Funding cuts leave many without home heating assistance in Macon

[PiKA2001]

[DrPhil]

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.]

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

IMHO, selling your 50" flatscreen isn't going to get you very far

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.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

"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.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

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

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

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.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

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.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Hindsight, after all is 20/20.

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.

[Drolefille]

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.

[knight_shadow]

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

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[amanda6035]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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. 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.

Bravo.