A small trip to the grocery...a large aggravation.

[iamwhatiseem]

I agree with the OP opinion ... Don't care that much about what sorts of 'food' she bought (if you even want to categorize it as food), but the cigs got me.

I live in, according to many Americans, a "socialist" country of Sweden. And I am disgusted by the idea of people spending the state's money on such shit as alcohol and cigarettes (not to mention other drugs).

Sorry, but once you take money from the government, your 'liberty' should be in certain aspects a bit abridged. Once you're making your own money again - stick it up your ass, for all I care ...

Just an opinion

She used her OWN money to buy the ciggs.

Simple math escapes you I see ...

It seems to escape a number of people here.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

She used her OWN money to buy the ciggs.

After spending an equal amount of taxpayer dollars on snack food.

Which is food. Is it good for you nutritionally and healthwise? Probably not. Could you buy fresh fruits and vegetables and make the money go further? Probably. But bottom line, she spent her gubmint food bucks on food.

Sorry, beyond the technical, Soda pop is not food.
And no matter what hysterical premise some here try to make out - I will never agree that it is the governments place to take money from one citizen and buy Mountain Dew for another with it.

Food provided to families via taxpayer dollars should absolutely be regulated. They can buy the soda pop and cheese popcorn with their own money.

 

[Sheldon]

Do we know if this woman had children?

I don't think so.

My example didn't have any either.

See, I would lay good money down that the OP would be one of the first to whine about real (or proposed) food police from the 'healthcare bill'. I would be in agreement with him - it's not the government's business or anyone else's for that matter, what I eat.

Yet he seems not to have a problem making it his business what someone on assistance buys.

I'm trying to reconcile that dichotomy and all I come up with is hypocrisy peppered with some need to manufacture a situation where he can feel superior.

Si Modo wins the thread. And again, nobody even knows if these cigs were hers or if she was buying them for someone else with their cash.

But at least this lady got fifteen seconds of USMB fame.

 

[Neser Boha]

Ok, let's look at it through my logic

Let's take my current financial situation and compare it to that woman's financial situation. Only, I don't take welfare money, my boyfriend takes care of the bulk of the financial burden, while I supplement only the food. I work part-time at a restaurant (because I can't currently find a better job since my Swedish sucks) and I save the rest of my money for 'the rainy day' - for both of us.

So, let's say he makes about 3.5 times more than I do, therefore he pays the rent, utilities and for food when we go out (which is about once a month at this point. Upon agreement, I pay for groceries and cover my own individual expenses (bus card, clothes, etc.)

If I went out and bought myself a pair of Dolce Gabbana shoes that I don't need, do you think he'd have a say about it since it really is 'his' money that I'm spending (even though it's techincally mine, but we pool it and he pays all the bills, etc.)? Do you think he'd be happy about it since we are glad we have enough for food, bills and maybe a little on the side for entertainment/clothes? Shouldn't I just stick to buying stuff we need - or I need.

That's the rationale. The state is the boyfriend and the woman is me. If I started smoking right now, my boyfriend would get royally upset with me because it would be DISRESPECTFUL and INCONSIDERATE of me and he'd request that I stop immediately. Also, if I decided to go out and party like it's 1999, I'm pretty sure he'd have a say about that too. And I get on his ass about spending too much as well as we're expecting a family now, but that's beside the point.

Just a little bit of perspective ...

 

[Paulie]

After spending an equal amount of taxpayer dollars on snack food.

Which is food. Is it good for you nutritionally and healthwise? Probably not. Could you buy fresh fruits and vegetables and make the money go further? Probably. But bottom line, she spent her gubmint food bucks on food.

Sorry, beyond the technical, Soda pop is not food.
And no matter what hysterical premise some here try to make out - I will never agree that it is the governments place to take money from one citizen and buy Mountain Dew for another with it.

Food provided to families via taxpayer dollars should absolutely be regulated. They can buy the soda pop and cheese popcorn with their own money.

So because someone is less fortunate financially and needs the assistance to be able to obtain food, they should have limited freedom in what they eat?

The regulation should go no further than merely making sure it is only FOOD being bought, and nothing more. Why in the ******* world you would care what someone decides to obtain and eat with their food money is beyond me.

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

 

[Middleman]

Which is food. Is it good for you nutritionally and healthwise? Probably not. Could you buy fresh fruits and vegetables and make the money go further? Probably. But bottom line, she spent her gubmint food bucks on food.

Sorry, beyond the technical, Soda pop is not food.
And no matter what hysterical premise some here try to make out - I will never agree that it is the governments place to take money from one citizen and buy Mountain Dew for another with it.

Food provided to families via taxpayer dollars should absolutely be regulated. They can buy the soda pop and cheese popcorn with their own money.

So because someone is less fortunate financially and needs the assistance to be able to obtain food, they should have limited freedom in what they eat?

The regulation should go no further than merely making sure it is only FOOD being bought, and nothing more. Why in the ******* world you would care what someone decides to obtain and eat with their food money is beyond me.

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

And why can't you state your case without using the word '*******' (twice)? Do you think that helps convince people?

 

[Paulie]

Sorry, beyond the technical, Soda pop is not food.
And no matter what hysterical premise some here try to make out - I will never agree that it is the governments place to take money from one citizen and buy Mountain Dew for another with it.

Food provided to families via taxpayer dollars should absolutely be regulated. They can buy the soda pop and cheese popcorn with their own money.

So because someone is less fortunate financially and needs the assistance to be able to obtain food, they should have limited freedom in what they eat?

The regulation should go no further than merely making sure it is only FOOD being bought, and nothing more. Why in the ******* world you would care what someone decides to obtain and eat with their food money is beyond me.

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

And why can't you state your case without using the word '*******' (twice)? Do you think that helps convince people?

I'm sorry about your virgin eyes.

 

[Si modo]

Which is food. Is it good for you nutritionally and healthwise? Probably not. Could you buy fresh fruits and vegetables and make the money go further? Probably. But bottom line, she spent her gubmint food bucks on food.

Sorry, beyond the technical, Soda pop is not food.
And no matter what hysterical premise some here try to make out - I will never agree that it is the governments place to take money from one citizen and buy Mountain Dew for another with it.

Food provided to families via taxpayer dollars should absolutely be regulated. They can buy the soda pop and cheese popcorn with their own money.

So because someone is less fortunate financially and needs the assistance to be able to obtain food, they should have limited freedom in what they eat?

The regulation should go no further than merely making sure it is only FOOD being bought, and nothing more. Why in the ******* world you would care what someone decides to obtain and eat with their food money is beyond me.

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

[Emphasis added]

That's our Iam.

 

[boedicca]

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

It's more authoritarian to make such people wards of the state to begin with.

Just sayin'.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry, beyond the technical, Soda pop is not food.
And no matter what hysterical premise some here try to make out - I will never agree that it is the governments place to take money from one citizen and buy Mountain Dew for another with it.

Food provided to families via taxpayer dollars should absolutely be regulated. They can buy the soda pop and cheese popcorn with their own money.

So because someone is less fortunate financially and needs the assistance to be able to obtain food, they should have limited freedom in what they eat?

The regulation should go no further than merely making sure it is only FOOD being bought, and nothing more. Why in the ******* world you would care what someone decides to obtain and eat with their food money is beyond me.

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

And why can't you state your case without using the word '*******' (twice)? Do you think that helps convince people?

It convinced me.

 

[del]

So because someone is less fortunate financially and needs the assistance to be able to obtain food, they should have limited freedom in what they eat?

The regulation should go no further than merely making sure it is only FOOD being bought, and nothing more. Why in the ******* world you would care what someone decides to obtain and eat with their food money is beyond me.

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

And why can't you state your case without using the word '*******' (twice)? Do you think that helps convince people?

It convinced me.

******* a right

 

[Paulie]

So because someone is less fortunate financially and needs the assistance to be able to obtain food, they should have limited freedom in what they eat?

The regulation should go no further than merely making sure it is only FOOD being bought, and nothing more. Why in the ******* world you would care what someone decides to obtain and eat with their food money is beyond me.

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

And why can't you state your case without using the word '*******' (twice)? Do you think that helps convince people?

It convinced me.

Remember when you used to use that kind of thing against me for being a libertarian?

The good old days

But seriously though, even though I think the food assistance programs are highly flawed, I don't have much of a problem with some of my tax dollars feeding a needy family. It's a shame the system is so screwed up from fraud though. In a perfect world, with a perfect program, I'm totally cool with it.

 

[kwc57]

After spending an equal amount of taxpayer dollars on snack food.

Which is food. Is it good for you nutritionally and healthwise? Probably not. Could you buy fresh fruits and vegetables and make the money go further? Probably. But bottom line, she spent her gubmint food bucks on food.

Sorry, beyond the technical, Soda pop is not food.
And no matter what hysterical premise some here try to make out - I will never agree that it is the governments place to take money from one citizen and buy Mountain Dew for another with it.

Food provided to families via taxpayer dollars should absolutely be regulated. They can buy the soda pop and cheese popcorn with their own money.

It is regulated. Always has been. Way back in the dark ages (early to mid 70's when I was in high school), I worked in a gricery store. Back when food stamps were printed on paper. We checkers hated dealing with the monopoly money. Food stamps can only be used for food items. You can't buy charcoal, toilet paper, cleaning supplies, toiletries, make-up, tobacco, alcohol, etc. what you can buy are food items. Any food items, whether they be good and healthy for you or not. Is a grilled chicken breast, steamed vegetables, a slice of whole wheat bread and a glass of green tea better for you than a Swanson's Hungry Man frozen dinner? Yes. Will both fill you up and provide nutrition? Yes. Do you really want a teenage checker in a grocery store micro-policing what a welfare receipiant can and can not eat?

 

[Paulie]

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some ******* authoritarian bullshit right there.

It's more authoritarian to make such people wards of the state to begin with.

Just sayin'.

If there were zero success stories about people eventually obtaining a better financial lifestyle and exiting the food assistance program, I'd agree with you.

But there are plenty.

 

[Samson]

Ok, let's look at it through my logic

Let's take my current financial situation and compare it to that woman's financial situation. Only, I don't take welfare money, my boyfriend takes care of the bulk of the financial burden, while I supplement only the food. I work part-time at a restaurant (because I can't currently find a better job since my Swedish sucks) and I save the rest of my money for 'the rainy day' - for both of us.

So, let's say he makes about 3.5 times more than I do, therefore he pays the rent, utilities and for food when we go out (which is about once a month at this point. Upon agreement, I pay for groceries and cover my own individual expenses (bus card, clothes, etc.)

If I went out and bought myself a pair of Dolce Gabbana shoes that I don't need, do you think he'd have a say about it since it really is 'his' money that I'm spending (even though it's techincally mine, but we pool it and he pays all the bills, etc.)? Do you think he'd be happy about it since we are glad we have enough for food, bills and maybe a little on the side for entertainment/clothes? Shouldn't I just stick to buying stuff we need - or I need.

That's the rationale. The state is the boyfriend and the woman is me. If I started smoking right now, my boyfriend would get royally upset with me because it would be DISRESPECTFUL and INCONSIDERATE of me and he'd request that I stop immediately. Also, if I decided to go out and party like it's 1999, I'm pretty sure he'd have a say about that too. And I get on his ass about spending too much as well as we're expecting a family now, but that's beside the point.

Just a little bit of perspective ...

Ah.....youth is wonderful, isn't it?

You should apply for a US government loan so that you could afford to party like it's 1999.

 

[Samson]

And why can't you state your case without using the word '*******' (twice)? Do you think that helps convince people?

It convinced me.

******* a right

Mr. Language says that's not a complete sentence.

 

[del]

It convinced me.

******* a right

Mr. Language says that's not a complete sentence.

******* a right

 

[Samson]

I agree with the OP opinion ... Don't care that much about what sorts of 'food' she bought (if you even want to categorize it as food), but the cigs got me.

I live in, according to many Americans, a "socialist" country of Sweden. And I am disgusted by the idea of people spending the state's money on such shit as alcohol and cigarettes (not to mention other drugs).

Sorry, but once you take money from the government, your 'liberty' should be in certain aspects a bit abridged. Once you're making your own money again - stick it up your ass, for all I care ...

Just an opinion

She used her OWN money to buy the ciggs.

Simple math escapes you I see ...

But deeper thought escapes you I see...

The state gave her food stamps based on her reported income.

She used cash to buy the cigs, not food stamps.

The tax on the cigs probably only covered half the cost of what she bought.

The tax on cigarettes is clearly to little, but perhaps a genius like yourself would like to check my work from earlier in the thread?

i dont thing it was the food that got him...i think it was the 3 packs of ciggies

I wonder if the tax on the cigs was enough to cover the cost of the

4 -12 packs of soda pop.
2 - packages of bologna.
1 giant bag of cheese-ball puffs.
1 giant bag of cheese popcorn.
1 loaf of bread.

Hmmmm....let me get out the ol stubby pencil (no smart ass jokes, boe)

4 -12 packs of soda pop.= $12
2 - packages of bologna= 3
1 giant bag of cheese-ball puffs.=3
1 giant bag of cheese popcorn.=4
1 loaf of bread.=2

Total = $24.00

I'm gonna guess cigs are about $6/pack......with $4/pack tax X 3 = $12.00

Mr. Math says: Clearly the tabacco tax isn't nearly high enough.

 

[Sheldon]

It convinced me.

******* a right

Mr. Language says that's not a complete sentence.

del has problems with the American language. His diction is off. I've told him to GTFO of USMB if he can't learn to type American, but apparently he's still here breaking the rules of grammar with impunity.

 

[del]

******* a right

Mr. Language says that's not a complete sentence.

del has problems with the American language. His diction is off. I've told him to GTFO of USMB if he can't learn to type American, but apparently he's still here breaking the rules of grammar with impunity.

Przeprowadzenie miłości a prawo