aaron wrote:
i agree with the sentiment that assholes who game the system are ruining it for those truly in need, but making judgement calls on who is "truly in need" based on what kind of car they drive or phone they have is baseless and inaccurate, to put it lightly.
Name one reason why someone with the latest and greatest in fashionable tech, clothes, and vehicles should rate assistance in buying food for the taxpayers?
@Applequeso - it's not like I stalk the people but if I'm behind them in line and then parked near them in the parking lot, it's not like I could fail to take note.
maybe they've had that car for quite some time? maybe they're stuck in a lease or upside-down on the payments? maybe it was a gift? maybe they just lost their job? maybe it's not even their car?
the point here is that you know nothing about that person or their life and the fact that they are abusing government assistance because they have an iphone is an argument that, at best, is rooted in jealousy. using material goods as a clear-cut definition of someone's financial status is a really poor way of getting a good idea of the entire picture. and, really, you'll never get the entire picture, because it's none of your business to begin with. (i'm using "you" in second person, here)
i have tons of anecdotal evidence that might support this but i'd rather utilize facts than empiricism.
How do you know it was their car and not a ride they were getting or a vehicle they were borrowing? How do you know those "fancy phones" weren't gifts or used items?
Flake wrote:
@Applequeso - it's not like I stalk the people but if I'm behind them in line and then parked near them in the parking lot, it's not like I could fail to take note.
I just find it suspect. Sounds like you're compositing at best an extreme handful of incidents.
It's uncommon enough to be behind a stranger in line who happens to be parked near you as well, much less that they're actually still in the parking lot by the time you pay for your own stuff and make your way out there. Combine that with it just happening to be someone fitting this scenario...
aaron wrote:
i agree with the sentiment that assholes who game the system are ruining it for those truly in need, but making judgement calls on who is "truly in need" based on what kind of car they drive or phone they have is baseless and inaccurate, to put it lightly.
Name one reason why someone with the latest and greatest in fashionable tech, clothes, and vehicles should rate assistance in buying food from the taxpayers?.
if you lost your job last month, but had previously bought an iphone and new clothes when you were making a living, should you be ineligible for govt. help?
If you have nice family who buy you the things you can't afford to spend on yourself, should you now be excluded from WIC?
I have seen one case similar to what Flake was saying, at a Handy Andy. I personally found that case very suspect, seeing as the brand new BMW still had paper plates on it. I just don't really see someone who is actually in need of food stamps having a brand new car like that, unless it is a case where they are borrowing it or some such.
Forlorn Drifter wrote:I have seen one case similar to what Flake was saying, at a Handy Andy. I personally found that case very suspect, seeing as the brand new BMW still had paper plates on it. I just don't really see someone who is actually in need of food stamps having a brand new car like that, unless it is a case where they are borrowing it or some such.
right, ok, sure, but the point here is, who the fuck cares? who appointed you the judge of that person's character or right to receive government assistance? the point of the program is to help people. Not to "help people but."
dsheinem wrote:If you have nice family who buy you the things you can't afford to spend on yourself, should you now be excluded from WIC?
In this case, they should want to exclude themselves. They should tell their family to help with food and whatnot and not frivolous crap so they're not a burden on the government. But there's no stigma to being on welfare.
Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended...so the world might be mended.
aaron wrote:maybe they've had that car for quite some time? maybe they're stuck in a lease or upside-down on the payments? maybe it was a gift? maybe they just lost their job? maybe it's not even their car?
Means Tested. It's rarely applied because (almost universally) states spend nearly no money on auditing and examining claims.
Next time you're driving through a run down neighborhood, look closely at how nice the cars are versus the crappy homes they are parked in front of. SUV's with $1000 rims. Then keep an eye out for how many houses have satellite TV dishes.
You see, I agree that welfare options are necessary. I think that a social safety net gives people a chance to fall down and pick themselves back up. A single mother struggling to pay the bills? I'll never question her receiving WIC. A disabled man living in a state with terrible healthcare (i.e. My own state of Texas, sadly) is a definite candidate for a little support. But when I see able bodied people enjoying numerous luxuries using public funds to buy their food, it's not jealousy that makes me upset or suspicious. It's frustration at the likelihood that the person in question represents my tax dollars being wasted when there is someone else in true need who is being shut out of the system.
And you want to know who appointed me to care? I did when I paid my taxes.
Maybe now Nintendo will acknowledge Metroid has a fanbase?
We are closely walking on the hooves of perceived value. There are plenty of people, as there always have been, who take advantage of "the system" and feel entitled to it. Yes, a broke person can drive a Lexus. Doesn't mean they own it.
Yes a person can use food stamps while using an iPhone5. Doesn't mean they own it or will have it for long.
And yes, a person can drive a $80k car and live in a section eight apartment.
Nothing wrong with shaking your head at these people. FFS, Retro Dude spent 20% of his paycheck on earbuds instead of decent food. It's their decision on how they spend their money.
I'm sure my family was probably the subject of an anecdote like this. My mom went to great lengths to try and make sure we didn't look or feel "poor," even though she had a pretty crappy income. She'd go without lunches and delay a lot of medical stuff for herself to pay for it sometimes (and of course never actually told us).
This is a pretty common thing among those in poverty I imagine. When you don't have much, those status symbols become all the more important to you.
I have no idea what we would've done without any gov't assistance growing up.
Flake wrote:Then keep an eye out for how many houses have satellite TV dishes.
Woah woah woah on this one. If the house is a rental and a previous tenant had gotten satellite, they could've left the dish behind when the moved. Many homes I've lived in had dishes on them, even though we didn't actually have service. Hell my current house has a dish and we don't have any kind of cable at all.
Last edited by AppleQueso on Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Forlorn Drifter wrote:I have seen one case similar to what Flake was saying, at a Handy Andy. I personally found that case very suspect, seeing as the brand new BMW still had paper plates on it. I just don't really see someone who is actually in need of food stamps having a brand new car like that, unless it is a case where they are borrowing it or some such.
right, ok, sure, but the point here is, who the fuck cares? who appointed you the judge of that person's character or right to receive government assistance? the point of the program is to help people. Not to "help people but."
Well, in the case that person did own the car, then they are a flat out idiot who shouldn't get government help. If you are on food stamps and decide to buy a high dollar expensive car like that, you really shouldn't be given help anymore.
