I'm judgmental based on what people say, absolutely. And I work very hard not to make assumptions about them in the process, I operate based on the words that people write, the things they take responsibility for. If he included himself in the group of people with heads up anuses then that is his prerogative. And I would still extend that sentiment to anyone who made judgments and assumptions about the subject of the picture who doesn't actually know her full situation. There is a distinction between pointing out irony and judging as well. Had PIKA's posts not trailed down into making those assumptions about the subject, I wouldn't personally have categorized him in the judgmental asshat category, but they did, so I did.

And yeah, I'm defensive. I've worked with a range of people in poverty from those with mental illness who make bad choices and can't help it, to those who stubbornly make bad choices over and over again with full foreknowledge to those who are absolutely trying the best they can. Knowing that has only highlighted exactly how big of an asshole people can be to people in poverty purely because they're poor. I've also BEEN poor, although relatively privileged in it and am still working on not being poor any more. I didn't access foodstamps because I was too ashamed to, despite the fact I've paid taxes, I qualified, I met the need. Instead I borrowed more from Student Loans.

The idea that people who receive state assistance should bow to the whims of the taxpayers - and the people who think this usually want them to bow to THEIR whims and live to THEIR standards, not the standards of anyone who disagrees - is offensive.

Ha! Me and my "friends" will be saving that money like we always do instead of using it to "create new jobs." Don't you know that's the way trickle down really works? I'm so sorry I pegged you as a Republican, but you sure sound like one. I sure didn't ask for my tax windfall...most will probably get saved, though I give a significant part of my salary every year to charity. As for contacting the Macon paper to pay this lady's bills, holding your breath is stupid. So, because I think it's dumb to judge the poor for their choices and expect them to live in a cardboard box before they can ask for help means that I personally have to support every single person that needs help? I may have a tax windfall in the future, but that's not feasible, and your rhetorhic is always over the top. This is why we have government programs to help because they CAN have widespread reach.

Means-testing is a very old idea when it comes to public benefits. Asking people to demonstrate their need for services is a hardly a whim. I suppose you could reject means-testing altogether and give heating assistance to anyone who requests it, no questions asked. But if means-testing is appropriate, then it has to be OK to debate where the line should be drawn. The size of one's TV is crude means test, to be sure, but there's a legitimate principle at work here.
________
WEB SHOWS

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is then? If you are against YOUR tax cut and believe you shouldn't receive it then donate it (as opposed to saving it) to a non profit that assists the needy.

I really don't think you're getting my point here. I think since you are ASSUMING that I'm a Republican you are reading between the lines and think that I'm anti welfare. I never said anything about letting people live in cardboard boxes or cutting out welfare, but we need to be helping the people who really need help and not the people trying to maintain their lifestyle. How is it "fair" if a lady who shows up in line first but owns a late model car and an expensive entertainment system gets assistance over a lady who has never been able to afford a car or a entertainment system? IDK if you read the article posted by Low C but do you think that family should get utility credits, foodstamps, free school lunch program? I mean, they are struggling!

I don't see a substantive distinction between pointing out irony and making, what you perceive to be, a judgment. It's really the same thing. Then again, I try to avoid getting lost in people's tone, and whether they come across as an asshat, and focus on what's embedded in what people say.

You are not the only person in this thread who has professional and/or personal experience with poverty. That does not mean that everyone with professional and personal experience with poverty will interpret and respond to this topic in the same manner.

I make the distinction based on how many assumptions someone is putting onto a subject and whether that person is then deciding something fundamental about the subject, generally negative, based on essentially no actual information.

Pointing something out: Huh, that guy likes to wear pink shirts a lot.
Making assumptions: He's probably gay because he wears pink shirts.
Judging: He shouldn't be gay, that's bad. (or alternatively)

Pointing something out: Hey she has a pretty nice TV.
Making assumptions: She's living beyond her means. She cannot manage money well. She spent taxpayer money on that TV.
Judging: She doesn't deserve help because she has that TV. If she really needed help she'd have sold that TV. It looks bad for her to have that TV.

Nope, I'm not. But it's the way I respond and will continue to do so. You can argue that my response only created the reaction I expected from others, but I don't actually care about that in this context.

No, looking at the size of one's TV is a pretty absurd way to judge whether someone needs assistance or not. Someone can have a very nice car, and received it as a gift or be borrowing it from family, or still have it from a time when times were better. They might have people willing to help them pay for the car, but who can't help with anything more. The car itself doesn't mean anything about one's ability to manage rent, utilities, etc. but some people make those assumptions. The standards in place look at income, assets and expenditures - rent, bills, etc. I've been pretty firmly supporting the standards in place, and not the "You're using my tax money so act the way I like with it" people.

So no, it's neither legitimate nor actually means testing.

That's cool because you acknowledge that your response was primarily based on your defensiveness and your perception.

This is exactly what was said after the observations (read: not judgments) were made. It escalated because you took it there.

I'm going to say that both Drolefile and PIKA have a good point. I see both sides of what they are saying. I will say, "Hey, since when has it been seen as an insult to consider someone a Republican?"

I'm a Republican. I won't tell you what side of the fence I stand on this issue, though. You decide. ;)

I'm not going back to read all the posts in this thread, but who brought up party affiliation?

I'm with you-I'm too lazy to go back and check. I just saw that he was saying something about not being a Republican but, instead being an Independent.

LOL. AOII Angel. I don't know how she intended it, though.

Got it.

I don't even know what the hi-jack has to do with affiliation lol I think there was a misunderstanding of a poster's intent and a 'back and forth' due to someone (seemingly) playing black sheep.

Dem vs Rep vs Ind doesn't fit into that, at least to me.

Yes, it's all my fault for provoking other people into comparing this situation with welfare fraud and bitching about a guy using food stamps and buying beer with cash in the same transaction. I'm so terribly sorry that I made them do that.