Funding cuts leave many without home heating assistance in Macon
 

http://www.macon.com/2010/12/16/1379...y-without.html

i don't wanna be too judgmental, but if you're gonna complain about being turned away from the Energy Assistance Program (it helps with home heating bills in the winter,) maybe you shouldn't do it in front of your big ass TV.

http://media.macon.com/smedia/2010/1...filiate.71.jpg

Yet the TV has nothing at all to do with whether or not someone can afford heating. So yeah, you're being judgmental. There's no way that things could have been going better for her two years ago and/or she got it as a gift and/or it's really none of anyone's damn business.

Oh look, the article:

Yes, she probably did buy the TV during "better days" but she shouldn't have taken that picture. It just looks....bad.

She didn't take it.

But the point is it shouldn't look like anything. People should remove heads from anuses and think before judging.

But I did think. I think she should sell her $1500 TV and buy a $150 Vizio from Wal-Mart and use the remaining $1350 to pay her utilities. ;)

If you go through life living beyond your means it WILL eventually catch up with you and bite you in the ass no matter your income level. I believe there are people more deserving of public assistance, like the people out there that have already pawned and eliminated their luxuries such as cable television. I'm sick of people taking advantage of the system, as should you. If the only people who used public assistance where the ones who truly needed it, there would be more money in the coffers to help them. Why should a woman who has a 50in flat screen TV and a woman who can't afford to get her children a winter coat get the same amount of assistance?

I was in line at a grocery store once and the man in front of me only had a bottle of ketchup and a 24 case of Bud Light. He ran each item as a separate purchase, pulling out a $20 bill to pay for the beer than whipping out his foodstamp EBT card to pay for his ketchup. :rolleyes: I was tempted to ask him why he could spend $20 on beer but couldn't spend $2 on a bottle of ketchup. What bothers me the most about this is that there are people who's only source of food IS FROM THE FOODSTAMP PROGRAM.....NOTHING ELSE! If we could knock these cheaters and slugs off the program we would be able to give the people who really need help more than just $250 (or whatever the amount is) a month for food.

Someone who buys beer is not cheating his foodstamps. You realize that assistance is more effective if we don't wait for someone to get down to the absolute last straw before helping them, right? If you lost your job, wouldn't you prefer to get help sooner, so you could get back on your feet, rather than wait until you had nothing left? If you wait til the last minute you're going to have a much harder time regaining the status you had before. And I'm not talking about who has the biggest car, I'm talking about owning a car, having a mortgage, the things that require equity.

You've now assumed that this woman lived beyond her means because she had a TV. When you get a spreadsheet with her financials before and after, let me know. The idea that she could sell a used TV for anything close to what she paid for it is unlikely. And if you're making up scenarios why not make one up that actually favors the person you're looking at instead of judging that person for not living up to the standards you set for them - not for yourself as you're not there. That TV could have been a present from someone more well off, it could have been something they saved a very long time for and selling it could break the camel's back, but mostly it's not any of your business, nor the government's business when it comes to aid.

The myth of the welfare queen lives on *sigh*

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I could see a scenario where neighbors are hanging out and someone is heading to the store for ketchup and asks if anybody else needs anything from store so someone else says "Here's some cash, pick me up a case of beer?" Stuff like that happens all the time in my neighborhood.

There are also guys in my neighborhood who will do car repairs or home repairs and refuse cash for payment and ask for a case of beer instead, which is a cheaper option than paying a mechanic or carpenter/plumber, etc.

All kinds of scenarios are possible.

YES, I'm assuming this woman is/was living beyond her means just like you are assuming she isn't. Fruad happens Drolefille, don't act like it doesn't.

Fraud is a very tiny percentage. I've worked for Public Aid, it most certainly exists but the actual data doesn't support every person you see buying cheetoes in the grocery store along with their cigarettes as a fraud.

And I hope that if you're so quick to judge someone who gets food stamps and buys a case of beer that you never ever treat yourself to anything, or buy anything frivolous unless you enjoy being hypocritical. It is possible to work full time and qualify for assistance, it's possible to have two full time jobs in the family and qualify for WIC and medicaid. These people are defrauding the government, they're poor. I'm glad that those standards are what is used to grant assistance and not yours.

If you're happy being judgmental fine, but this post started out with "I don't want to be judgmental, but..." and that's what I'm addressing.

The bolded doesn't relate because everything I own or buy is bought with MY OWN MONEY.

Whatever, I didn't realize that receiving public assistance means you never get to have anything special ever. (And don't tell me you've never received any assistance, subsidized loans, tax breaks, or even help from your parents who got write offs for you.) We should just hand out beans and gruel at the workhouses, that was more efficient.

LOL, let's not get too dramatic now. Essentially what I'm saying is-

How about we give less to the lady who owns a 50in TV and cable television and more to the lady who has never been able to afford either in her lifetime.

And I'm saying that I'm glad your standards aren't the ones used, for a lot of reasons.

Hell you don't even know if she has cable but you're sure judging her hard.

With a bomb ass set up like that It would be a shame if she didn't have the HD package.......but if you look really really close you can see an Xbox and a cable receiver in the picture.

Thing is, I don't care. Being unemployed for a year means she needs assistance per the qualifications; if she sells everything she has and pays for power for 3 months it's not like more money for assistance is going to open up magically and she'll only be worse off the next time.

Surprisingly there are asset limits on many public assistance requirements, a TV and XBox aren't enough to throw it off.

As I said, judge away, but don't pretend you're not. Thankfully the rules don't care.

There is a reason why "food stamp" receipients cannot use them to purchase alcohol and tobacco products (among other things). One reason is that tax payers such as myself do not want the tons of tax payer dollars that go into food stamps to fund such nonnecessities as alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, crab legs and beef rib dinners, etc.. I firmly believe that people who wish to consume alcohol and tobacco or buy lottery tickets and eat crab legs need to do so on their own dollar that they earned without government assistance. There are certain "freedoms" that are lost when you do not have money.

As for the photo in this thread, the couple of people in this thread who find the photo ironic are not the only ones who see the irony in that photo. The comments section of that article says a lot. It also isn't impossible that the photographer and reporter took that photo with irony in mind. That happens.

People fall on hard times but it is also the case that the average person lives paycheck to paycheck with no cushion in case they are jobless for 1 year. That fact is what the Black community has been disproportionately struggling with to the point where BGLOs, churches and nonprofits sponsor financial literacy programs to teach Black folks that they need to build their wealth instead of spending most of what they have left at the end of the month on a flatscreen TV (even if it is on sale). It's the same thing that I see when I drive around the housing projects and see some residents with Dish TV and SUVs with rims. Sure, some of these people may have received these TVs, cable, cars, or whatever else as a gift or purchased it during more profitable times. However, the trend of poverty and overconsumption makes it more likely that these were not gifts but rather purchased in a paycheck-to-paycheck context instead of saving money. Again, that is not being judgmental, that is knowing the cycle of poverty that has disproportionately hit the Black community and speaking on it.

[If this was a white person in that photo, my response would be the same but it wouldn't be about disproportionate poverty. Despite the higher median income of whites, the average white person also lives paycheck to paycheck and there is a greater number of whites receiving government assistance than there are Blacks.]

I agree with this. If you look at the stats, Americans in general are not good at saving for lean times. We spend everything we make, and when bad times come, there's no cushion to protect us. IMHO, selling your 50" flatscreen isn't going to get you very far and buying a six pack of beer with your own hard earned money even when you need food stamps does not rise to the label of FRAUD. There are a lot of hardworking people who are out of work because of the state of our economy who are no different than the average American who has no money tucked away for a rainy day. It's hypocritical to judge them so harshly.

That depends on how far you expect to get. Desperate times call for desperate, legal measures. That woman not only has a big flat screen TV, she also has what looks like a video game system and another technology item in that photo. She's "free" to own those items but she's also "free" to try to sell them if she needs help.

"Fraud" is an unnecessary label because it implies illegality. It is only illegal if you use the food stamps to purchase the items--stores are not supposed to allow people to do that. "Dumb" or "inappropriate" are more appropriate labels depending on the context. Many people who live paycheck to paycheck would be more well off if they put $50 in their savings accounts and lessened the frequency at which they consume alcohol and tobacco products. Many of these people aren't just consuming alcohol and/or tobacco products on the weekends or special occasions, they are doing so everyday. Corner marts and liquor stores are elated and many of these are located in lower income areas of cities for a reason.

Of course they are no different. Not saving money sets the stage for not having a cushion during hard times (unemployment, underemployment, emergencies, etc).

Exactly. Fraud is an ugly word. I think every person who criticizes could probably look at their own finances and find items they waste their own money on and could stand to save more. Fraud, as you said, implies that they are breaking the law or are unethical at the least. As for her TV, etc., she could sell it, but who knows what someone would pay for it and how long that money would last to pay her bills, rent, etc. An xbox isn't likely to fetch much on the used market. The truth of the matter is that the government doesn't want us to save money. The economy NEEDS us to spend, spend, spend to grow the economy which leads to a large number of people left vulnerable to this situation.

Caught the tail end of an interesting interview that had someone - a student I thought - who had developed a method for modifying our credit scores to be more than credit scores, but to include saving as well. I thought it was a good idea.

If those people who criticize have saved money and are building some level of wealth, they can "waste" a percentage of their own money.

I know that people who live paycheck to paycheck are often unable to save money (although, putting $20 in a savings account per month is better than spending to your last cent if you don't have to) and that's why this topic is also based on where people are situated. There are people whose wasteful spending lends itself to immediately needing financial assistance during hard times. Financial literacy programs in the Black community, for example, are based on the premise of financial freedom to spend your money however you choose. But that freedom comes with financial responsibility so that tax payers do not end up footing the bill. Those who see that reality as being critical or judgmental will have to get over it.

People who are truly truly truly struggling will try and see how much they can get for whatever they are able to sell. Assuming that you won't get much money is much less productive than seeing how much money you are able to get for it.

It's no easier to know who in the group criticizing is any more responsible than those in the group being criticized. I understand that people who are desperate will try to sell anything and everything to get by. Hell, drug addicts will sell their mothers for a hit, but you could also look at it as a waste of money to take a $2000 investment and sell it for a pittance when you think you'll get back on your feet in just a few weeks. I'm sure that's the mentality of people in this situation. Everybody thinks they are middle class and that middle class people deserve a big screen tv and all the amenities. I'm not saying their right, but it's the mentality of Americans. You take the same people bitching about the unemployed and people on welfare and put them in that situation, and they'd do no better. Nobody saves money. We have unprecedented levels of credit card debt. I have a great job, make more than an average salary, but with my debt burden from school, mortgage, car loans, etc, it would take no time for me to burn through my considerable savings. I am just fortunate enough to have the advantage of job security due to an extreme shortage of radiologists in this country. I don't think that gives me the right to be smug and look down on those who aren't are fortunately situated or didn't put away money in savings when they could have. Hindsight, after all is 20/20.

The economy may want you to spend but it doesn't force you to spend. That's your choice. There are households with an income of $30,000 that are financially better off debt to income than households with an income of $80,000. Why is that? < hypothetical question.

Yes the TV looks bad IMHO, because there are households that are self-supporting and responsible enough to pay their own bills and because of that have never been able to afford such flashy luxuries. I'm sure they find it disheartening to find out people in the same income bracket as them get all this "help" while they live modestly.

I make a decent living (for myself), put in a good amount to my 401k and savings, donated $3,000 this year to AIDS Research Alliance and the West Texas Food Bank but guess what????? I still canceled my cable this year prepared ALL of my lunches at home and I've never been able to afford* a TV like the one in the picture. Not everyone spends as stupidly as you insinuate.

-If you expect tax payers to foot your food bill because you'd rather spend your money on alcohol, tobacco or drugs, IMHO that IS unethical.


*Just cuz you can pay for something doesn't mean you can afford it.

I don't see where being smug and looking down on anyone is even part of this discussion. That may be what this topic is fundamentally about to some people but that isn't what this topic is about to me.

The point is that foresight is 20/20 and that is what many supporters of financial literacy programs and financial assistance programs are hoping people of all income levels will learn.

There is a distinction to be made here between discussing issues in the aggregate and making judgments about an individual. Particularly when to make those judgments you're making big assumptions and leaps in logic - from a TV to public aid fraud for example.

But really, you were the one who took it there.

The previous posters initially pointed out the fact that it looked bad.

No, the OP mentioned being judgmental, PIKA decided she was living beyond her means and compared the situation to fraud.

It's not even the same thing as pointing out irony as mentioned by DrPhil.


Want to talk about the big picture? Fine. Want to assume that those things apply to an individual and that said individual should be acting in a different way because you say so - judgmental.

I'm not arguing the benefit of the financial literacy programs you're discussing. I think they are very useful. I agree that all income levels could use help learning to spend within their means and save for a rainy day. That being said, some days are rainier than many people can save for.

Bravo.

PiKA's first post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2012879) Yes, she probably did buy the TV during "better days" but she shouldn't have taken that picture. It just looks....bad.

Nothing about that screams fraud.

We all don't work in your field, so we may not know all the inner workings of these types of programs, but you have to admit that hearing someone with a large flat-panel TV, a gaming system, and a cable box talk about energy assistance can lead to a few questions.

If I am standing next to my Hummer and complaining that I can't afford gas, it wouldn't be THAT big of a stretch for people to ask questions.

N of 1 is not good enough to wipe away the evidence of gross American excess. Yes, you are a good person and save your money like a good boy. Excellent! The vast majority of Americans don't and haven't. Most Americans who are ready to retire have little money with which to retire. Most Americans carry more debt on their credit cards than they will ever be able to pay off, especially as they only pay the minimum off each month. You take the average American and put them in the unemployment line for a few months, and I'd like to see how great they look. Are they irresponsible? Duh. Is it wide spread? Absolutely. So, they're tax money is paying for the idiotic decisions they are making that have already caught up with people less fortunate than them. Don't forget that the ones collecting benefits were probably paying taxes before they fell on hard times, too.

Ummm.....Then it's ok than to spend every last penny you have? You say that these people are irresponsible and admit they put themselves in this situation yet you clear them of any responsibility and talk as if it's "not their fault". :confused:

I never said it's not their fault. I said that it's hard to judge people when the standard is their same behavior. I also think that you don't know a persons situation, so don't assume you do. With 9% unemployment, there are many hardworking people who have depleted any savings they may have had. Are we to sit back and let them sell everything they have to live on the streets and freeze to death? Charity extends beyond giving to AIDS related organizations.

Read his next post. I don't really know what your point is here either. I don't believe people should be judgey asshats because they think they know better than the poor people, because duh they're poor. That's not the same as talking about the system the way AOIIA and DP are.
I don't work for public aid anymore, but if anything it should drive home exactly how many people are hurting. If my dad lost his job for that long, we probably wouldn't have sold the TV or cable box, or my brother's Xbox but we wouldn't necessarily have cable or Xbox Live either. Selling them wouldn't make us enough money to heat our house either. If someone said "hey, isn't that weird, does she really qualify?" then that's someone trying to correct their ignorance, but when someone says "she shouldn't do X, she should do Y, I know better than her and she's probably a terrible person who's mismanaged her whole life" they're being assholes.

This woman could have saved every spare dime and received every fancy thing in her home as charity or gifts, and after being out of work for a year be down to the last straw. Or she could have been living paycheck to paycheck and is now just barely managing on public assistance/unemployment/with help from others.

I'm horribly bothered by people who think that poor people should never have nice things, should cook all their food from scratch, and should basically be 'better' people than the person spouting such beliefs.

"Hey, k_s, why'd you buy a hummer if you were struggling with money?" vs "You irresponsible bastard, I hope my tax money never goes to help you out. You probably bought that car with my money in the first place so now I, personally, get to dictate how you should act. If you don't sell your car and ride a bicycle to go look for a job then you're not really hurting."

Sigh..... Freeze to death?...... but maybe we should allow them to sell everything they don't need to "reset' their priorities and spending habits.

I also never said we should end charity or welfare, all I'm saying is

IF YOU HAVE $20 TO SPEND ON BEER THAN YOU CAN DROP $2 ON A BOTTLE OF KETCHUP.

So how do you propose we regulate that? Have auditors go to their houses and gather up their belongings for auction? I thought you Republicans were all for less government intrusion in people's personal lives. I guess that's only your own personal lives. You don't get to reset anyone's priorities. The point of welfare is to help them out until they get on their feet, not teach them a lesson like you know better. As has been said before, people who qualify for food stamps don't have to be destitute. They have jobs and can afford to pay for some things. They don't have to sign a pledge promising to never buy beer again. It's not your business. How bout in the future, when you see someone buying a six pack with their own money and $2 worth of ketchup with food stamps, assume that that money came out of my taxes instead of yours. I pay more than you do anyway. That $2 bottle of ketchup isn't running up our national deficit, but that huge tax break I just got along with all my top 2% friends sure did!

^^ No one is talking like that Drolefille, but if that's what you are getting out of my posts...well, than my message is coming out wrong.

There's nothing wrong with cooking your food from scratch, I prepare 90% of my meals from scratch and I wouldn't have it any other way. There is a difference between nice things and excess, if you make $20,000 a year your ass shouldn't be sporting a $500+ purse and $300 sunglasses. You can get a nice purse and sunglasses at Target for about $50. It sounds to me like you want people who live in poverty to live like people who are middle to upper middle class. Very noble of you but unrealistic.

If it was his money and his beer, as I pointed out.

The real point is, it is easy to judge but you don't really know the full circumstances. As usual, I'm going to pull from my own experiences since my ex-husband has been unemployed (since Sept. 29, 2009 now). He held off as long as he could before selling his beloved red convertible mustang that he only drives 3 months a year because he really thought things would get better and he considered that car an investment. He had savings, lots of it, but after 14-15 months of being unemployed, it's gone. He's dipping into his retirement now. When he called me to tell me that he was going to have to cancel his cable/internet and that meant I would probably need to take the kids full time because they wouldn't want to live with him part time without cable/internet, I took over paying his cable/internet bill. He'd been paying taxes for 30 years before he hit this hard time. There are probably people out there who are saying "Why does he still have cable/internet if he's so broke?"

You just don't know.

Ask anyone...they alllllll think they are middle class.