantries, which distributed $227 million in food to needy residents in 2012, will not be able to make up a $190 million deficit in 2014, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reports.

"We will have to do what low-income people do, which is reduce the amount of food we hand out and ration," she said. Hamler-Fugitt tells the newspaper that she expects increased hunger in the state, affecting the health of senior citizens and people with disabilities and forcing more school children to go to classes without eating.

47M Americans hit by food stamp cuts starting today

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)