Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm somewhat of a libertarian when it comes to this aspect of government.

i understand you said somewhat and i'm pretty easy going 'bout most things, but don't bring libertarianism into this. libertarianism is not just warmed over republican beliefs for people who don't want to be bothered by the gov't when it comes to their personal habits. there IS more to it than that.

the libertarian perspective with regard to economics is pretty spelled out. and this perspective is not just 'all about you'.

/end crankiness

- m

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i understand you said somewhat and i'm pretty easy going 'bout most things, but don't bring libertarianism into this. libertarianism is not just warmed over republican beliefs for people who don't want to be bothered by the gov't when it comes to their personal habits. there IS more to it than that.

the libertarian perspective with regard to economics is pretty spelled out. and this perspective is not just 'all about you'.

/end crankiness

- m

I'm aware of what libertarianism is.

Thanks though.

I'm definitely not in agreement with the libertarian economic perspective. Laissez-faire is just not a workable ting, unless, of course, you're a big friend of monopolies and robber barons

[squirrely girl]

i guess what i'm trying to express here is that i look at being libertarian as the same as being democrat or republican. if you don't really support their perspectives and ideals, well then don't invoke the term.

people who aren't familiar with the ideals may start to think that YOUR beliefs are representative of this particular political orientation. and frankly, we don't need that type of 'support'.

just my two cents...

- m

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i guess what i'm trying to express here is that i look at being libertarian as the same as being democrat or republican. if you don't really support their perspectives and ideals, well then don't invoke the term.

people who aren't familiar with the ideals may start to think that YOUR beliefs are representative of this particular political orientation. and frankly, we don't need that type of 'support'.

just my two cents...

- m

This is going to be a total hijack, but since I've seen pictures of Pennywise in this thread already, I don't think any further hijack could do any significant harm

"Democrat" and "Republican" to me do not convey any real political meaning. Nor do "conservative" or "liberal." Many times, in the name of politics, individuals who use those terms to self-describe often take up self-contradictory positions. For example, people are against abortion because life is sacred, but they're for capital punishment.

Another example is that liberals tend to be for public health care and other services which benefit the poor while at the same time supporting measures which open our borders wide to illegal immigration which has a very harmful effect on those already in poverty (illegal immigrants taking jobs which would otherwise probably go to the domestic poor).

One side of the Republican party (social conservatives) would have it be illegal to be in a same-sex relationship, adopt children into a same-sex household, forbid abortion under any circumstances, even forbid certain kinds of consensual sex in many cases... another side of the Republican Party (the libertarian wing) would tell the government to keep its nose out of citizens' bedrooms. Contrarian positions from each wing will invariably make it into the party's platform, so at the end of the day, we're left with some "clear" picture (which is anything but clear) as to what a "Republican" is. We redefine this every four years or so.

Democrats do the same thing essentially.

Due to the above sorts of examples, I think it's pretty ambiguous to represent oneself as a "Republican" or a "Democrat." Unaccompanied by other adjectives, I don't think claiming membership to either party tells us much about you. Or do you want to try to tell me that Republican Ron Paul would agree with much fellow Republican Trent Lott would have to say? Or that Barney Frank would agree with much that Dan Boren would have to say?

I think there are more than one types of libertarian out there. There are those (such as myself) who are influenced by libertarianism but haven't adopted it totally. There are others who are card carrying libertarian party members who adopt the party's view as their own.

The trouble with the term might be that it can on one hand be referring to a particular political movement/ideology while on the other hand, it might be referring to a particular party.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Damnit now I'm going to picture JWithers as Pennywise. Thank YOU very much!

You're welcome. Tim Curry is scary.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i guess what i'm trying to express here is that i look at being libertarian as the same as being democrat or republican. if you don't really support their perspectives and ideals, well then don't invoke the term.

people who aren't familiar with the ideals may start to think that YOUR beliefs are representative of this particular political orientation. and frankly, we don't need that type of 'support'.

just my two cents...

- m

Do you think of political beliefs as a "take one, take all" situation? For example, I call myself Republican, I'm registered Republican, but there are certain issues where I differ with the party platform.

[James]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

[AKA_Monet]

I don't think anyone here thinks that no hard work should not be instituted when one truly desires something. At least I am not saying that and if my posts conveyed that message, I never intended it to be.

What I am saying is many poor people do not know these resources exist even after speaking to those options. Yes, there will have to "extra credit" or volunteer time. And yes, there are some who choose not do that. And there are also some that make their matters worse than where they started...

If one absolutely does not have any funds to make it, how will they know to go to a library first, then review it without guidance or assistance and then fall under a deadline?

Yes, we need standards and rules for people to follow. And yes, you may be a model or mentor to follow. But, do those less fortunate know that about you?

And the one thing I find about poor people, they don't like to be reminded of it. Why live in that humilation? And should that be something one should be ashamed about? And ultimately, so what? And how do you think one who is poor gets that way? Is poverty a choice?

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

There are many more programs today than ever before to aid students.

It used to be you had certain grades, then you qualified for scholarships and if you did not, you paid for it yourself if you could afford to go to college.

Today scholarships abound for sports, band, cheer leading and even being a cowboy.

There are also loans or grants given by the colleges. If you keep your grades and stay in school, it is free payable only if leave school or do not keep GPA up. I saw a report a while back that should college grants that covered 1/2 - 2/3s of the yealy cost.

If college is not your place, there are vocational schools to learn a trade.

I grew up poor and had a choice, work my senior year, save money, go to college, or get a job and buy a car. I opted for college, the first in my entire family to attend college. There I washed, mopped and waxed floors for extra money.

I found out years later that my folks house $19.00 a month and were strapped for it each month with both working full time jobs. I did not know we were poor, I just figured we were like everyone else in the neighbor hood and lived with it.

So if some whine about not getting into the Law School they wanted and had to opt for a lesser one, what a shame or if someone wanted to go to a more prestigious college and couldn't, to sad.

There are programs out there for people in need if they look for them. But the problem is today is so many people use it because that is there job, not working and depleting the funds for those who do.

Do I agree with Kevin on many points, yes I do. I know people who live on the streets and want nothing more. They do not want jobs!

For the poster who opted not to have kids, there is nothing wrong with that. When I graduated from college, I was middle management for RH Macy and made $550.00 a month and my then wife made $350.00 a month. Seemed like a lot of money in the late 60's but it really wasn't but costs were cheaper then compared to now.

If some people want to find out, then they should ask and not cry about not having a job. I see help wanted signs all of the time and no takers? Why?

Next time you ae in a fast food eatery, check out the cash registars, they have pix of the products so the people do not have to read and everything is automated so they can look to see how much change is to be given back.

[AKA_Monet]

Show me how I accused you of anything but being your true self? What more can we expect from participants other than what is written on a public message board and you only gave personal anecdotal evidence as to your reasons why "anyone can go to college".

That was your reality. But, is your reality another's reality?

So, yes, what I did was QUESTIONED you and ask you what you meant by your comments. Have you answered them? And if I was of lesser mind, I found that you blamed me for questioning you. Then, you decided to slander me after I have been posting on GC for 7 years.

After that, Hayle yeah I am angry aside from that you stated some very biased stuff. Hey, but I guess I had that coming when I referred to my personal cultural reference, which I admire greatly, and that just shows your trustworthiness for any comments made in that respect especially in the AKA Ave...

As far as differing opinions. Well, my husband has a more colorful definition of how "opinions" should be viewed and they are similar to that of a body organ...

And I do not reside in the realm of stoic or strict understanding it is an occupational hazard. So, yes my mind can be changed with strong data, logical reasoning and persuasion. Most people do this tactic by communication. I am forced to do it in my career everyday.

Hey, I do not have a problem if you write to me where and why disagree with my comments and your reasons. But since you added emotional and personal language to your comments that caused you to fail to convey the true aspects of what you were trying to state. If you thought you did that, how come you use all that bolding?

Besides, Kevin explained his posts similarly and I totally disagree with some of his comments, but he never became personal, moreover, I respect him for the comments he said because he logically stated his reasons. Moreover, this issue is complex and requires communication.

And really, have you ever thought that maybe I do not comprehend what you are writing? People often read the tone from one's writing.

And I cannot make you feel condescension. All I can do is merely say something. Ultimately, you are the one who choses to interpret it and decide how you feel, then how to act on it...

Originally Posted by JWithers

I don't hate you, I asked you stop accusing me of saying anything but what I said which was anyone can go to college. I stand by it.

I have no anger, only frustration at your insistence on putting words into my mouth. I have never once typed an angry word. You seem to be getting really upset, though.

And don't speak to me condescendingly. I am older than you. "Young lady" wasn't appropriate. (but , honestly, how would you know that?)

All I asked is that I be allowed my opinion even if it differs from yours, but I can see this makes you very angry. I will stop posting on the topic and let you have the thread. Peace?

I am just repeating the same-old same-old anyway and who wants to re-read the same stuff? Lord knows I am tired of it. You can't change my mind and I can't change yours.

As for the PM, I don't think there was a misunderstanding. I understand where you on on the subjest, but I respectfully disagree.

P.S. Molecular Genetics??????? Holy cow! And I thought Comparative Literature was tough.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The trouble with the term might be that it can on one hand be referring to a particular political movement/ideology while on the other hand, it might be referring to a particular party.

VERY true. however, i'm just a bit of a purist. say you're liberal, say your conservative. delineate between the two on as many individual issues as ya want. just don't call yourself something if you don't actually hold to it.

- marissa

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

VERY true. however, i'm just a bit of a purist. say you're liberal, say your conservative. delineate between the two on as many individual issues as ya want. just don't call yourself something if you don't actually hold to it.

- marissa

Marissa: I do absolutely hold true to MANY libertarian ideals -- just not all. I consider myself a member of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

I don't want to be insulting or anything (and this very well may be perceived that way), but in my mind, subscribing 100% to any party agenda is akin to letting someone else think for you.

Since I'm pretty well qualified to do my own thinking, I'm going to fail any political reliability test you put in front of me. As you may have perceived, when it comes to able bodied adults who abuse our welfare system, you'll find me a tad to the right of Atilla the Hun on the political scale... cut off the money, let God sort 'em out... when it comes to impoverished kids, I'm a big pinko commie -- let the state take these kids into custody and spend bazillions of bucks making sure these kids turn out better than their parents.

I view poverty in the long term as America's most important war -- beating, or at least managing poverty is essential to our continued survival and our continued freedom. Throughout history, a wide gap between the poor and the elite (and the lack of a substantial middle class) has always meant social upheaval. As with every war, there are a variety of tactics which can be used... all with differently effective and all with their own political consequences. One thing is for certain though -- if we continue to do what is most politically expedient at this time (i.e., nothing), we'll end up with a much worse problem than we have right now. While this paragraph might look like the preface to some sort of spiel glorifying socialism, it's not.

You might imagine that I think socialism ignores the root of this problem -- that people don't want to work. We have to make them work if they want to eat, have shelter, etc. To me, it's (almost) that simple.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by susan314

That's pretty impressive. I'll be happy when we get out of the diaper stage - that adds a lot to the budget. (Figure I have about 6 months left on that...) The dog food adds a hefty chunk to the budget too...he eats like a horse...but he's part of the family and good for the kids, so I suppose its worth it.

I could probably trim a little more out of the budget if I tried, but we've already saved so much money over spending levels from before ($700 dropped down to $250-300) that I'm not ready to scale back further yet. My husband has certain things/brands that he likes, which could be eliminated if absolutely necessary. But, since we're managing with where we are, I let him and the kids have a few splurges. (I could probably get meat a little cheaper at the grocery store, but we have an amazing local butcher shop that offers excellent service. I just try to stock up when they have stuff on sale - thank god for big freezers. )

Speaking of produce markets/fruit stands, I have a question that's semi-on topic...I've heard that in many inner cities, there just simply isn't a place to buy fresh produce, or at least at reasonable prices. Seems like I read an article a while back which gave examples of the lengths a person (who didn't have a car) would have to go to get fresh produce. When I think about it, there aren't any large grocery stores really in downtown Toledo anymore - a person would have to somehow get out to the outlying areas to get to the big stores which might have bargain prices, or be stuck with the small quickie marts w/less selection and higher prices. I'd assume it might be the same in other cities too.

If I were in a financial position to do so, I'd open a fruit market in that area with pricing just to cover operating expenses, not turn a big profit. It scares me that there are kids in those neighborhoods who might not ever get fresh fruits and veggies b/c its either too great of an expense or hassle for the parents to obtain.

My dog eats one 30 lb. bag of Eukanuba a month, not too bad for a 92 pound dog!

In all fairness too, by divorcing, I eliminated one adult male to feed and only feed the kids every other week. The week that they are with their dad, I don't really cook for myself. Or, I make a big batch of pasta and eat it all week. I eat rice or cereal or ramen for dinner those weeks, so that helps!

You are right about fresh produce (although the city of Detroit has Eastern Market... the city is so big that it's quite a distance for some). Big chain grocery stores are non-existant in the city of Detroit proper and there have been news stories about how the grocery stores that are in the city are more expensive than those in the suburbs, opposite from how it should be based on income levels. I go to a store called Randazzos for my mom and so I get my stuff there too. I can walk out of there with several bags of produce for less than $15. Cucumbers there are 4/$1, green pepers are 33 cents a piece, etc. They have a lot of different fruits and veggies, so the kids and I have been trying things we wouldn't try otherwise, like mangos and star fruit.

[Kevin]

Here's what a local ministry has going for $25:

(4) 5 oz. New York Strip Steaks
(1) 4 lb. I.Q.F. Chicken Thighs
(1) 40 oz. Beef & Bean Burritos
(1) 28 oz. Banquet Beef & Noodle Dinner
(1) 2 lb. Breaded Frying Chicken
(1) 1 lb. Ground Beef
(1) 12 oz. Pepperoni Pizza Sticks
(1) 2 lb. Popcorn Chicken
(1) 1 lb. Bean Soup Mix
(1) 8 oz. Biscuit Mix
(1) 7.5 oz. Mac & Cheese
(1) 12 ct. Corn Tortillas
(1) 26 oz. Pasta Sauce
(1) 16 oz. Pasta
(1) 24 oz. Hash Brown Potatoes
(1) 16 oz. Mixed Vegetables
(1) Dessert Item

When my wife's father was disabled, divorced and dependent on the government, he did just fine. Even lived with cancer for several years on this sort of stuff.

[squirrely girl]

omg i love those co-op buying situations. we have a few local churches that do that and i think its GREAT! i just wish more groups would get in on that...

-m

[OneTimeSBX]

im back from the weekend, what the heck happened to the original topic? lol

in re: to your list above, kevin, none of that food is necessarily "healthy" (please, any health care professionals correct me if im wrong). i see a loooot of sodium and carb laced food! which goes back to the original problem of yeah, you can eat for $21, but not well/healthy.