fit properly and didn't make my feet hurt and I wanted my very own books.

And f^ck them that want to deny people a little happiness in their lives.

I really don't care what some has, I care what some doesn't have i.e the essentials food, shelter, healthcare and we have too many who don't.

for indoctrinating people with this Dickensian B.S.

"Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem."

You being defined as anyone that isn't them.

Or at least possess the knowledge of what a superior person is and will work to rid us of all the lesser people, the work of one of their board members in eugenics?

I saw a picture of some of them, and I think they must all have been high if they think they have superior people figured out.

existed back in Dickensian times, their BS would have been "These people aren't poor. Look, they have these lovely hovels to live in, and raggedy clothes to wear. If they were truly poor they would be naked and living in the woods with the animals".


Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

through the online-only bank system, check on things like public transportation schedules, and quickly and easily text babysitters and caregivers when schedules change. Cheaper than a laptop or desktop computer, anyway.

straight out of the box from the AT&T store for $1.00. The iPhone 5's had just come out and AT & T was dumping the "old" models. The moral of the story: one should never assume.

The iPhone 6's are scheduled to come out in September which is my que to upgrade to a 5.

There is no way of knowing the whole story behind any possession if you never ask.

The amazing leaps in judgment conservatives make just goes to the core of what assholes they are. May they learn empathy and the reason for it. And the sooner the better. They are an anchor on humanity.

I agree with your post, however, these moralizing haters have no business asking where anyone one got there belongings. They just need to have the humility to understand that they don't know and so should just STFU with their judgmental BS.

My husband's iPhone was free because a new version had just been released.

I've read that post previously, and I burn every time I think about it. When I do the Christmas-for-those-who-can't afford-it gift, I try to get something nice, because life ought to have some pleasure, even if you're poor.

I used to work for what used to be an orphanage, and we were publishing a book about its years, kind of a multi-yearbook for the former residents, full of pictures and stories. One boy told about the year when All the Cool Kids were wearing a certain sweater from the priciest department store in town. Said store donated a pile of those sweaters for the orphans' Christmas. Imagine how proud they were to go back to school in January, dressed like the rich kids! The rich kids never wore those sweaters again.

People suck.

far more successfully than it teaches love and kindness. And people think it's OK. Look at how many Americans voted for Mitt Romney, even after his hateful, bullying attitudes and behaviors (that seem to be true to his character, as opposed to mistakes made and regretted.)

I try not to lose hope, but it's hard when there are so many examples of just how much people really do suck.

I grew up poor. We don't have food stamps over here (UK) but we were on various forms of welfare for most of my childhood and we got the same kind of moralising bullshit that says poor people shouldn't have nice things. I'm on disability now and I still get the same kind of moralising bullshit. And it's all based on class resentment. The bastards at the top have, through their tame media, trained people to always resent the underclass, to always kick downward.

So they demand ever more austere welfare and ever more stringent tests. Here, teh Tories abolished council tax benefit (which paid all teh CT bill) and instituted council tax support (which only pays 2/3), effectively cutting benefits by several hundred pounds a year. And they make the tests that I have to go through ever harsher. I suffer from MDD, GAD, "visions" and voices. My knees and back are so shot that I have to use crutches if I'm standing for more than a minute-or-so and my mental illness makes me carve myself up with razors a couple times a week but still, the general public thinks no-one should be on welfare and we should fall on our knees in thanks for even the tiniest crumb of support. The only reason I haven't been re-assessed this year is because teh last reassessment caused me such terror that it led to a suicide bid and my SO and doctor said they feared for my life if I had to go through it again.

Fuck this morally superior bullshit, fuck every prick who thinks like this.

The biggest thing that pisses me off about right wing freaks *(and THAT is a loooooooooooooong list to begin with...)* is the over-the-top hatred of the poor and the need to lord it over them like some sick caricature of a Dickens school marm.

I simply do not understand the mindset or the need to rip apart someone who has little to nothing just because you may discover they have anything at all.

The story of the boy who actually worked and saved the money to buy a present for his brother only to be attacked by the bloviating asshat neighbor breaks my heart. I wish that particular neighbor received a karmic payback of some kind...but then again, to live with that depth of hatred in your heart is in many ways its own punishment.

A life spent chasing things and trinkets and possessions and incessantly worrying about the possessions of others is a disgusting waste of resources and pathetic when you realize that we all die in the end, and everything we "own" is returned to the pot when we are forced to give up our seat at this grand poker game of life. Learning to enjoy the journey and the value of helping others along the way, and KNOWING that this is utterly lost on them gives me a measure of comfort at the last.

...you should reconsider casting stones from within glass houses.

TYY

The third and second to last paragraphs in that thread really sum it up for me. I see that attitude all the time.

Enlightening read for those that care to be enlightened.

but I still have a credit card, not much of a limit, and I was with my bank for over 10 years before I got it but I do have one. Only put large ticket items (never more than a few hundred dollars) once a year, if that. Then I spend months paying it off. Thankfully, no one has ever judged me for being poor, maybe I've just been lucky.

It is possible to be poor and still have nice things. This kind of prejudice comes straight from ignorance.

is a personality disorder for which we have no therapy and no cure.

Psychopathy is identified by the complete lack of EMPATHY, lacking the ability to even attempt to identify and understand another person's thoughts and feelings, or to care what one does to another person--cruelty, in short. Other symptoms are greed, an inferiority complex that makes the psychopath act superior, a flat affect, and superficial charm.

mid 2000 and ipads have been around since Obama was elected. Also many school districts give children ipads for homework. This may well become the family computer. This reasoning works with the elderly who lose track of time, and don't realize something maybe pretty old. They do the same with air conditioners and color tvs.

when I see "welfare recipients" with consumer electronics?

(How do I know they're on welfare?! Because I have the magic radar that comes with being a white guy? Anyway...)

I think that it's 2014.

Capitalism has gotten pretty good at over-producing formerly exclusive consumer junk and getting it into the hands of many millions of people at discount prices. Sometimes it even comes for free. Surplus junk has to be unloaded to clear the shelves for the next generations of junk, and these tend to arrive at shorter intervals.

At least, that's how it usually works in the rich countries.

I also think that most everyone nowadays, whether poor or less poor, needs this technology if they're going to work and get by.

And at the same time, I think production of this technology doesn't do jack shit to lower the exorbitant and soul-crushing rents and debts to which most everyone is subject.

It also doesn't magically conjure up jobs that can consistently pay the rent and the debt and the food and the health care and generate savings, not when there is a constant reduction in the labor required for increasing levels of overproduction. The time has come therefore to raise the question of working hours and the central role of "the job" in defining every single person.

Of course, I could always just forget all of this self-evident stuff, and instead reduce myself to an asshole and an idiot and take petty pleasure in passing judgement on people I don't even know, in a fashion that makes me feel superior.

then you shouldn't be posting stupid ones on the Internet, where there is already a surplus thereof.

Last edited Tue Jun 17, 2014, 08:52 AM - Edit history (2)

Language is a convention for communication, not a set of immutable laws like computer programming. Certain prohibitions on clear common usage are merely neuroses for the middlebrow. You may end a sentence with a preposition, split an infinitive, use hopefully to describe your attitude in speaking, and choose whether to use the Oxford comma on the basis of clarity rather than literality.

Also, you may use the edit function to fix your mistakes.

So it's fine for ending sentences

The police don't always agree...

Nosy, arrogant, prying little fuckers who know, they just know everything about you and your world and your life - and are they ever ready to judge accordingly.

Wish I could recommend more than once.

You can get an iphone cheap from ebay or craigslist quite easily if you are patient.

To people who do not have money. Sickening.

My husband is legally blind and uses both an iphone and an ipad. ipads are great for autistic people. My autistic son saved up his allowance until he could afford an ipad. He also bought himself a Nintendo 2DS with chore money. Other than electronics my son never spends his money so he doesn't have a problem saving his money. In fact he is better with his money than most people. Conservative assholes can go to hell.

For my severely autistic self injurious non-verbal daughter.

There is an app that can be purchased for less than $200 that enables her to communicate with a device that is small enough that it can be taken anywhere. It's amazing that such affordable hardware and software exist.

I can't understand why people are so concerned about the possessions of others.

The person who is complaining probably does not have an iPhone and resents the one who does.

who don't have landlines, or computers with internet. People with low incomes might not have a stable living situation either and phone lets you have a consistent number and a way to check emails, bus/transit times, directions, etc. A smartphone would be a good investment and can be had for less than a judgmental conservative would think.

Many DUers are judgmental of people with different types of jobs and situations as well.

The smart phone goes right in line with historical technological necessities required to get along in our society. In the 1930s & 1940s it was the radio that these anti-welfare guys were yelling about. In the 1950s and 1960s they added the automobile as an outrageous purchase for someone on welfare to have even though most cities and states were paving everything over and getting rid of public transportation making cars a necessity. In the 1980s and 1990s I heard people getting upset about poor people having VCRs and microwaves. Now it is a smart phone. Their biggest problem, I think, is they don't want to see a poor person with something that they themselves have because that undermines their own sense of 'accomplishment' (read: entitlement).

A cell phone of any sort is reaching the status of a necessity in our society. A smart phone combines several utilities into one. Phone, long distance, internet (especially with the ability to utilize free wifi), text, voice mail, etc. Apparently, poor people are supposed to 'pull themselves up by their boot straps' and do it with stone age technology. (How many times do potential employers say 'fax me your resume' or 'just drop your resume in the mail and I'll read it about 3-5 days when it gets here'!!)

Just my two-cents.

P.S. Ever try to rent an apartment WITHOUT a fridge or air conditioning?!

Now, most units have Refrigerators, but it is NOT required in most states. If you rent a unit with a refrigerator it is the duty of the landlord to maintain that refrigerator, for if it was in the rental unit when you looked at it, having a refrigerator become part of the lease. Notice the existence of a Refrigerator is like the existence of running water and a roof, their existence during a tenant review of the rental unit makes them part of the lease, and as such subject to legal action is something goes wrong with the Refrigerator (or pluming or the roof). On the other hand, no states that I know of REQUIRES a refrigerator in rental units offered for rent.

Now, public housing is required by Federal law to provide refrigerators, and stoves in addition to heat and electricity to tenants. Most landlords since the 1950s have known about this requirement and to compete with public housing started to provide the same items, but no state that I know of made such items mandatory for rental units provided by private citizens.

Please note, many local municipalities have restrictions on rental units in addition to state law, but again I have NOT run across any the REQUIRE refrigerators.

The main reason for his is a lot of Tenants have their own Refrigerators, Stoves and Washer and Dryers and thus do NOT need the landlord to provide those items. On the other hand, most Apartments do have those items (or access to Washer and Dryer elsewhere in the apartment complex) for Tenants expect those items and will NOT rent an apartment without them.

Not required in California:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08/business/la-fi-rent-20120108

Nor required in my home state of Pennsylvania, whose laws I am more familiar with but also has no Statute on point as to what is in an rental unit. The laws reflects the changes that most rent is for housing, but the law also retains its traditional role of renting land for planting and harvesting crops. Evictions are set by Stature and access to cable is set by stature (lobbied for by Cable Companies) but the rest of Pennsylvania Landlord Law is a product of Case Law since 1689 when William Penn Founded Pennsylvania.

Please note, in many states, including Pennsylvania, the same Landlord and Tenant law applies to renting houses, apartments and businesses. Thus the same law applies to you renting a one bedroom apartment as well as Walmart renting its store from whoever is the owner of the land the Walmart is on. Thus if State Law requires a Landlord to provide a Refrigerator, how does come into play with Walmart renting a store? Given most State laws are written by lobbyists and the most active lobbyists tend to be business lobbyists, state Landlord and Tenant Law reflect what such businesses want NOT want Tenants or even Landlord wants. Thus I be surprised if any state actually requires anything in a Rental unit except that it be habitable, and I be surprised if any state habitability Statute addresses any requirement for any "white goods" to be in any rental unit.

Now, local laws, more affected by Landlords and Tenants, may require Refrigerators and stoves in their habitability law, but most do not. Local laws and most state laws require fire alarms and some local ordinances require fire extinguishers but that is the limit of what is required by the landlord to provide.

Sorry, I have to disagree with your statement but I have been doing Landlord and Tenant law for over 25 years and I have NEVER run across a law the require a Landlord to provide a Refrigerator except for public housing.

Which I clearly pointed out was a requirement even in Pennsylvania, but that does NOT mean a Landlord has to provide a Refrigerator to all or any Tenants, unless it is part of the written, oral or by the actions of the parties contract:

http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/Tenant_Rights_2011.pdf

For example, that pamphlet from NC is missing a lot of law. For example, the tenant is entitled to break the lease without penalty if there's a rat or roach infestation in the property. Vermin isn't in your pamphlet.

Technically, most states have adopted a "Warranty of Habitability" when it comes to rent units used for housing. Excess insect infestation can be a violation of such "Warranty of Habitability" but try proving it some time. Most Justices of the Peace will demand proof and if the Tenant does not have some exterminator he hired to eliminate such infestation, the Justice of the Peace will agree with the Landlord who claims there was no such infestation and even if they was, it was not severe enough to violate the "Warranty of Habitability".

Unless the municipality has an inspector that reports such infestation, and either the Inspector goes to the hearing held by the Justice of the Peace OR the landlord do NOT object to the report as hearsay, which it is then the Justice of the Peace can NOT consider the report. It is hard to prove such infestation, even in Public Housing where the Public Housing authority has to do an inspection at least once a year.

Unless you have solid evidence, including wittinesses "Warranty of Habitability" cases are rarely successful. Thus the reason North Carolina Legal Aid did not mention it, for it is rarely successful.

In my area, the Public Housing is next to the river, and such locations are known to be infested with roaches, rats and other vermin, who get into the public housing projects all the time. All the law requires is that the landlord make REASONABLE efforts to contain such vermin and it is up to a Justice of the Peace to rule that the Landlord actions were reasonable. Given most Justice of the Peace are also landlords, they tend to side with landlords in such disputes UNLESS the Tenant has solid evidence.

Anyway, on this sub thread we are discussing refrigerators and other appliances NOT vermin. My point was to show that the laws of most states (if not all states) do NOT require a landlord to provide a Refrigerator to a residential rental unit. That Pamphlet provided the answer I needed, that North Carolina law does NOT require landlord to provide such appliances, but if they do the landlord must maintain them.

and need a phone number if they have a job, or if they have kids in school, or a million other things. People have to be able to reach you in this world. Even if you're poor.

I understand and accept that some may acquire a real good cell and not pay a lot for it but that isn't the norm IMO.

You can get a used earlier gen one pretty cheap. I use my husband's old phone (he got a new one from his work) so I paid nothing for the phone and I pay per month for service - it's pretty reasonable.

I think part of the problem is seeing someone with a flat-screen TV or iPhone or whatever and making assumptions based on them possessing it. Maybe it's an older one. Maybe it's a hand-me-down. Maybe it was a gift. If you don't know the person, you can't possibly know the story behind it, and you shouldn't make any assumptions.

You haven't done a survey so you don't know what the norm is, and more importantly when dealing with individuals, you don't know what any particular person's story is.

and I am sure you know that some phones require connectivity that is not that cheap.

even if they're poor. That's the real issue. A smart phone might be the only internet access they have, and email is important these days for job hunts as well.

It just isn't your place to insert yourself in people's lives like that. Not even into poor people's lives. You don't know what's up and you don't need to know.

How is that not micromanaging?

and repeatedly used it to claim that a free iPhone was the wrong option.

You do realize you don't have to literally use the word "insist" to insist that they do something.

And it's a frequent assertion you have made in many other threads on this subject. If that isn't "over and over again", what is it?

the old hand-me-down iPhone you got for free.

and sometimes it will be the only data access they have aside from their public library. They might have a pay as you go plan where they buy usage cards as they can afford it. I've donated phones to charity before.

You need to respond quickly to job activity. I've had recruiters ask me to send them info same day, by close of business. Same with interviews for some positions, especially temp/contract positions.

"...and a regular cheap cell phone won't do?"

I'd imagine one would need to posses all relevant knowledge of that particular individual and that particular phone to validly imply excess or hedonistic intentions.

I'm guessing a handful of half-wits will go so far as to pretend they do indeed, have all the relevant knowledge.

I guess there are a handful of half-wits will go so far as to pretend there isn't any available info on it.

... the person has scrounged and saved and purchased one, or found one cheaply? It's like the great Grocery Cart Scrutiny Contest where people judge the food purchases of those on food stamps. Why should a person on SNAP be judged for buying steak? You might not see the "manager's special" sticker on the package that made that steak cheaper than the hamburger put out that day -- or it might be a once-a-month splurge and the rest of the month spent eating Ramen. As long as any kids in the house have enough to eat, what adults choose to purchase with their allocated SNAP benefits is really none of my business.

I'm not judging the Obamaphone. I'm glad it's there. When I became eligible (after getting Medicaid) while waiting on my disability decision, I had one. I was grateful for it, because it meant that I could reach my doctors.

But I found a $20 Motorola Droid on Ebay that worked with the service, and then later switched that same Droid over to StraightTalk when I could afford the $50 a month for it. I reimaged it so it runs Jellybean OS -- a little slower than the modern phones, but $20 and a little bit of work for a phone almost as functional as the new Galaxy ones out there?

The monthly contract cost less than the "pay as you go" way I was doing it before. It's 2 years on, and I just got a completely free upgrade, and the monthly contract is €5 less. (Maybe the same deals aren't available in the States? There are a lot of competing phone plans here in Ireland.)

Smart phones will help folks stay online and stay in touch for job searches. Here's a thought - maybe the 1% shouldn't be getting tax loopholes and all the other perks life seems to be bestowing on them.

I need to blog about this at some point. But it's what I'm sensing in general from this very sadistic and almost 'evil' viewpoint in America.

They use their 'things' to make them feel like they have something in common with Donald Trump - but at the end of the day they are seeing more and more that they aren't like him - and they are taking out their self hatred on the wrong people.

I've never been poor - never experienced that . . . but I've never been an evil human being and do not understand why it's necessary to beat someone up over a 'thing'.

.... I really don't care what adults spend their money on. SNAP isn't based on your "free" money after you spend it on whatever you like, it's based on your income and sometimes deductions for medical expenses or excessive housing costs.

The cigarette smoker with SNAP gets the same amount of SNAP benefits as the non-smoker. So when it comes to "welfare", the hold of a tobacco company is not really a deciding factor. (Of course there are better things to spend a limited income on than cigarettes.)

Because that's what we're supposed to do and stuff.

This is bullshit indoctrination telling people what to think of other people based on their economic status. There is nothing it this piece designed to help anyone or even society.

It is a divide and concur article.

Same as they are on food stamps and drive a Cadillac. Same bullshit intended to make you hate someone for what they have or don't have.

Now, there are much cheaper options for smart phone technology than the i-Phone, I don't even have an i-Phone because of the cost.

If the author of this article truly wanted to improve society, they would have done something to help those who are low income better manage their money. But this is more effective for their purpose, just look at the variety of responses on this thread, their divide and concur works and works well.

It's ironic that, in this society, if one is born into wealth - say, a great inheritance, nobody gives a shit that they have an iphone, three houses, a butler, an offshore tax haven. We don't glare at them and say "How dare you spend your money that way!" On the contrary, society serves them. When they enter a restaurant, no one is ever going to look at them askance because they can't afford decent clothing (can I take your coat and kiss your ass at the same time, please?). No one will ever deny them a job for being wealthy (your dad and I were frat brothers! Welcome aboard!). No bank will deny their loans (can we please give you more?), no case worker will make them jump through hoops. Business, society, education... healthcare... everything caters to - and ultimately serves the wealthy. Wealth is no virtue in and of itself, it is no indication of anything other than wealth itself. Yet somehow society treats it as if it were the ONLY virtue.

Yet all the same, even if they never work a day in their lives, they are rarely if ever judged for spending their money on things they don't need.

Some times people who don't have much money can buy things that look nice. We shop at Catholic Charities, at the Salvation Army, at Walmart (it's evil, but it's cheap), at secondhand stores. Some times people who are poor even get gifts from people who are not as poor. Even electronic toys that they might enjoy playing with. God forbid that they should have anything more than a pot to piss in.

You know, if our noble, Godlike, overwhelmingly awesome beautiful and glorious worshipful "job creators" more generally paid a living wage, or had a little charity and generosity within them, maybe people wouldn't be so poor that they could not afford an iphone. If the Koch brothers, for instance, spent a little less money lobbying for big oil and the Republican machine - and paid their workers a bit more, maybe we would have fewer people who would end up needing food stamps, welfare, or medicaid.

The left is being seduced by the right, into being angry at the wrong people. For every dollar spent on food stamps, how much do we spend on corporate welfare? For every dollar spent on healthcare, how much do we pour into military projects that never bear fruit? Food stamps are awful, somehow, but the politicians who spend thousands of dollars on a tax-payer funded dinner? Eh, who gives a shit.

How about that fifty thousand dollar a plate dinner where Mitt Romney called half the American people "takers"? How about grand old Bush, Mr. "My favorite people! The Haves and the Have Mores! I'm going to give you guys enormous tax cuts, start a war, and cut the hell out of our safety net! Woohoo! Jesus loves me!"

If you can afford to bitch about people on welfare, maybe you don't really understand poverty and should stop bitching. If you can afford to grumble about people who need food stamps, maybe you aren't hungry or near starving. Maybe your family has plenty of food - that's great, but shut the hell up about those of us who are struggling.

The wealthy (with some few exceptions) seem often to be far more guilty of greed, ignorance, selfishness - and frivolous spending, than any amount of poor people. I could go on for hours, even days, about their crackpot theories and notions of who deserves what. I could go on at the same length about their sense of entitlement, the stupid, frivolous things they buy, the way they treat their employees, the way they treat the environment, the way they treat the world. Hell, I think I will. If we're going to be mad at someone, shouldn't it be the people who have destroyed our economy, led us into a trillion dollar, illegal war, evaded paying taxes, collapsed the economy of the whole damn world... I could go on and on.

Wealth is neither virtue nor sin. At the same time - there is nothing wrong with being poor and needing help. Food stamps are not necessary because of character flaws, but because of poverty. I tell you what, the next time you bitch about someone poor having an iphone, ask yourself if rich people who pay no taxes should be able to have two or three mansions. Ask yourself who you should really be angry at - and why.

You should make your post a corollary op to this one. The hatred of the poor in this country sickens me. Especially in a country where so many claim to follow some form of Christianity.

There's SO much more to criticize about the mindless, endless purchasing of yachts and fancy cars than about having just a few things that bring a little pleasure into a difficult life.

screen TV, you can go to Big Lots and get them cheap.

People seem to want the poor to suffer. Visibly. For their vicarious, sanctimonious, sadistic enjoyment.

Good thread.

Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah Falafel Loofah

The fact is, almost everyone has stuff that they spend money on that could have been put to better use.

I can afford my Iphone, and my Birkenstocks, and my too frequent trips through the Starbucks drive through, but truthfully, I could be using that money for retirement, or to support a cause or a candidate, or to feed people instead of judging them.

...to want poor people to be poorer. It takes the kind of person who might not have much, but who wants the distinction of rank preserved. It takes someone who is so deathly afraid of being poor that s/he want the difference daily noted.

People know their tax money goes for food stamps and welfare, and so they feel this "entitles" them to tell people on food stamps and welfare how to spend their money (i.e. the tax dollars the not-so-rich feel they've given to the poor--like telling a poor relative how to spend money you've loaned or given them). The way they think is: "If this person can afford an iPhone, then why are they taking *MY* money from me to buy food? I gave them money for food, and they damn well better spend it on food! If they've enough to buy other stuff, then they don't have to take *MY* money from me!"

Of course, the real bamboozling that's going on here is that the very rich have tricked the not-so-rich into thinking this. Into thinking that they're subsidizing not only lazy people, but people who are bamboozling them out of their money--and that if they vote against giving these people money, their taxes would go down significantly (the not-so-rich don't realize that welfare, unemployment and food stamps, don't comparatively cost that much tax-wise, and if they really want their taxes to go down, they should vote against tax breaks for the rich, etc.).

All this is, of course, a magic trick that does two things: (1) It keeps the not-so-rich from seeing how the rich are not paying their fair share and making the not-so-rich, not-so-rich. The poor are the scapegoat, they're to blame for the hard-earned money of the not-so-rich going to the government...if the poor weren't there, however, the not-so-rich might get angry with the rich. This fiction keeps the super-rich stay safe and unexamined. (2) The rich make the not-so-rich so sure they've been rooked out of their tax dollars helping the poor, that they vote against giving the poor anything, and this allows the rich to, ironically, make more more money. They can, for example, start a tax-free church which, they say, will feed the poor in place of the government. The not-so-rich thinks this is a deal, but doesn't see that they're still losing the tax dollars...and with no guarantee that the poor will be fed. And the "charity" pockets most of the money rather than giving it to the poor. EXACTLY what the not-so-rich thought their food stamp neighbors with the iPhone were doing.

It's not pathology folks, nor ignorance. It's human fear and stupidity. Anyone who can make us afraid that we're going to be tricked out of something that we deserve or is ours can make us stupid. Really, really stupid.

We who have some, because we are lucky enough to still have a job in this country, and those who have very little; lets all fight each other and let the 1% laugh all the way to the bank.

... comparing poor people who have "one nice thing" to greedy corporate cronies.

After all the sickening shit I've read -- here -- about why don't average Christians "do something" about Uganda, and how awful it is that a woman politician or any politician or any person at all make a public profession of faith however mild, this really struck me.

It ain't about what religion you have or refuse to have folks. It's about your behavior and what's in your heart, and since I can't tell what's in your heart, I will judge you by your words and behavior.

Hekate
* My ballot is still not filled in
* Not a Christian

but I just got myself a little part-time job so I can make some extra bucks. I'm about to get an iphone or some kind of android phone, but I'm going to get a refurbished one from Amazon or ebay or something. You see, we can buy a couple of nice things if we're frugal and a little creative about it.

We usually get used stuff, but it's better than nothing, and we can but marked-down steak, roasts, and seafood if it's been marked down a couple of times and about to go bad as long as we cook it that day. But people don't see that. They just see steak and shrimp and they're jealous because they didn't look at the mark-downs and they're jealous because they're eating tuna casserole for dinner. They also don't see that we've been eating Ramen noodles all week just so we can afford that marked-down beef for Sunday dinner or something.

You see, that's just the thing: they don't know. They just want to judge us, and that's the fucking problem right there. People need to stop judging others for what they do. They don't know the situation, and it's really none of their fucking business, anyway, whether the person is buying marked-down food or if they just have poor judgement on how much to spend. People need to mind their own fucking business. If people did that more, it would be a much better world.