Shamed in Edina for using food stamps

Shamed in Edina for using food stamps

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
EBT Propaganda

Des Moines, IA

#1 Sep 16, 2013

Judged:

23

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Tea Party People

Saint Paul, MN

#3 Sep 16, 2013
Poor troll, doesn't know you have to be quite wealthy to live in Edina. Sell some of your junk and quit using your son as an excuse for your greed, lady!

Judged:

24

24

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Hmmm

La Follette, TN

#7 Sep 18, 2013
She's working, so she is and has been paying into the system so why have such disdain for her need to withdraw funds that she herself contributed?

Genuine need, now becomes excuses ... why? What had, or is, she taking from YOU? Will she, her disabled son, and family ever be worthy of your lofty position of judgement? Especially since you are exempt from the possibility of experiencing any type of set backs that would cost you financially to the extent of needing to withdraw funds to help support yourself and family ...

You must have been the one standing behind her in line.

I hope for her, and her daughter (all of her family) she has since realized, that having confronted the woman, no matter how politely and respectfully, she would have been lowering herself to do so, and the woman wouldn't have heard a word she said to boot.

Judged:

23

23

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Hmmm

La Follette, TN

#8 Sep 18, 2013
Oh, and no where in the article does it state that she, and her family, reside in 'quite wealthy' Edina; merely, the store that this occurred in is located in Edina. Perhaps you should boycott the store for accepting EBT as payment since it seems to make you so terribly uncomfortable to LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

Judged:

21

21

19

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Tea Party People

Saint Paul, MN

#9 Sep 18, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
She's working, so she is and has been paying into the system so why have such disdain for her need to withdraw funds that she herself contributed?
Genuine need, now becomes excuses ... why? What had, or is, she taking from YOU? Will she, her disabled son, and family ever be worthy of your lofty position of judgement? Especially since you are exempt from the possibility of experiencing any type of set backs that would cost you financially to the extent of needing to withdraw funds to help support yourself and family ...
You must have been the one standing behind her in line.
I hope for her, and her daughter (all of her family) she has since realized, that having confronted the woman, no matter how politely and respectfully, she would have been lowering herself to do so, and the woman wouldn't have heard a word she said to boot.
I was raised to believe that a government hand-out was a last resort. We have no guarantee or entitlement to maintain the lifestyle to which we are used to at the expense of taxpayers. Most of the people who are paying for her food stamps don't live as well as she does. I stand by my comment, sell some of your stuff and buy your own food!

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Hmmm

La Follette, TN

#10 Sep 18, 2013
Tea Party People wrote:
<quoted text>
I was raised to believe that a government hand-out was a last resort. We have no guarantee or entitlement to maintain the lifestyle to which we are used to at the expense of taxpayers. Most of the people who are paying for her food stamps don't live as well as she does. I stand by my comment, sell some of your stuff and buy your own food!
So, you actually know this woman personally? If not, why are you implying that you do?

How do you know what her living conditions are, let alone what lifestyle she is (has been) accustomed to other than paying her (their) own way, until this emergency surgery happened? You don't. You have no clue what she has sold, or not sold, of her/their personal belongings, in attempt to avoid having to 'resort to hand outs'(again, of her OWN investment).

You were raised by myopic ignorant fools. By your, and their, logic... if your parents found themselves in the same predicament, they would have sold everything, and when that revenue ran out, but your mother was not recovered well enough to return to work, and your father now in surgery (as per the woman's husbands situation) they would have just simply starved you, and themselves to death... to make what point, exactly?

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Stud

Minneapolis, MN

#11 Sep 18, 2013
It has gotten to a point now where people feel there is so much fraud in Government programs that they should get a share of handouts in order to simply reduce their taxes.

The free/subsidized cell and landline phones are a good example. There are now many people who are getting free Obamaphones and loving it. They really don't need free phones but look at it as payback from a Government that mismanages its money and the money comes from taxpayers. Sooo lets get some back!!!
Willie

Minneapolis, MN

#12 Sep 18, 2013
Tea Party People wrote:
<quoted text>
I was raised to believe that a government hand-out was a last resort. We have no guarantee or entitlement to maintain the lifestyle to which we are used to at the expense of taxpayers. Most of the people who are paying for her food stamps don't live as well as she does. I stand by my comment, sell some of your stuff and buy your own food!
You were raised to be an arrogant jerk. Not everyone on assistance is milking it. Go look in the mirror.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#13 Sep 18, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you actually know this woman personally? If not, why are you implying that you do?
How do you know what her living conditions are, let alone what lifestyle she is (has been) accustomed to other than paying her (their) own way, until this emergency surgery happened? You don't. You have no clue what she has sold, or not sold, of her/their personal belongings, in attempt to avoid having to 'resort to hand outs'(again, of her OWN investment).
You were raised by myopic ignorant fools. By your, and their, logic... if your parents found themselves in the same predicament, they would have sold everything, and when that revenue ran out, but your mother was not recovered well enough to return to work, and your father now in surgery (as per the woman's husbands situation) they would have just simply starved you, and themselves to death... to make what point, exactly?
They would probably have relied on friends, family and or their local churches and charities as opposed to sponging off of taxpayers who are, by force of law, required to provide this support.
Hmmm

La Follette, TN

#14 Sep 18, 2013
Simply to reduce their taxes??? lol

How does that work 'stud'?

For example:

** please pardon my derailing this thread folks, to address this "stud example" **

To obtain a free cell phone (dirt cheap no frills phone - no camera, no net, no nothing capability but call and text) maybe (market value, generiously) between $5 and $8 that are refurbished for the most part, available because they are basically obsolete comparatively to your $1000 iphone) and one hour a month is free and that is all) you have to qualify, meaning qualifying you have to prove to the cell/phone company, by official documentation etc, that you qualify for states assistance for food ect. IOW prove you are BELOW (some by nearly 200%) the states poverty line.

I won't bother asking you why you chose to deflect the subject matter of this woman's experience of which this thread is about...

** back to this original thread topic **

Carry on...

Judged:

11

11

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Hmmm

La Follette, TN

#15 Sep 18, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
They would probably have relied on friends, family and or their local churches and charities as opposed to sponging off of taxpayers who are, by force of law, required to provide this support.
I see. So relying on begging for/sponging off HAND OUTS from churches, family, and charities (same people paying the same taxes as this WORKING MOTHER of this story, is)... is a better, more intelligent face saving option, then taking back out some of what they had already contributed into, made available to ALL that may need it, to help themselves should they need it.

Alrighty.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#16 Sep 18, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So relying on begging for/sponging off HAND OUTS from churches, family, and charities (same people paying the same taxes as this WORKING MOTHER of this story, is)... is a better, more intelligent face saving option, then taking back out some of what they had already contributed into, made available to ALL that may need it, to help themselves should they need it.
Alrighty.
There is no face to save if you are down and out because you have had a financial setback.
But how is this the responsibility of all people in America who pay taxes, which is pretty much everybody, to help you out?
Many Americans are not that far from the position this woman is in. Maybe one medical bill away.
A good part of that is because we are being taxed at something like 40% when you include, state and federal income tax, taxes on phone and internet usage, taxes on most all retail purchases, taxes on inheritance money that has already been taxed in one way or another, taxes on cable and satellite tv, taxes on dividends and interest, taxes on fuel, so called "sin taxes", taxes on businesses, especially small businesses, that get passed on to customers; need I go on?
mmmmH

Sacramento, CA

#17 Sep 18, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So relying on begging for/sponging off HAND OUTS from churches, family, and charities (same people paying the same taxes as this WORKING MOTHER of this story, is)... is a better, more intelligent face saving option, then taking back out some of what they had already contributed into, made available to ALL that may need it, to help themselves should they need it.
Alrighty.
So now, going to family, friends, your church or other charity for help is baaaad. But sticking your hand out to every tax payer in the country, and then writing a condescending editorial in the Red Star Tribune, chastising about how "judgmental" everyone else is, is goooood. We get your position. You're all for handouts, as long as it's the taxpayer that's funding it.

If this were a story out of anything but a lefty publication, such as the Wall Street Journal, you'd be on here harping about what a hypocrite this person is for living in Edina, probably votes republican, and sponging off the taxpayers. Get over yourself. You're no different than the rest of the lefty hypocrites out there.
Hmmm

La Follette, TN

#18 Sep 18, 2013
Are the both of you above intentionally obtuse, or does it come naturally?

The woman of the story IS, and WAS, a taxpayer that had contributed to the coffers of state assistance, by and through, all of the means of which you list. Same as everyone else working in viable employment.

Question: Why is it you insist that SHE, and her family, should not be entitled to collect it back (more then likely, only a portion of it, until herself and husband are fully recovered from their surgeries, and back to work.) in her/their time of need to do so?

Oh, snap. What if she and/or her husband are rendered disabled due to these surgeries, or the reasons that their surgeries are necessary...

They will be required to then need to file, and collect DISABILITY that they've also contributed into. Goodness, NO! Not THAT! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE before THAT happens!

Seriously. How is it you're exempt from anything catastrophic happening to you, or a dependent/spouse that could land you in the same financial dire straits position, as this woman and her family?

Please do tell.
so sad

Sacramento, CA

#19 Sep 18, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
Simply to reduce their taxes??? lol
How does that work 'stud'?
For example:
** please pardon my derailing this thread folks, to address this "stud example" **
To obtain a free cell phone (dirt cheap no frills phone - no camera, no net, no nothing capability but call and text) maybe (market value, generiously) between $5 and $8 that are refurbished for the most part, available because they are basically obsolete comparatively to your $1000 iphone) and one hour a month is free and that is all) you have to qualify, meaning qualifying you have to prove to the cell/phone company, by official documentation etc, that you qualify for states assistance for food ect. IOW prove you are BELOW (some by nearly 200%) the states poverty line.
I won't bother asking you why you chose to deflect the subject matter of this woman's experience of which this thread is about...
** back to this original thread topic **
Carry on...
These stats are so sad! Welfare recipients are entitled to the best free cell phone out there. No camera? That's barbaric! It's unfair that they should receive a no frills, refurbished one when the rich have something so much better. The rich should pay more taxes so welfare recipients can have a better, free cell phone.
Hmmm

La Follette, TN

#20 Sep 18, 2013
It makes you feel better to read that into the facts of what is required to meet qualifying for a free cell phone. That indeed is 'so sad'. In today's young people's vernacular, "downright creepy". What, whom, or why (all the above would be especially helpful in effort to understand your...'take') are you of this mind set?

@mmmmH

Again... where does it state that this woman of the article LIVES in Edina? We already have the link... perhaps you could quote the statement made within it that backs your ASSUMPTIONS as fact? Much appreciate it.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#21 Sep 18, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
Are the both of you above intentionally obtuse, or does it come naturally?
The woman of the story IS, and WAS, a taxpayer that had contributed to the coffers of state assistance, by and through, all of the means of which you list. Same as everyone else working in viable employment.
Question: Why is it you insist that SHE, and her family, should not be entitled to collect it back (more then likely, only a portion of it, until herself and husband are fully recovered from their surgeries, and back to work.) in her/their time of need to do so?
Oh, snap. What if she and/or her husband are rendered disabled due to these surgeries, or the reasons that their surgeries are necessary...
They will be required to then need to file, and collect DISABILITY that they've also contributed into. Goodness, NO! Not THAT! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE before THAT happens!
Seriously. How is it you're exempt from anything catastrophic happening to you, or a dependent/spouse that could land you in the same financial dire straits position, as this woman and her family?
Please do tell.
Are you intentionally condescending and self righteous, or does it come naturally?

I believe you missed the point of the above posts.(Maybe that's our fault for not doing a better job of explaining.)
And that point is that if our government would stop spending boatloads of money on the wrong things,(ie. corporate welfare, foreign aid to 7th century governments, providing weapons to terrorists and dictators, huge lifelong pensions and insurance for our so called public servants, educating foreign students for free who go on and learn to fly, but not land, a 747, I could go on) bailing out the needy would be much less of a target for reprisal. There is no issue here with having a form of backup for those who are down on their luck, in need or for the ill or elderly retired. But for all of the good intentions of things like SS, Welfare, etc., they become fouled by the greedy and the "victimized".
The problem comes when this backup system,(Social Security, for example) gets it's funding stolen for other projects by our legislators. Many of these other projects are referred to as pork. Another issue is the handing out of money willy nilly to people who truly do not deserve a leg up but rather, are working the system to avoid working at all. Here in MN you can make around $15,000 a year on all of the programs available. So rather than take a $9.00 hr temp job or food service gig and work to find something better, people will fall back on the federal and state gravy train. Having child after child, often out of wedlock and with multiple sperm donors, in order to increase the government checks is also a common theme.
There was never any stigma tied to Social Security Disability benefits until it was decided to hand out those benefits for everything from a hang nail to a bad case of acne.
And yet, people who have served their country and come back scarred, disabled or bat shit crazy have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get treatment. Moral of the story, letting the government handle things like this has never worked the way it was intended. And based on our current two party system, probably never will.
mmmmH

Sacramento, CA

#22 Sep 18, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
Are the both of you above intentionally obtuse, or does it come naturally?
The woman of the story IS, and WAS, a taxpayer that had contributed to the coffers of state assistance, by and through, all of the means of which you list. Same as everyone else working in viable employment.
Question: Why is it you insist that SHE, and her family, should not be entitled to collect it back (more then likely, only a portion of it, until herself and husband are fully recovered from their surgeries, and back to work.) in her/their time of need to do so?
Oh, snap. What if she and/or her husband are rendered disabled due to these surgeries, or the reasons that their surgeries are necessary...
They will be required to then need to file, and collect DISABILITY that they've also contributed into. Goodness, NO! Not THAT! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE before THAT happens!
Seriously. How is it you're exempt from anything catastrophic happening to you, or a dependent/spouse that could land you in the same financial dire straits position, as this woman and her family?
Please do tell.
A little story for you. A friend of a friend of a friend, married, had 2 small children. Both spouses had decent, middle income jobs and worked their butts off for years. An unforeseen, calamity happened and they were down to zero income for several months. They were able to live off savings for awhile, but not forever. To try to stretch this money as far as possible, the wife applied for food stamps for her kids. She was denied. The reason? Because she and her spouse made TOO MUCH MONEY THE PRIOR TAX YEAR. I reiterate: BOTH spouses worked and paid into the system for years. The wife has her suspicions about the real reason why she was turned down. If I got into them, this post would be deleted for not being PC enough.

I don't believe any of this person's story. She thought she wrote a pretty piece about "what if's in life" and pawned it off to a willing, bleeding heart "news" publication. Funny thing. I don't recall the Red Star Tribune EVER writing an in depth piece about the vast waste and fraud in the institution of welfare.

It has nothing about being obtuse. Stop making assumptions about the people posting here who disagree with you. You know nothing about me, any other posters, or this woman. We just happen to disagree with you.

Unless, as I suspect, you are this woman.

Since: Jul 10

Minneapolis, MN

#23 Sep 18, 2013
Tea Party People wrote:
Poor troll, doesn't know you have to be quite wealthy to live in Edina. Sell some of your junk and quit using your son as an excuse for your greed, lady!
checking apartment sites. Seems the cheapest is $552 a month. Averages are about $1000/$1500 a month.
.
http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/Minn...
.
This site has $700 plus for the lowest rent
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/Edina-MN...
.
http://www.apartments.com/Minnesota/Edina#PeJ...

Since: Jul 10

Minneapolis, MN

#26 Sep 18, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
Oh, and no where in the article does it state that she, and her family, reside in 'quite wealthy' Edina; merely, the store that this occurred in is located in Edina. Perhaps you should boycott the store for accepting EBT as payment since it seems to make you so terribly uncomfortable to LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
Very true, the article does NOT state where she lives.
.
For anyone knows, the lady and her family could be living in the south Minneapolis. Say in the Armatage neighborhood.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
britain leaves EU, new world order stunned 2 hr OK Barry 10
News Fourth of July Fireworks in Minnesota 16 hr space ace 13
harrassed on purpose my whole life 19 hr space ace 3
News Pride Weekend Kick-Off Parties 19 hr cowboy chris 3
Typical Minnesota Voter 20 hr Tellitlikeitis 3
Obama's America Fri OK Barry 75
Radical Islam Thu LIbEralS 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages