Lady goes off on man with son at supermarket for using foodstamps (video)

[Jinpachi]

Not really. People are morons who can't do math to realize that welfare recipients cost them about 20 dollars a year, versus the fact that nearly every penny of their tax money is going towards pork barrel sweetheart deals/tax breaks being slung around like candy for the top 0.1%.

So they bite down on the shit biscuit that their lives suck, because poor people are robbing them blind. When in reality their life sucks because their boss cut their Christmas bonus so he could buy a gold plated swimming pool.

But god forbid we ever direct our ire at the people who deserve it. But then we would give up our delusion that we're all just "temporarily embarrassed millionaires".

I see it all the time in a grocery store. If somebody is paying with food stamps, their head is usually slung pretty low.

You've hit the nail directly on the head. We spend all this money on military and bailing out big business, and nobody bats an eye. Help feed the less fortunate, and everyone loses their damn minds.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't wait to shame you when you're down on your luck and need help... Ill be sure to remind you that its for your own good.

Let me know when it happens, i want to join you in it.

[Theodarzna]

I think my response to the woman would have first been to find out if she were religious or patriotic and then asked either "Are we not our brothers keeper?" Or "Why should I support a country that cannot even provide me decent pay or food?"

[Tijuana]

This...a thousand times. As someone of no faith, because I just can't feel the emotion or the idea and I won't pretend to fit in, I find it ironic that people who are so willing to pray for their friends and push this message of god on people somehow get lost on the basic principals of their own religion. It is kind of sad. Then again, they are the same people who vote against their own benefits and can't stand the idea of socialized medicine, but have a facebook full of go fund me for people they know who can't pay their medical bills.

Not to nitpick but, you have that issue a little off, imho. If we are using the actual definitions, socialized medicine would be a concern for anyone, even those who get free healthcare. The issue with socialism is that the government sucks at running things. Regardless of who pays the bill, we don't want the actual healthcare to suck. Single payer on the other hand, is something I support as a conservative, as there is factually little, if any capitalism going on in healthcare, going back ~50 years.

To further clarify, "Socialized medicine" is government ran hospitals. "Single payer" is government ran health insurance.

[Theodarzna]

Not to nitpick but, you have that issue a little off, imho. If we are using the actual definitions, socialized medicine would be a concern for anyone, even those who get free healthcare. The issue with socialism is that the government sucks at running things. Regardless of who pays the bill, we don't want the actual healthcare to suck. Single payer on the other hand, is something I support as a conservative, as there is factually little, if any capitalism going on in healthcare, going back ~50 years.

Would you say the Government sucks are running the army?

[Hiricine]

Then why are you shaming the people working and on welfare? You should be shaming their employers for refusing to pay them a living wage and requiring their workers subsidize them with welfare.

Fun fact, last time I checked, on the national average, the average Walmart Super Center costs the surrounding area roughly 1 million dollars per year per store in government aid to their workers. Yet instead of shaming Walmart for having those practices, you instead shame the employees whom have no choice but to work under those conditions unless they want to go unemployed.

Well their employers could always just lay them off, then they won't be paying them too low of a wage if thats a better solution. I'm not advocating for it but that would seem to be the natural consequence. Also if they're worth that "living wage" howabout you go ahead and hire them at that wage and make a fortune because you obviously know something their current employer doesn't.

To the second point, Wal Mart could always close down and lay off those employees, then it would actually "cost" more in gov aid. Your entire definition of public costs fails any logical assessment.

People deserve shame for working and not making a living wage but the corporations don't deserve shame for paying unlivable wages?

Yea your post is disgusting.

As to the previous post I quoted, YOU go hire these people for a living wage and make a fortune if its that simple. Besides, minimum wage is livable if you don't want to live in a bustling metro area and you don't have 3 kids to support. Your definition of a living wage fails any logical definition, because there are people around the world who live on less than 10% of what this guy and his family are pulling in.

- - - Updated - - -

Would you say the Government sucks are running the army?

Theres a reason PMCs exist and its not because they aren't good enough to get into Government military.

[Theodarzna]

As to the previous post I quoted, YOU go hire these people for a living wage and make a fortune if its that simple. Besides, minimum wage is livable if you don't want to live in a bustling metro area and you don't have 3 kids to support. Your definition of a living wage fails any logical definition, because there are people around the world who live on less than 10% of what this guy and his family are pulling in.

Should we not shame the cretins in business whom choose their own wallet over their fellow countrymen? What of their patriotism?

[Syero]

A friend of mine who worked at Wal-Mart was taught my management how to collect food stamps while working for Wal-Mart.

I thought that was funny. Its a problem with the jobs and minimum wage. The guy at the register was even saying he works 50 to 60 hours a week.

[Theodarzna]

Theres a reason PMCs exist and its not because they aren't good enough to get into Government military.

History will easily show, dependence on mercenaries is a strategy that has worked zero times for the countries that grew to depend on them.

[Tijuana]

Would you say the Government sucks are running the army?

Yes. However, since what they do is so important, winning is more of a concern than being efficient.

[Theodarzna]

Yes. However, since what they do is so important, winning is more of a concern than being efficient.

So you accept there are goals outside of efficiency?

[Tijuana]

A friend of mine who worked at Wal-Mart was taught my management how to collect food stamps while working for Wal-Mart.

I thought that was funny. Its a problem with the jobs and minimum wage. The guy at the register was even saying he works 50 to 60 hours a week.

You don't know what he makes, or what his circumstances are. Maybe he makes $50 an hour but has several special needs kids. Food stamps can be given to anyone with a need.

- - - Updated - - -

So you accept there are goals outside of efficiency?

Of course. I'm not a partisan hack. I understand that, by definition, there are pros and cons to every controversial issue.

I bring up this point all the time. I think the left is particularly guilty of lying to make their programs appear cheaper, instead of trying to convince the public that the cost is worth it. Champion your issue, instead of distorting truth.

Look at Obamacare. Instead of the obvious lie that cost would go down when demand went up and supply stayed equal, why not just say the cost is morally worth it?

[The Casualty]

Your definition of a living wage fails any logical definition, because there are people around the world who live on less than 10% of what this guy and his family are pulling in.

This argument does not pass muster, and its ironic that you would talk about the differences in cost of living not more than one sentence prior and still type it out. Yes. There are people who subsist on hundreds of dollars per year. The per capita income of those places however is completely different than where I imagine anyone posting on these forums or the man and woman in that video are living.

[Hiricine]

History will easily show, dependence on mercenaries is a strategy that has worked zero times for the countries that grew to depend on them.

In what context? If you're fighting a full scale foreign war with risk of invasion I'd suggest you're correct, but in the context the US military currently functions with a near-zero risk of a homeland attack that requires a response from ANY branch of the military, the PMCS have been doing a wonderful job at a far lower societal cost than the military.

[Fugus]

Well their employers could always just lay them off, then they won't be paying them too low of a wage if thats a better solution. I'm not advocating for it but that would seem to be the natural consequence. Also if they're worth that "living wage" howabout you go ahead and hire them at that wage and make a fortune because you obviously know something their current employer doesn't.

To the second point, Wal Mart could always close down and lay off those employees, then it would actually "cost" more in gov aid. Your entire definition of public costs fails any logical assessment.



As to the previous post I quoted, YOU go hire these people for a living wage and make a fortune if its that simple. Besides, minimum wage is livable if you don't want to live in a bustling metro area and you don't have 3 kids to support. Your definition of a living wage fails any logical definition, because there are people around the world who live on less than 10% of what this guy and his family are pulling in.

If they are laying off their employees than they are losing money because they aren't getting the work done. And the absolute minimum any job is worth is the cost of providing for the worker doing it. To pay less than that is to subsidize the employer as that worker has to be provided for somehow and you are forcing another entity to cover that as you took the results of his labor from him.

And any company that relies on paying below living wages deserves to go under for having such a flawed business model propped up and let another company willing to actually do the job right come in and take it's place.

And actually, if Walmart were to close their doors, they would lose more money than they saved and it would be huge short term loss, long term gain for the area after it rebuilds without Walmart there and the businesses that replace it have to do the job that walmart was avoiding. You forget, we have whole communities who refuse to allow Walmarts to open because they depress the local economies with their practices.

And I was trying to point out to you that much of this public welfare is just corporate welfare under a different guise.

And judging by your last quote of my stuff, you have zero idea what the actual issue is if you think an individual or even group of individual companies paying proper wages would fix it.

[Theodarzna]

In what context? If you're fighting a full scale foreign war with risk of invasion I'd suggest you're correct, but in the context the US military currently functions with a near-zero risk of a homeland attack that requires a response from ANY branch of the military, the PMCS have been doing a wonderful job at a far lower societal cost than the military.

There exists a tricky problem of a Soldiers ultimate purpose is a willingness to die for a cause, but being motivated by self-interest is counter to that. If I am only in it for the paycheck, I am never going to say sacrifice myself for the group, I will turn on you the minute the enemy offers better pay.

PMC's are dangerous because in the long run soldiers with no inherent loyalty to the Nation, TURN on that nation.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course. I'm not a partisan hack. I understand that, by definition, there are pros and cons to every controversial issue.

I bring up this point all the time. I think the left is particularly guilty of lying to make their programs appear cheaper, instead of trying to convince the public that the cost is worth it. Champion your issue, instead of distorting truth.

Look at Obamacare. Instead of the obvious lie that cost would go down when demand went up and supply stayed equal, why not just say the cost is morally worth it?

Lefties are forced to in the United States since Americans lack any form of patriotic loyalty, "Fellow Countrymen," mentality or any sense of unity. In a nation of Hucksters seeking to work a hustle or a dodge its only reasonable to appeal to them on that level.

[Sir Andy]

Joke's on both of them.

They're shopping at Wal-Mart.

[Detheavn]

A turned-around hat is indicative of communist sympathies. Don't they teach that in primary anymore?

Damn, and here I was thinking it was about his shirt, because that's classy as fuck.

[Hiricine]

This argument does not pass muster, and its ironic that you would talk about the differences in cost of living not more than one sentence prior and still type it out. Yes. There are people who subsist on hundreds of dollars per year. The per capita income of those places however is completely different than where I imagine anyone posting on these forums or the man and woman in that video are living.

The fact that a wage is not necessarily a "living" wage anywhere is a simple point I think we agree on here, but the fact that such a wage is livable by MANY single people, particularly if like the man in the example they work more than 40 hours a week would suggest that however others want to define a living wage is only to serve an argument that has no merit. And if we're talking about what a living wage is for any hypothetically sized family in any hypothetical cost of living environment the goal posts are moving so fast I couldn't catch them if I was the Flash snorting cocaine.

If the definition of a living wage is anything more than what it takes for someone working 80 hours a week to support themselves (and just themselves) in the cheapest living environment available, it isn't worth talking about.

[Indigenously Abled]

Not on this planet. Not sure about yours.

I wasn't at all serious, if you're still having trouble grasping that.

[NineSpine]

Not to nitpick but, you have that issue a little off, imho. If we are using the actual definitions, socialized medicine would be a concern for anyone, even those who get free healthcare. The issue with socialism is that the government sucks at running things. Regardless of who pays the bill, we don't want the actual healthcare to suck. Single payer on the other hand, is something I support as a conservative, as there is factually little, if any capitalism going on in healthcare, going back ~50 years.

To further clarify, "Socialized medicine" is government ran hospitals. "Single payer" is government ran health insurance.

Is the government bad at running things? Medicare and social security have incredibly low overhead. The Post Office was chugging along just fine until Republicans intentionally broke it. Sure, if conservatives intentionally break programs in order to justify their ideology, then yes, government is bad at running things, but that sounds like a reason to elect people who have an interest in running government properly.