Folks need ice for the cooler full of beer for backyard BBQ.
15 dollars a hour?
- Thread starter CourierDriver
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc.
You hear about the people getting $900 a month in food stamps and go hungry.
Any data to support these claims, specifically referring to "most of these people"? Or just your WAG?
I have personal experience from working in a grocery store.
Yes this is true. Granted I didnt know what they did at home, but the majority of EBT users had the latest smart phone, bought lotto tickets, alcohol and tobacco. [...]
That's funny. Because there are federal and state laws addressing these items being charged to EBT specifically.
According to federal law "You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods"
According to your state law, alcohol, gambling, and guns are prohibited, and "individuals who attempt to access (these) benefits commit a Class C misdemeanor".
Moreover, I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence does not = data supporting hatt's position that "Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc."
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc.
You hear about the people getting $900 a month in food stamps and go hungry.
Any data to support these claims, specifically referring to "most of these people"? Or just your WAG?
I have personal experience from working in a grocery store.
Yes this is true. Granted I didnt know what they did at home, but the majority of EBT users had the latest smart phone, bought lotto tickets, alcohol and tobacco. [...]
That's funny. Because there are federal and state laws addressing these items being charged to EBT specifically.
According to federal law "You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods"
According to your state law, alcohol, gambling, and guns are prohibited, and "individuals who attempt to access (these) benefits commit a Class C misdemeanor".
Moreover, I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence does not = data supporting hatt's position that "Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc."
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc.
You hear about the people getting $900 a month in food stamps and go hungry.
Any data to support these claims, specifically referring to "most of these people"? Or just your WAG?
I have personal experience from working in a grocery store.
Yes this is true. Granted I didnt know what they did at home, but the majority of EBT users had the latest smart phone, bought lotto tickets, alcohol and tobacco. [...]
That's funny. Because there are federal and state laws addressing these items being charged to EBT specifically.
According to federal law "You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods"
According to your state law, alcohol, gambling, and guns are prohibited, and "individuals who attempt to access (these) benefits commit a Class C misdemeanor".
Moreover, I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence does not = data supporting hatt's position that "Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc."
They can buy beer for $10 and (*raw) chicken for $10. (Although some cooked chicken was include while others weren't?) Use their EBT for the chicken and have to pay the remaining $10 with another means of payment. (Cash, CC/ debit or check) In regards to the pet food, they bought human food for their dog!
Clearly you dont know how this works.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc.
You hear about the people getting $900 a month in food stamps and go hungry.
Any data to support these claims, specifically referring to "most of these people"? Or just your WAG?
I have personal experience from working in a grocery store.
Yes this is true. Granted I didnt know what they did at home, but the majority of EBT users had the latest smart phone, bought lotto tickets, alcohol and tobacco. [...]
That's funny. Because there are federal and state laws addressing these items being charged to EBT specifically.
According to federal law "You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods"
According to your state law, alcohol, gambling, and guns are prohibited, and "individuals who attempt to access (these) benefits commit a Class C misdemeanor".
Moreover, I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence does not = data supporting hatt's position that "Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc."
They can buy beer for $10 and (*raw) chicken for $10. (Although some cooked chicken was include while others weren't?) Use their EBT for the chicken and have to pay the remaining $10 with another means of payment. (Cash, CC/ debit or check) In regards to the pet food, they bought human food for their dog!
Clearly you dont know how this works.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
They can buy beer for $10 and (*raw) chicken for $10. [...]
Clearly you dont know how this works.
Clearly what you're describing is NOT using EBT to purchase alcohol, etc. It is using other means of funds. You can argue a hypothetical that they wouldn't be able to afford to spend that $ on alcohol if it weren't for the EBT, but it remains a hypothetical, and the fact remains they are not using the EBT to purchase the alcohol.
I'd love to see how you propose to control what people who use EBT choose to feed their dogs (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Moreover, your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
They can buy beer for $10 and (*raw) chicken for $10. [...]
Clearly you dont know how this works.
Clearly what you're describing is NOT using EBT to purchase alcohol, etc. It is using other means of funds. You can argue a hypothetical that they wouldn't be able to afford to spend that $ on alcohol if it weren't for the EBT, but it remains a hypothetical, and the fact remains they are not using the EBT to purchase the alcohol.
I'd love to see how you propose to control what people who use EBT choose to feed their dogs (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Moreover, your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
They can buy beer for $10 and (*raw) chicken for $10. [...]
Clearly you dont know how this works.
Clearly what you're describing is NOT using EBT to purchase alcohol, etc. It is using other means of funds. You can argue a hypothetical that they wouldn't be able to afford to spend that $ on alcohol if it weren't for the EBT, but it remains a hypothetical, and the fact remains they are not using the EBT to purchase the alcohol.
I'd love to see how you propose to control what people who use EBT choose to feed their dogs (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Moreover, your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
They can buy beer for $10 and (*raw) chicken for $10. [...]
Clearly you dont know how this works.
Clearly what you're describing is NOT using EBT to purchase alcohol, etc. It is using other means of funds. You can argue a hypothetical that they wouldn't be able to afford to spend that $ on alcohol if it weren't for the EBT, but it remains a hypothetical, and the fact remains they are not using the EBT to purchase the alcohol.
I'd love to see how you propose to control what people who use EBT choose to feed their dogs (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Moreover, your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
My point stands that there are state and federal rules against using EBT for this, and they are not breaking these rules by doing so.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
Wrong. If they can afford $7 for a 6-pack of beer, they shouldn't need EBT? Not sure I follow your logic. If I make 15k a year and am on welfare and choose to spend $7 on a 6-pack using my own cash, how do I "not need" EBT again? DO tell.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
Wrong. Because you can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Wrong. How does this prevent the problem you've already described (people using food stamps for the food and then extra cash for the liquor, etc.)?
Finally, the point you keep avoiding: your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
My point stands that there are state and federal rules against using EBT for this, and they are not breaking these rules by doing so.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
Wrong. If they can afford $7 for a 6-pack of beer, they shouldn't need EBT? Not sure I follow your logic. If I make 15k a year and am on welfare and choose to spend $7 on a 6-pack using my own cash, how do I "not need" EBT again? DO tell.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
Wrong. Because you can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Wrong. How does this prevent the problem you've already described (people using food stamps for the food and then extra cash for the liquor, etc.)?
Finally, the point you keep avoiding: your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc.
You hear about the people getting $900 a month in food stamps and go hungry.
Any data to support these claims, specifically referring to "most of these people"? Or just your WAG?
EBT cards can be sold at a discount for cash, so one can buy anything they wish. The "brokers" who do this often get busted with a number of cards in their possession. The really interesting thing is how many of the cards seem to migrate to Florida for th ewionter and get used there. BTW, hereabouts the idea of putting an ID photo on the card is hotly resisted by the hand wringers, because it might cost a couple of bucks extra per card, while fraud is reported to be in the hundreds of millions.
I have personal experience from working in a grocery store.
Yes this is true. Granted I didnt know what they did at home, but the majority of EBT users had the latest smart phone, bought lotto tickets, alcohol and tobacco. [...]
That's funny. Because there are federal and state laws addressing these items being charged to EBT specifically.
According to federal law "You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods"
According to your state law, alcohol, gambling, and guns are prohibited, and "individuals who attempt to access (these) benefits commit a Class C misdemeanor".
Moreover, I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence does not = data supporting hatt's position that "Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc."
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc.
You hear about the people getting $900 a month in food stamps and go hungry.
Any data to support these claims, specifically referring to "most of these people"? Or just your WAG?
EBT cards can be sold at a discount for cash, so one can buy anything they wish. The "brokers" who do this often get busted with a number of cards in their possession. The really interesting thing is how many of the cards seem to migrate to Florida for th ewionter and get used there. BTW, hereabouts the idea of putting an ID photo on the card is hotly resisted by the hand wringers, because it might cost a couple of bucks extra per card, while fraud is reported to be in the hundreds of millions.
I have personal experience from working in a grocery store.
Yes this is true. Granted I didnt know what they did at home, but the majority of EBT users had the latest smart phone, bought lotto tickets, alcohol and tobacco. [...]
That's funny. Because there are federal and state laws addressing these items being charged to EBT specifically.
According to federal law "You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods"
According to your state law, alcohol, gambling, and guns are prohibited, and "individuals who attempt to access (these) benefits commit a Class C misdemeanor".
Moreover, I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence does not = data supporting hatt's position that "Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc."
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Folks need ice for the cooler full of beer for backyard BBQ.
Haha heck yeah! They gotta keep their 40's of Mad Dog 20/20 "chill"
Folks need ice for the cooler full of beer for backyard BBQ.
Haha heck yeah! They gotta keep their 40's of Mad Dog 20/20 "chill"
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
My point stands that there are state and federal rules against using EBT for this, and they are not breaking these rules by doing so.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
Wrong. If they can afford $7 for a 6-pack of beer, they shouldn't need EBT? Not sure I follow your logic. If I make 15k a year and am on welfare and choose to spend $7 on a 6-pack using my own cash, how do I "not need" EBT again? DO tell.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
Wrong. Because you can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Wrong. How does this prevent the problem you've already described (people using food stamps for the food and then extra cash for the liquor, etc.)?
Finally, the point you keep avoiding: your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
I never said people used EBT to purchase _______. I said I saw people purchase _______ while on EBT. State and federal laws have nothing to do with this.
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one. Back in the day, people were ashamed to be on food states and did whatever they could as fast as they could to better themselves. Nowadays it is just a card that can be swiped like a CC. Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
My point stands that there are state and federal rules against using EBT for this, and they are not breaking these rules by doing so.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
Wrong. If they can afford $7 for a 6-pack of beer, they shouldn't need EBT? Not sure I follow your logic. If I make 15k a year and am on welfare and choose to spend $7 on a 6-pack using my own cash, how do I "not need" EBT again? DO tell.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
Wrong. Because you can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Wrong. How does this prevent the problem you've already described (people using food stamps for the food and then extra cash for the liquor, etc.)?
Finally, the point you keep avoiding: your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
I never said people used EBT to purchase _______. I said I saw people purchase _______ while on EBT. State and federal laws have nothing to do with this.
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one. Back in the day, people were ashamed to be on food states and did whatever they could as fast as they could to better themselves. Nowadays it is just a card that can be swiped like a CC. Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
My point stands that there are state and federal rules against using EBT for this, and they are not breaking these rules by doing so.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
Wrong. If they can afford $7 for a 6-pack of beer, they shouldn't need EBT? Not sure I follow your logic. If I make 15k a year and am on welfare and choose to spend $7 on a 6-pack using my own cash, how do I "not need" EBT again? DO tell.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
Wrong. Because you can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Wrong. How does this prevent the problem you've already described (people using food stamps for the food and then extra cash for the liquor, etc.)?
Finally, the point you keep avoiding: your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
I never said people used EBT to purchase _______. I said I saw people purchase _______ while on EBT. State and federal laws have nothing to do with this.
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one. Back in the day, people were ashamed to be on food states and did whatever they could as fast as they could to better themselves. Nowadays it is just a card that can be swiped like a CC. Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
I'd honestly rather my hard earned money go to feed their dogs and pets than feed their lazy no-working selves. I have more pity for innocent animals than bums who milk the govt on my dime.
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
My point stands that there are state and federal rules against using EBT for this, and they are not breaking these rules by doing so.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
Wrong. If they can afford $7 for a 6-pack of beer, they shouldn't need EBT? Not sure I follow your logic. If I make 15k a year and am on welfare and choose to spend $7 on a 6-pack using my own cash, how do I "not need" EBT again? DO tell.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
Wrong. Because you can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Wrong. How does this prevent the problem you've already described (people using food stamps for the food and then extra cash for the liquor, etc.)?
Finally, the point you keep avoiding: your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
I never said people used EBT to purchase _______. I said I saw people purchase _______ while on EBT. State and federal laws have nothing to do with this.
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one. Back in the day, people were ashamed to be on food states and did whatever they could as fast as they could to better themselves. Nowadays it is just a card that can be swiped like a CC. Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
I'd honestly rather my hard earned money go to feed their dogs and pets than feed their lazy no-working selves. I have more pity for innocent animals than bums who milk the govt on my dime.
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc.
You hear about the people getting $900 a month in food stamps and go hungry.
Any data to support these claims, specifically referring to "most of these people"? Or just your WAG?
I have personal experience from working in a grocery store.
Yes this is true. Granted I didnt know what they did at home, but the majority of EBT users had the latest smart phone, bought lotto tickets, alcohol and tobacco. [...]
That's funny. Because there are federal and state laws addressing these items being charged to EBT specifically.
According to federal law "You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods"
According to your state law, alcohol, gambling, and guns are prohibited, and "individuals who attempt to access (these) benefits commit a Class C misdemeanor".
Moreover, I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence does not = data supporting hatt's position that "Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc."
A few years ago (before I moved), a local pizza place ADVERTISED that you could use your EBT card there.
Until the loophole was closed, the EBT cash could be used for anything (including bail).
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc.
You hear about the people getting $900 a month in food stamps and go hungry.
Any data to support these claims, specifically referring to "most of these people"? Or just your WAG?
I have personal experience from working in a grocery store.
Yes this is true. Granted I didnt know what they did at home, but the majority of EBT users had the latest smart phone, bought lotto tickets, alcohol and tobacco. [...]
That's funny. Because there are federal and state laws addressing these items being charged to EBT specifically.
According to federal law "You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods"
According to your state law, alcohol, gambling, and guns are prohibited, and "individuals who attempt to access (these) benefits commit a Class C misdemeanor".
Moreover, I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence does not = data supporting hatt's position that "Most of these people spend $100s/month on cell phones, cable, Netflix, McDs, Yoohoos, chips, etc."
A few years ago (before I moved), a local pizza place ADVERTISED that you could use your EBT card there.
Until the loophole was closed, the EBT cash could be used for anything (including bail).
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
My point stands that there are state and federal rules against using EBT for this, and they are not breaking these rules by doing so.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
Wrong. If they can afford $7 for a 6-pack of beer, they shouldn't need EBT? Not sure I follow your logic. If I make 15k a year and am on welfare and choose to spend $7 on a 6-pack using my own cash, how do I "not need" EBT again? DO tell.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
Wrong. Because you can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Wrong. How does this prevent the problem you've already described (people using food stamps for the food and then extra cash for the liquor, etc.)?
Finally, the point you keep avoiding: your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
I never said people used EBT to purchase _______. I said I saw people purchase _______ while on EBT. State and federal laws have nothing to do with this.
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one. Back in the day, people were ashamed to be on food states and did whatever they could as fast as they could to better themselves. Nowadays it is just a card that can be swiped like a CC. Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
I'd honestly rather my hard earned money go to feed their dogs and pets than feed their lazy no-working selves. I have more pity for innocent animals than bums who milk the govt on my dime.
I too am an animal lover, but that is not what they are intended for.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Show me in my original post where i specifically said they used EBT to purchase _______.
My point stands that there are state and federal rules against using EBT for this, and they are not breaking these rules by doing so.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hypothetical? If they could afford _______, they shouldn't need EBT. Right?
Wrong. If they can afford $7 for a 6-pack of beer, they shouldn't need EBT? Not sure I follow your logic. If I make 15k a year and am on welfare and choose to spend $7 on a 6-pack using my own cash, how do I "not need" EBT again? DO tell.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I dont feel like I should have to pay for somebody else to have a dog or dogs. EBT is for buying people food. Using it for dogs is taking advantage of the system. Right?
Wrong. Because you can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating?)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As far as "regulating" what people can and cant buy, I think they should bring back food stamps. Vouchers or the like for meats, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, etc. To me, this is the best way to make a proper meal anyways. Right?
Wrong. How does this prevent the problem you've already described (people using food stamps for the food and then extra cash for the liquor, etc.)?
Finally, the point you keep avoiding: your anecdote, while amusing, does nothing at all to support hatt's point that this describes the behavior of "most people" using EBT.
I never said people used EBT to purchase _______. I said I saw people purchase _______ while on EBT. State and federal laws have nothing to do with this.
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one. Back in the day, people were ashamed to be on food states and did whatever they could as fast as they could to better themselves. Nowadays it is just a card that can be swiped like a CC. Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
I'd honestly rather my hard earned money go to feed their dogs and pets than feed their lazy no-working selves. I have more pity for innocent animals than bums who milk the govt on my dime.
I too am an animal lover, but that is not what they are intended for.
Here I am to save the day guys, and end this quick!
Guess what, both sides lose!
Here's why-
A) If the pay rates are raised-it will cut into the bottom line. This means either 1)2 for 1s jobs, 2)more job cuts 3) Robots/new tech. Either way, savings.....
B) Even if their is no major increase, profit increases in a flat market will still be needed. So, A applies here as well. More cost savings! Jobs are currently doing quite well underneath the pressure, so what's a little more?
Either way- you lose and wall street wins! Get it? Learn never to mess with the shareholder....
So buckle down for the ride, folks.......
Guess what, both sides lose!
Here's why-
A) If the pay rates are raised-it will cut into the bottom line. This means either 1)2 for 1s jobs, 2)more job cuts 3) Robots/new tech. Either way, savings.....
B) Even if their is no major increase, profit increases in a flat market will still be needed. So, A applies here as well. More cost savings! Jobs are currently doing quite well underneath the pressure, so what's a little more?
Either way- you lose and wall street wins! Get it? Learn never to mess with the shareholder....
So buckle down for the ride, folks.......
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
Have you ever been on welfare? I'll be honest and say I haven't, but I think it's quite easy for Joe Six Packs to imagine how perfect they'd be if they were in a difficult financial situation, how they would save every single penny, and how they would contribute $0.00 to recreational activities or relaxation. Very easy to say when you're not living it, and only armchair quarterbacking, methinks.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think you misunderstood my reply. You said
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I knew quite a few people that would buy chicken liver/ heart trays and green beans so they could be their dogs on our tax dollars.
...to which I replied: [...] You can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating (edit: including chicken liver/hearts and green beans)?) According to your quote, they are not actually buying dog food, so enforcing this is impossible. Right? That's my point.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one.
Again, this does nothing to solve the problem of simply spending the food stamps on legit food items and then buying the liquor with extra cash.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
This is a tough one, because where do you draw the line when it comes to "junk food"? Most processed foods fall under that category, and on the flip side, a lot of people working low paying jobs have little time for cooking.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Your anecdotal experience is not quantitative data to support hatt's claims that "most" EBT users are like this, sorry.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
As did I. My only addition would be drug testing for any corporate CEO and executives from a company that has taken taxpayer money. Same principle, right? But I find it odd how few people who ask for drug testing for people on welfare see this equivalence.
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
Have you ever been on welfare? I'll be honest and say I haven't, but I think it's quite easy for Joe Six Packs to imagine how perfect they'd be if they were in a difficult financial situation, how they would save every single penny, and how they would contribute $0.00 to recreational activities or relaxation. Very easy to say when you're not living it, and only armchair quarterbacking, methinks.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think you misunderstood my reply. You said
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I knew quite a few people that would buy chicken liver/ heart trays and green beans so they could be their dogs on our tax dollars.
...to which I replied: [...] You can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating (edit: including chicken liver/hearts and green beans)?) According to your quote, they are not actually buying dog food, so enforcing this is impossible. Right? That's my point.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one.
Again, this does nothing to solve the problem of simply spending the food stamps on legit food items and then buying the liquor with extra cash.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
This is a tough one, because where do you draw the line when it comes to "junk food"? Most processed foods fall under that category, and on the flip side, a lot of people working low paying jobs have little time for cooking.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Your anecdotal experience is not quantitative data to support hatt's claims that "most" EBT users are like this, sorry.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
As did I. My only addition would be drug testing for any corporate CEO and executives from a company that has taken taxpayer money. Same principle, right? But I find it odd how few people who ask for drug testing for people on welfare see this equivalence.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
Oh wait, I guess I missed this last bit. You seem to have some pretty far-fetched (and totally baseless) assumptions.
I never said I don't agree with stricter rules, I simply pointed out the flaws in your description of what you'd like to see done (e.g., dog food, junk food, EBT vs food stamps and liquor).
And, as I said in my last post, I agree with the drug testing, as long as it is applied fairly amongst everyone who uses taxpayer money, including corporate execs who accept bailouts.
Next time, you might ask before putting your foot in your mouth and assuming.
I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
Oh wait, I guess I missed this last bit. You seem to have some pretty far-fetched (and totally baseless) assumptions.
I never said I don't agree with stricter rules, I simply pointed out the flaws in your description of what you'd like to see done (e.g., dog food, junk food, EBT vs food stamps and liquor).
And, as I said in my last post, I agree with the drug testing, as long as it is applied fairly amongst everyone who uses taxpayer money, including corporate execs who accept bailouts.
Next time, you might ask before putting your foot in your mouth and assuming.
I am having a super hard time seeing what side of the spectrum you're on. You come after me, but later say you too would like stricter rules. Okay... Lol.
You have a strong sense of entitlement which bothers me greatly. Not just you, but this nation as a whole. That said, I don't think my assumption about you was far off base.
You have a strong sense of entitlement which bothers me greatly. Not just you, but this nation as a whole. That said, I don't think my assumption about you was far off base.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I am having a super hard time seeing what side of the spectrum you're on. You come after me, but later say you too would like stricter rules. Okay... Lol.
What exactly is confusing? You proposed some changes, and I responded with why they are impractical to implement. You have avoided responding to any of that. Why? Other changes (like drug testing) I agreed with and merely extended to other taxpayer-funded individuals. Do you find it hard to follow when things aren't polarized like Fox/MSNBC, and gray instead of B&W?
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
You have a strong sense of entitlement which bothers me greatly. Not just you, but this nation as a whole. That said, I don't think my assumption about you was far off base.
Please point out the "entitlement" you see specifically with examples. I notice you never responded to my question as to whether you've been on welfare. Since you're going to continue assuming that about me, I guess I should repeat (since I've already stated this once) that I've never been on welfare (very far from it, in fact), but I do find it odd when others who've never been on welfare talk about how they would save every single penny, and how they would contribute $0.00 to recreational activities or relaxation. That's very easy to say when you're not living it, and only armchair quarterbacking, methinks.
Now how about you actually respond to some of this:
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
Have you ever been on welfare? I'll be honest and say I haven't, but I think it's quite easy for Joe Six Packs to imagine how perfect they'd be if they were in a difficult financial situation, how they would save every single penny, and how they would contribute $0.00 to recreational activities or relaxation. Very easy to say when you're not living it, and only armchair quarterbacking, methinks.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think you misunderstood my reply. You said
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I knew quite a few people that would buy chicken liver/ heart trays and green beans so they could be their dogs on our tax dollars.
...to which I replied: [...] You can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating (edit: including chicken liver/hearts and green beans)?) According to your quote, they are not actually buying dog food, so enforcing this is impossible. Right? That's my point.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one.
Again, this does nothing to solve the problem of simply spending the food stamps on legit food items and then buying the liquor with extra cash.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
This is a tough one, because where do you draw the line when it comes to "junk food"? Most processed foods fall under that category, and on the flip side, a lot of people working low paying jobs have little time for cooking.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Your anecdotal experience is not quantitative data to support hatt's claims that "most" EBT users are like this, sorry.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
As did I. My only addition would be drug testing for any corporate CEO and executives from a company that has taken taxpayer money. Same principle, right? But I find it odd how few people who ask for drug testing for people on welfare see this equivalence.
...those weren't rhetorical questions, friend. Just questions you very obviously avoided answering.
I am having a super hard time seeing what side of the spectrum you're on. You come after me, but later say you too would like stricter rules. Okay... Lol.
What exactly is confusing? You proposed some changes, and I responded with why they are impractical to implement. You have avoided responding to any of that. Why? Other changes (like drug testing) I agreed with and merely extended to other taxpayer-funded individuals. Do you find it hard to follow when things aren't polarized like Fox/MSNBC, and gray instead of B&W?
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
You have a strong sense of entitlement which bothers me greatly. Not just you, but this nation as a whole. That said, I don't think my assumption about you was far off base.
Please point out the "entitlement" you see specifically with examples. I notice you never responded to my question as to whether you've been on welfare. Since you're going to continue assuming that about me, I guess I should repeat (since I've already stated this once) that I've never been on welfare (very far from it, in fact), but I do find it odd when others who've never been on welfare talk about how they would save every single penny, and how they would contribute $0.00 to recreational activities or relaxation. That's very easy to say when you're not living it, and only armchair quarterbacking, methinks.
Now how about you actually respond to some of this:
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I guess you and I were raised differently my friend. If I cant afford _______, I choose not to buy it. If I made 15k (your suggested salary for EBT users.) a year and not enough to feed my family, beer would be the last thing on my shopping list. I guess other people have different priorities.
Have you ever been on welfare? I'll be honest and say I haven't, but I think it's quite easy for Joe Six Packs to imagine how perfect they'd be if they were in a difficult financial situation, how they would save every single penny, and how they would contribute $0.00 to recreational activities or relaxation. Very easy to say when you're not living it, and only armchair quarterbacking, methinks.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
The dog food thing is killing me. I was told personally by a few individuals that she used EBT purchased food to feed her dog. What would I need to prove and who do I need to prove this to? You? You are just a dude on the web as am I. I cant make this stuff up myself. If you can't take my word, then I am sorry.
I think you misunderstood my reply. You said
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I knew quite a few people that would buy chicken liver/ heart trays and green beans so they could be their dogs on our tax dollars.
...to which I replied: [...] You can never prove it. How do you propose to enforce this? Again, I'd love to see how you propose determine whether people are choosing to give any of the food they buy to their dog (as if they can't throw them scraps of whatever meat they're eating (edit: including chicken liver/hearts and green beans)?) According to your quote, they are not actually buying dog food, so enforcing this is impossible. Right? That's my point.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I think the food stamp vouchers will be more of a hassle to use for one.
Again, this does nothing to solve the problem of simply spending the food stamps on legit food items and then buying the liquor with extra cash.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Secondly, pop, junk food, chewing gum and ice wouldn't be included with these vouchers. My annoyance with such lenient rules isnt only with being able to buy ______, but also being able to buy the above garbage foods.
This is a tough one, because where do you draw the line when it comes to "junk food"? Most processed foods fall under that category, and on the flip side, a lot of people working low paying jobs have little time for cooking.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Also, I already told you the majority of EBT users I witnessed were like this one way or the other.
Your anecdotal experience is not quantitative data to support hatt's claims that "most" EBT users are like this, sorry.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Just to simplify everything. I would like more strict rules on these programs. Drug tests would be nice too especially since I had to take one to make the money that supports these programs. Since you are against this, my only assumption is that you are one of these people.
As did I. My only addition would be drug testing for any corporate CEO and executives from a company that has taken taxpayer money. Same principle, right? But I find it odd how few people who ask for drug testing for people on welfare see this equivalence.
...those weren't rhetorical questions, friend. Just questions you very obviously avoided answering.
Internship in Pensacola, FL. Pays $20-21 an hour, after 6 months it will be $25-26 an hour with benefits.
https://xjobs.brassring.com/tgwebhost/jobdetails.aspx?partnerid=54&siteid=5346&jobid=1267455
https://xjobs.brassring.com/tgwebhost/jobdetails.aspx?partnerid=54&siteid=5346&jobid=1267455
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Here I am to save the day guys, and end this quick!
Guess what, both sides lose!
Here's why-
A) If the pay rates are raised-it will cut into the bottom line. This means either 1)2 for 1s jobs, 2)more job cuts 3) Robots/new tech. Either way, savings.....
B) Even if their is no major increase, profit increases in a flat market will still be needed. So, A applies here as well. More cost savings! Jobs are currently doing quite well underneath the pressure, so what's a little more?
Either way- you lose and wall street wins! Get it? Learn never to mess with the shareholder....
So buckle down for the ride, folks.......
You missed the part where the common man/ society has more money to spend, and they'd be likely to actually do so.
Here I am to save the day guys, and end this quick!
Guess what, both sides lose!
Here's why-
A) If the pay rates are raised-it will cut into the bottom line. This means either 1)2 for 1s jobs, 2)more job cuts 3) Robots/new tech. Either way, savings.....
B) Even if their is no major increase, profit increases in a flat market will still be needed. So, A applies here as well. More cost savings! Jobs are currently doing quite well underneath the pressure, so what's a little more?
Either way- you lose and wall street wins! Get it? Learn never to mess with the shareholder....
So buckle down for the ride, folks.......
You missed the part where the common man/ society has more money to spend, and they'd be likely to actually do so.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Here I am to save the day guys, and end this quick!
Guess what, both sides lose!
Here's why-
A) If the pay rates are raised-it will cut into the bottom line. This means either 1)2 for 1s jobs, 2)more job cuts 3) Robots/new tech. Either way, savings.....
B) Even if their is no major increase, profit increases in a flat market will still be needed. So, A applies here as well. More cost savings! Jobs are currently doing quite well underneath the pressure, so what's a little more?
Either way- you lose and wall street wins! Get it? Learn never to mess with the shareholder....
So buckle down for the ride, folks.......
You missed the part where the common man/ society has more money to spend, and they'd be likely to actually do so.
So I hear...
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Here I am to save the day guys, and end this quick!
Guess what, both sides lose!
Here's why-
A) If the pay rates are raised-it will cut into the bottom line. This means either 1)2 for 1s jobs, 2)more job cuts 3) Robots/new tech. Either way, savings.....
B) Even if their is no major increase, profit increases in a flat market will still be needed. So, A applies here as well. More cost savings! Jobs are currently doing quite well underneath the pressure, so what's a little more?
Either way- you lose and wall street wins! Get it? Learn never to mess with the shareholder....
So buckle down for the ride, folks.......
You missed the part where the common man/ society has more money to spend, and they'd be likely to actually do so.
So I hear...
- Status
