Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Actually buying and preparing food yourself is much cheaper than fast food if you don't go overboard and buy food you don't end up eating and take advantage of sales.

I understand being broke, and I'm not saying I don't eat like shit, but I do it with what little money I have and I pay for my insurance. We've been surviving in my house on $540 a month while I'm in school. Sure as hell hasn't been easy and I got denied food stamps because I have no kids and I'm not knocked up. I understand fast food being cheaper and easier. After getting up at 4am and being at clinicals until 7pm, I sure as hell had no interest in cooking when I got home. I just think there has to be a better option than fast food.

s^ | Kay

Pasta, bread and potatoes.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Food includes candy, junk food and fast food (if the fast food joint is a participating member) -- all tax free! The qualifying factor here is to have a low, taxable income... or no income, I guess. A family of three with a household income under $2000/mo can get something like $500/mo in EBT cash.

I'm sure I'm going to be bashed on for posting my opinion on this... but, if I understand it correctly, if you made $23,000/yr you could get over $5000/yr in supplemental 'nutrition' funds. Couple that with all the other benefits the government gives to the poor - like Section 8 housing, free lunches for the children, free health care and lower (or non-existent) taxes (which is interesting when you hear people cry about the 'rich' not paying their fair share) - and you have yourself the recipe for a welfare state. Want more money? Have more kids! Wait, the poor are having more children than they can afford and entitlement programs need more money!? TAX THE RICH! What's the point in working hard to bring yourself out of poverty when we have a system in place to make those in poverty comfortable with their situation. There's no shame in it anymore and it's disgusting.

PS: Vote for me in 2028 - I'll work to reform this shit system to make sure those collecting government subsidies for being poor are working for it by helping clean and maintain public spaces. I'd also make the EBT system only work for certain foods like eggs, milks, vegetables, pastas, breads, fruits and some meats like chicken and ground beef. I'd exclude all soda, junk food, candy and fast food. Also, I'll fucking cap the household size. Four people. That's it. If you're poor and have more then you can afford then tough shit.

Yeah, I got a letter saying I'd been denied and when I called they were like "Well are there children in the household or are you pregnant?" and when I said no they told me that's why I didn't qualify. :(

s^ | Kay

You're overlooking three things:

1. The "bread-and-circuses" system exists because misanthropic libertarians like you are MORE opposed to constructive programs.

2. What that system buys for you is physical security. If that system did not exist then neither you and your family and loved ones nor the things you own, anywhere, would be safe from food riots and bandits. And no the gun you have under your mattress won't protect you against thugs that outnumber you and put far less value on their lives than you do your own.

3. You yourself have what you do because of government handouts. Bashing the perceived entitlement of others is ludicrously hypocritical and bigoted. Do you have any "shame" for going AWOL from the army after they gave you a big fat wad of cash? No?

All the people who spout Victorian nonsense like "work hard" have - curiously - never been in that position themselves and have invariably had their place in life guaranteed by the advantages these people - curiously - don't have. What this is really all about is a bunch of insecure white American mediocrites trying desperately to justify their own outsized sense of entitlement.



Neither you nor the people who conceive this program realize it but the real reason you are being denied benefits is because you are less socially dangerous than someone irresponsible enough to churn out that many babies in the first place. Ask yourself: who's more likely to kill someone or set something on fire? #2, case in point.



Then what? You think they're going to die in a corner?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

No. Do you think poverty is going to just disappear if we keep supporting the impoverished on entitlement programs who continually make the same damn decision over and over again knowing they can't support additional children by themselves?

I bet you'd be eager to get a job and support yourself if your mommy and daddy cut you loose from their checkbook... but as long as you have their wealth as your endless supply of income, you're going to keep doing what you do - almost nothing.

No, I don't. See #1.

But I also fully understand the reason the status quo exists. See #2.

And I appreciate the effectiveness of the unpalatable alternatives. See #3.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

1) I'm sure a program that puts people in 'make work' positions for a welfare pay, rather than paying those people for not working and hiring companies to do work that needs to be done, would be more constructive than the status quo.

2) By your logic, some of the poorest areas, or areas with the greatest number of welfare/entitlement recipients, should be the safest. I have a feeling that isn't the case.

1) You say that but the reality is that people won't get behind it, politicians are right for believing that they'd have more to lose than gain by supporting any such thing since they'd inevitably be tarred and feathered for "big spending" and "free stuff".

2) Not at all. On the contrary, it proves my point: the safest areas are of course those with the highest employment. What welfare does is it keeps these people under control. Were it not so, they'd just go around taking what they want, the violence would spiral out of control and spill over. You'd see riots and random violence just like in ancient Rome or the late medieval era or even as recently as the 60s. I'm not saying it's the appropriate policy, I'm just saying that the money you spend on welfare buys what it does at a bargain price.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It's certainly not the best compromise, and in a lot of areas is less effective than aestu thinks, and I think there has to be a better way to go about things, but it really just comes down to one thing.

If people don't have to work to survive, AND don't have anything to aspire to, then they simply won't.

This is a deceptively complex equation. For a lot of these people, the real issue is profound ignorance and lack of self-respect.

That problem is ultimately due to many factors, some of which can be controlled through policy, some of which can't. The best that can be done is build housing, education, healthcare and public recreation facilities. The connection between those things and social development is often very abstract and hard to grasp, but it is those sorts of improvements in people's physical environment that gives rise to a drive for self-actualization.

The job market is, of course, another question entirely.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

But this is the fault of the libertarians... who have very, very little representation in Congress/Senate and just as little in state governments?


Poor areas have plenty of crime, violence and theft even with the entitlement programs that already exist. You use a "what if" by saying crime and violence would be even worse if we got rid of entitlement programs... so let me "what if" - maybe it's as bad as it is because these programs don't force people to work (or work hard) and therefore they don't have a respect for what they, or others, have.

The libertarian attitude is fundamentally and uniquely American. It is an attitude that pervades American society and culture, and until the way Americans see status, progress, and the relationship between themselves, their society and institutions changes, America will continue to struggle with issues that other cultures have managed to ameliorate to at least some extent.



I can corroborate my claim with real-world parallels. Can you do the same? When and where has what you described worked?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of people who think like me so I don't have a bunch of real-world examples... but all you have is examples of failed status quo, right? Damn me for trying to find a solution to a problem instead of pointing to some random EU country or an article in the BBC and saying, "It's from over there so it has to be right!" I guess I can try to back up my statement with this:

I say that excessive entitlement programs don't give people a reason to work hard. Because of that, the recipients don't respect what they (and their neighbors) have because they didn't have to work for it. Because the community has little respect for itself and what each other owns, crime goes up... after all, "what's yours is mine." On the other hand, as you point out, places where employment is higher is believed to be generally safer as there is less crime and theft. Why? Because I think these people, who aren't subsidized by the government, have a higher respect for themselves, their property, their neighbors property and their community. Why? Because they worked for it.