Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should food stamp recipients be barred from buying soft drinks?

By Howard B. Owens
Bea McManis

I heard about this on TV this morning and immediately thought how many of our people on this site, who rail against government intervention, would answer "yes".
Somehow, I don't think I'll be disappointed.

Oct 7, 2010, 7:19am Permalink
Thomas Schneider

Oh the pain, they might have to use lotto money to buy soda. The food-stamp program as a whole is just one big government intervention. Limiting this program to healthy options is something that should be done. If the people on the system don't like the new rules, then get off the system. I for one would be appreciative of any assistance, no matter how limited, I received.

Oct 7, 2010, 7:44am Permalink
Lisa Falkowski

I agree that there should be some limitations on food stamps, but come on... soda? Why should the disadvantaged have their choices micro-managed? Not everyone on food stamps is an able-bodied, non-working, 3rd generation welfare recipient. Many food stamp recipients are diligent, hard-working, family persons who can't make a living in the current times. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to pop a top on a Pepsi?

Oct 7, 2010, 7:46am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Are you saying that those of us who don't want the government in our business are hypocrites for wanting the government to limit what the leeches of society can spend our money on?

Oct 7, 2010, 7:54am Permalink
Bob Rathenburgh

I believe there should be limits as well. I think Food stamps should only allow you a certain amount of pop, and "junk" food such as chips, pretzels, cookies, ice cream etc... With WIC you get a certain amount of each item, i dont think it should go as far as THAT but i do think unhealthy food/beverage groups should be limited and healthier options shouldnt have a limit. The government complains we're an overweight country, they want to tax beverages with sugars yada yada.. well help your country out by not allowing them to use tax payers money to buy such high in fat foods. Not only that but obesity may go down and so would other health problems.
This was a good question!

Oct 7, 2010, 7:56am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Qualified yes on this, as soon as grocery stores stop categorizing soda as a food & beverage item, whats next water? Sorry there are many other things that can be done than this. You people that are all for limiting need to remember that every little thing we give Govt permission to control is another little brick in their wall of control over us. Its easily given but not so easily taken back.

Generalizations like Thomas' comment are exactly what allows the govt to step in and take over one more thing. Bea however shows some thought, limiting it to say maybe a few soda purchases per month might be more reasonable.

Since there is no more paper food stamps from what I have seen some of the abuses have been eliminated. No more buying 25 cent packs of gum to break foodstamps up for beer and such. All done with atm like cards, since the computerized system is in place we can program it to limit the purchases. Tell someone they cant have something and they will want it all the more. Didnt the govt learn from prohibition?

Oct 7, 2010, 8:01am Permalink
John Roach

If you think banning soda from schools, trying to limit what I can eat at a fast food place like Burger King and impose other food police ideas, then banning soda from food stamp recipients is only the right thing to do.

And, if you take the government's money, you take their rules.

Oct 7, 2010, 8:13am Permalink
Lisa Falkowski

If we're banning food choices ... let's ban it for ALL, food stamp recipients or not ... is that what some of you are saying? Only "skinny" people (cash paying or food stamp using) should buy soda or fast food? Financial hardship should not be a measure of persons status in society ("leeches"), nor should it stop them from exercising their rights as a person living in a free society. I agree with a healthy lifestyle (though I am no example of that). What I don't agree with is someone forcing their choices on me, or judging me (or anyone else) based on my financial status.

Oct 7, 2010, 8:38am Permalink
Thomas Schneider

I love people who are all for choice in the food stamp program. What about my choice to not have money taken by force to pay for programs such as these. I contribute at my church to food banks and other private programs to help the disadvantaged. At least programs administered by churches and such can weed out the abusers, because the money usually comes with a lesson attached.

I'm not saying people on food stamps shouldn't enjoy a soda. If soda is important then find a way pay for it. Collect some soda cans on the side of the road if need be.

These programs should be limited to the necessities. Most people I see using the EBT cards can afford to lay off the soda for a while.

Oct 7, 2010, 9:14am Permalink
SABRINA BRINKMAN

Soda is not a necessity. Food stamps and wic should be used to pay for necessities. No, you are not entitled to buy whatever you want when you recieve help from the government.

Oct 7, 2010, 9:21am Permalink
Thomas Schneider

Lisa,

Who pays for these programs? Don't say the government. The government doesn't have any money. Choices? Do you feel the same way about the person who has monies removed from their paycheck by threat of force from the government. Maybe said person would choose to do something different with that money.
People should be free to do what they wish with their own money, someone getting assistance is not using their own money. I can't afford to have steak every night even though I might choose to. This doesn't give me a right to steal from my neighbor to pay for steak?

Oct 7, 2010, 9:22am Permalink
Dennis Jay

Glad you guys didn't disappoint Bea.

And by the way, does Peter's definition of leeches extend to corporations, such as defense contractors, who are getting fat (though probably not from drinking soda) from taxpayer booty.

Oct 7, 2010, 9:29am Permalink
Dennis Jay

By the way, most people don't know this, but the food stamp program as it's structured today is as much a welfare and give-away program for corporate farmers as it is to help the needy.

It has grown through the years, not because of lobbying by liberal interests, but by pressure from the corporate food industry, probably including the soft drink lobby.

Oct 7, 2010, 9:41am Permalink
Thomas Schneider

All the more reason to end all federal programs that are unconstitutional and let the people of the individual states decide what services to provide.

Oct 7, 2010, 9:52am Permalink
Bea McManis

Welcome to Batavia's main outlet for the Tea Party Movement. You know, the people who believe in low taxes, reactionary social policy, a big military, and cutting spending for all welfare spending that goes to people other than them.
I'm all for "banning" all soda products.
While they are at it, ban beer too. Close the liquor stores and ban all alcoholic products.
While we are determining who should eat what, close the doors to the fast food industry. Take convenience foods off the shelves. For that matter, monitor the fare served at all restaurants and eliminate any dish that is high in sugar or calories.
Get back to basics for all Americans.
That way the leeches and the well to do will all trim down together.

Oct 7, 2010, 10:12am Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
Banning what food I can buy at a restaurant or fast food outlet, banning what kids can eat, or even bring on their own, to school, is what you liberal Food Police have been pushing for.

If you want to ban all that for the rest of us, then banning it from Food Stamps is just the right thing to do.

Oct 7, 2010, 10:52am Permalink
Thomas Mooney

I feel bad for the few people on food stamps that need it just to squeek by but the majority of those who recieve it ,either exploite the guidlines or they get benefits for life. There are so many leeches in this town and it is evident by the amount of people hanging out on porches all day long puffing away . I know someone will bring up the fact these people may work a different shift . This could be true but they are the same people sitting on the porches at night as well . Most transplants in Batavia are on benefits . Why is this I ask , is it because the housing is cheap , walking distance to almost everything , or is it easier to gain benefits in Genesee County . I don't know but it is getting worse around town .

Oct 7, 2010, 11:20am Permalink
Bea McManis

John,
If all of those products and food stuff were banned, then there would be no issue with food stamps. They wouldn't be available.
As you probably could tell there was more than a huge dose of sarcasm in my post.
I'm not in favor of 'food police'.
Regardless of your economic condidtion, the purchases made at a grocery store or a restaurant (or even school)are choices one makes. There are just as many people, not on food stamps, who make poor, unhealthy choices regarding their diet.
I represent the people I know best, right now.
The leeches better known as senior citizens. Many of them are on food stamps. Most of them rarely, if ever, steal steaks from your pocket. Most of them use their stamps wisely. Many have health problems that restrict the use of sugar, so purchasing sugar based soft drinks is not an issue.
These leeches will shop for fresh fruits and vegetables; they will patronize the farmers' markets, in season. Because of special diets, you will find them using their food stamps on organic foods; whole grain breads; and protein found in fish more than meat.
They clip coupons, buy generic, and shop sales. You will find them shopping in dollar stores for spices and canned goods.
This country's aging population is not revered as their counterparts are in other countries. Here, in Tea Party Country, they are considered leeches. How disgusting is that?

Oct 7, 2010, 11:30am Permalink
anne crotzer

Sorry, if I had anything to say about it, necessities only! Pop isn't a necessity!!
That includes cell phones too. How much money is going just for the cost of those TV and radio ads, about those "poor" people who can't keep in touch, telling them to come on in and get a free phone. Believe me, if it is free, they will find it! No need for expensive ads!!
What's next? I am tired of supporting those who choose not to work.

Oct 7, 2010, 11:48am Permalink
Bea McManis

replyPosted by anne crotzer on October 7, 2010 - 11:48am
That includes cell phones too. How much money is going just for the cost of those TV and radio ads,

Is your money paying for those ads? I find them annoying, but are you saying that we should regulate (further) the types of ads that are allowed on TV and radio?
about those "poor" people who can't keep in touch, telling them to come on in and get a free phone.

Are you paying for that 'free phone'? The folks that I know who applied for those phones keep them on hand in the event of an emergency. Not everyone is fortunate enough to purchase a cell phone. Should they not take advantage of a device that might make a difference in an emergency?

Believe me, if it is free, they will find it! No need for expensive ads!!
Stereotyping?

What's next? I am tired of supporting those who choose not to work.
Does everyone who receives assistance someone who "chooses" not to work? Can you verify that?

Oct 7, 2010, 11:56am Permalink
Gregory Hallifax

Anyone that works in the area where you know many people who get food stamps, which aren't even stamps anymore will know what happens with these benefits. If you ban these people from buying soft drinks with the card, they will just find another way to get it. This benefit should be used to purchase health food products for the family. However, come to work with me one day and see how these benefits are abused. People will buy things, such as candy, or other products and try selling it to other people so they can buy a pack of smokes, beer, or even drugs, or even get cash in trade and go to the casino. Change it all you want but the same stuff will happen no matter what you do. There are those that need and use the benefit card for what it is meant for but as anything dealing with government, it is abused. I wish they could come up with a better screening criteria to help those who really need it, but as anything with government there are flaws. SO, you can complain about it all you want, but complaining won't do a thing, unless you take action. Just make sure your action is the appropriate action and not done out of spite. You never know you might find yourself in line one of these days to get that precious card with the way the economy is going.

Oct 7, 2010, 11:57am Permalink
anne crotzer

Bea,

"We" are paying for those ads with our NYS tax money, don't kid yourself. Also for the phones! Where do you think the money is coming from? The cell phone fairy?

I grew up in this area, and it used to be shameful to be on welfare. Today, there not. I am NOT speaking of the elderly here, their work ethic for the most part was and is excellent.
I WAS a landlord, and saw it firsthand. Therefore, the rental house was sold, as it got increasingly difficult to get good tennants anymore in Batavia. Believe me, if you rent to trash, they will trash your property. So, if you want to call it sterotyping, go ahead.
I choose to work for a living, and feel good about it!
I guarantee you, if those on assistance who are able bodied were put to some type of work, MOST of them would choose to work in the private sector instead!

Oct 7, 2010, 12:07pm Permalink
bud prevost

We" are paying for those ads with our NYS tax money, don't kid yourself. Also for the phones! Where do you think the money is coming from? The cell phone fairy?

Anne, the program is facilitated by Lifetime Assistance, which receives its funding from the USF fund. This is a FEDERAL surcharge that is applied to all telecommunication bills. Just wanted to clarify for you. No tax money, per se, is being used. This Universal Surcharge Fund is a federal government mandate, so I would bitch to the FCC, not a state issue.

Oct 7, 2010, 12:35pm Permalink
George Richardson

"why can't I choose not to have health insurance?" For the same reason you can't choose not to pay taxes, not to stop at red lights, not to have autombile insurance if you drive, not to be able to rob banks or burglarize your neighbor, not to be able to cook up meth in your bathtub, not to be able to shout fire in a crowded movie theater, not to be able to watch television while driving. It's for the common good, despite what a majority of Bagtavians think. Call me a liberal, call me a Democrat, but most of all call me sane.

Oct 7, 2010, 12:37pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

So your premise Ray is that money money should be taken from me and given to someone else who didn't earn it because he "needs" it.

If I come to your house with a gun and take your money and use it to pay for a doctors visit then I shouldn't go to jail right. Because all I did was eliminate the middle man, Government.

What's the difference? A bunch of no nothings in Washington powered the IRS to do to it instead of me?

Oct 7, 2010, 12:54pm Permalink
Cecelia Lullo

I love it as I'm standing in the grocery line with a box of cake mix, dozen eggs, oil, pack of confectioner sugar and butter (yes I use butter, not margarine) to make my kid a birthday cake and the person in front of me uses food stamps to buy the beautifully decorated sheet cake for their kids birthday! (Let's see, I have enough eggs for a couple breakfasts, use the butter or oil to fry in, enough sugar for another cake.....)

Oct 7, 2010, 12:59pm Permalink
Lori Silvernail

I'm not sure, but I believe that foodstamps were originaly created to supply "food" and that's why paper products, etc are not covered. Many people abuse the system by selling foodstuffs in order to buy other things (papergoods, cigarettes, whatever).

I have heard over the years that the reason foods we consider "junk foods" aren't banned, is that it allows the children of foodstamp recipients to not be or feel discriminated against because of their parent's financial situation. It really would be hard on a child to never get potato chips or pop once in a while. I would hate to see any child feel different like that.

Oct 7, 2010, 12:59pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Lori, they used to actually hand out food.

But Charity, like foodstamps, should be left to private organizations and be on a volunteer basis.

Oct 7, 2010, 1:05pm Permalink
Lori Silvernail

Yes Peter, they did. I worked there for a number of years. I always heard that "government cheese" was great. I think they did eggs and milk, too. I think the logistics of doing that now would be very difficult, since there are so many people who receive assistance.

I DO think the WIC program is very decent. Milk, specific cereals (Cheerios and other "healthier" ones), eggs, and such.

I don't know why the WIC and foodstamp programs can't be somehow consolidated or whatever, taking components of each and making a good program that allows for the occasional fun snack.

Buying a pre-decorated cake from the bakery isn't something that should be allowed. Like Cecelia above, buy the ingredients and make it, dammit! You know, that whole "teach someone to fish" instead of giving them one...

Oct 7, 2010, 1:12pm Permalink
Gabor Deutsch

So does anyone have a complete list of FOOD stuffs that food stamp recipients can only purchase with their stolen tax money they got from you ? (I guess it is true when they say (food stamp recipients)they are all alike)! Maybe you should get to know one of those leeches and have them cook you a good meal !
Better yet, maybe we should adopt a caste system and we could employ "them" instead of paying the taxes "they" steal from us. Then we could control them completely ! (But then "they" would have a job and be off F.S. and could buy soda if we decided that "they" should be allowed this choice). I sure am not so quick to judge someone buying soda,steak, or anything else no matter how they pay for it.

Oct 7, 2010, 1:37pm Permalink
Julie A Pappalardo

I don't know why anyone would let their kids eat that crap to begin with...

My parents didn't have soda, sugary cereals, chips etc in the house! And we weren't allowed fast food either.

We had milk, juice, tea, fruit, and Puffed Rice and Cheerio's (with a bananna sliced in them). EVERY now and then we were allowed to have Golden Grahms.

To this day neither me nor my brother drink soda or have sweet tooths. Neither one of us have an obesity problem either....

People on food stamps obviously don't have a job. So, why don't they get the ingredients to actually COOK A HEALTHY meal??? (I'm with the lady who posted about buying the cake ingreidients instead of premade) They actually have TIME to (gasp) cook, while people with JOBS (who pay for these peoples food stamps) have less time to prepare a meal (unless they do the 30-minute meal thing thanks to Rachel Ray)...

Again, I can't believe people let their kids eat that crap to begin with! (shudder)

Oct 7, 2010, 1:38pm Permalink
John Roach

Peter,
Ray will back the party line as he has a patronage job in Albany with the Democrats.

George,
To say that for the first time in our history, that I have to BUY something, or I pay a fine or I go to jail, is for the common good is proof you are everything you say you are.

Bea and George,
Most people here did not say they are against Food Stamps for the needy, but want a limit on what should be allowed. When I buy a soda, it's discretionary spending, not a necessity. If you are on Food Stamps, you probably have other money also. Use your money to buy soda and use our money to buy stables. What is unfair about that?

Oct 7, 2010, 1:39pm Permalink
Dennis Jay

From Julie: >>"People on food stamps obviously don't have a job."

Not true. Many people who don't earn a living wage rely on food stamps. For example, in 2008, more than $31 million in food stamps were used at military commissaries.

I guess some of you would like to cut-off those lazy, welfare-loving soldiers from the public dole, as well.

Oct 7, 2010, 3:02pm Permalink
John Roach

Dennis,
Your right about most people on Food Stamps having a job.

The problem is that a working person also collecting Food Stamps, can not give his kid a dollar to buy a soda at school with his own money. The Food Police have said that soda is evil.

But that same working person can use Food Stamps to buy the same kid soda, using our money. He can't use his own at school, but can use ours at the store, for the same product. Now the Food Police say soda is OK.

Same government people making the rules and I think this is a bit stupid.

Oct 7, 2010, 3:28pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

removing income tax would increase the deficit if nothing was put in place to supplant it. The proposal that I think would work is sales tax on everything. Then everyone pays fairly our $100 for groceries get taxed the same as some millionaire's 4,000,000.00 jet. Distributes the burden in a more fair and positive way. Might be a little more expensive at first glance, but then again look at your paycheck stub, see what comes out each week... even if sales tax went to 25% we would still be just about the same. And the rich would be contributing ALOT more than they do now. Would even encourage us all to spend a little more wisely.

Oct 7, 2010, 3:39pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Wow I have to say, everyone in here has quite a generalized view of the foodstamp program some opinions (ie people who get foodstamps dont work, have time to cook from scratch, et al.)Maybe if you stop being indignant and thinkin you are so much better than everyone else. Open your eyes to the truth, yes there are abusers, but for every abuser there are 4 that dont.

And as to the opinion that YOUR hard earned money is stolen by the Govt to pay for these programs. If you think for one minute that if the govt eliminated welfare and foodstamps that you would see one penny more in the witholdings your paystub has....your sadly mistaken, one fact the has withstood the test of time the govt will never give you back that money they will just find another way to spend it.

Oct 7, 2010, 3:47pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

True Kyle...the govt will never give anyone back their money, but they will redistribute it, in the form of a windfall Earned Income Credit check, to many of the 50% of Americans that pay no taxes.

I understand the need to help those who are having a tough time getting by in a tough economy, but do we really need to give them a "bonus" discretionary income check, with no strings attached? Most struggling taxpayers don't have that much discretionary income? I know I don't.

Oct 7, 2010, 4:10pm Permalink
Nancy Clark

How about the man who worked on a farm 80 hours a week so YOU could eat; until he became severely disabled in his 40's and cannot walk and is eligible for food stamps - his whole life is already been taken away now you wanna take away what little enjoyment he has left his occasional candy bar or his cola. Give me a break! This man nearly killed himself health wise to feed the american public working on the farm for all those years. This is America people and we need to wake up! And your'e right if they take away the choice to buy his treats on food stamps he will purchase them with his social security check again of which he earned hard and proud!

Oct 7, 2010, 5:10pm Permalink
Tim Howe

Our brave men and woman in the military, and senior citizens (even liberal Bea) :) are the ONLY group of people that not only deserve to have the Gov't help them, but I believe they are entitled to it. I believe I am a minority in my age group (mid 30's) who chooses to look up to seniors and give them the upmost respect, and gladly a portion of my wages to see that they have a decent life if thier "golden years", but if you are in good health and don't fall in either one of those category's (military, seniors) then you should be ashamed to swipe that welfare card. Worthless. Absolutely worthless.

40-50 years ago people had a thing called self respect, and they developed a thing called a work ethic, and they knew right from wrong. If they did'nt earn it, they did'nt want it. Very simple huh? They knew they had to make thier own money in an honest manner because no one was going to do that for them. This is one of the main reasons I look up to the elderly like I do. Some of my generation, and certainly the up and coming gen has no clue about any of this. They have no problem signing thier life away to the gov't as long as they are taken care of. Socialism is dangerously close people.....

The Gov't needs to stop wasteful programs like welfare that no one really NEEDS, they just use it as a crutch, and manipulate it because they choose not to work, or not to work very hard or often. Also MANY, and I do mean MANY of the people that are on welfare can all be traced back to an absolute breakdown of morality in this country too. They made certain choices that now have them in situations where they think they need to be taken care of and "cant work". Also there used to be a real sense of family. When a family member needed legitimate help the family would rally around them to help, and i don't just mean immediate family either. If you truly are a legitimate case of someone who needs help and you were to watch brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins ect all help you out to make ends meet, instead of taxpayers you don't know, i would think that would be a heck of a motivator to hurry up the "standing on your own 2 feet" process. Don't you think?

Between all the churches and charity's in this country there is no reason why we cannot take care of our own people out of the goodness of our hearts instead on being jacked every payday to allow lazy welly's to get something they did not earn. If they were only given the bare, bare, bare necessity's by private sectors to truly help them and to give them a gentle nudge to get them on thier feet to be self sufficient, then they may actually have a DESIRE to earn a living. The gov't is nothing more than an enabler. The private sector has more than enough resources to combat the very few that have LEGITIMATE needs.

Oct 7, 2010, 5:23pm Permalink
Tom Guentner

If I hand you $300.00 a month for food & your stupid enough to spend $100.00 on soda, so be it. This "I know what's better for you than you" mentailty has to stop...

Oct 7, 2010, 5:28pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Tim Howe on October 7, 2010 - 5:23pm
Our brave men and woman in the military, and senior citizens (even liberal Bea) :) are the ONLY group of people that not only deserve to have the Gov't help them, but I believe they are entitled to it

Liberal Bea thanks you for this. It isn't easy for elderly people who worked all their lives to come to the decision that they need food stamps. They don't have a 'come to Jesus' moment that tells them to go forth and take from the system.
Yes, that generation did work their entire lives. They, and the generation before them, took care of their own. It was a given.
Times change. Now, they are leeches on society. I always wonder, when I read that description if those who label seniors as leeches would recommend that they be placed on ice floes and sent out to wither and die. Maybe it is the Dickens' quote, "decrease the surplus population" that comes to mind.
Families are more mobile. Many don't have close immediate family. They will try to stay on their own until it becomes impossible. If they are still in their own home, paying property taxes or paying rent, they often make difficult choices during the winter - taxes? rent? heat? lights? medication? food?
Most often food comes last.
Food stamps may be abused by some. I can assure you that most seniors don't.

Oct 7, 2010, 5:58pm Permalink
Tara Pariso

I don't generaly liketo ridiculious comments that are left on here, but this time I have to agree. If someone can afford to pay cash for a cell phone and other items, then they should buy their own food. Being on assistance is meant to help people out with basic life necessities, not be their job and source of income. There are many that can't work and for that the situation may be different. But our state and system are flawed when the recipients can work but choose not to. WIC is an amazing program that supplies families with necessary food staples to be healthy. If welfare were treated more like this, it would stop the over abuse that occurs. Also, if you want the government to buy your groceries, then you have to abide by their rules. My employer supplies my paycheck, therefore I follow their rules, same concept. If you don't want the government to control you, then find others means of financial support.

Oct 7, 2010, 8:55pm Permalink
SABRINA BRINKMAN

It's supposed to be a HAND UP not a HAND OUT. I honestly believe if you get rid of all these state programs, then people would HAVE to do what they need to do to survive. So we need people to pick veggies. Fine, if I don't have any money and need to make some to support my family, then I pick veggies to make money. If we need to eat, we do what we need to do. Before anyone says anything, YES I have picked veggies before. We didn't have a lot of money growing up. So I often went to local farms with my family and picked veggies. Then my mom would can them up for the winter. No firewood or fat lighter to start the fire, we picked up pine cones. The problem is people who don't have anything think they are entitled to the same life and benefits that I and others worked our behinds off for. They don't want to crawl before they walk. If you get rid of the handouts. Then you are going to have people have to figure out how they are going to survive. All of a sudden those farm jobs, etc that no wants, well you will have a list of people fighting for those jobs. I have no problem paying to help support our elderly, truly sick and disabled, or even that single mom working hard and struggling, and our veterans. I do have a problem with anyone outside of that circle.

Oct 8, 2010, 7:14am Permalink
Bea McManis

Sabrina,
I think we all agree that able bodied people should be working rather than collecting welfare. No one, in their right mind, would argue that.
You write, "I honestly believe if you get rid of all these state programs" and, "I have no problem paying to help support our elderly, truly sick and disabled, or even that single mom working hard and struggling, and our veterans...". If all of the programs are eliminated then there won't be help for those who are truly sick, disabled, the elderly, and that single mom or dad working hard and struggling.

Oct 8, 2010, 7:23am Permalink
Mike Weaver

Bea, you keep repeating the comment that elderly people are being called leeches on society, yet from what I've read here you are the only person who has used that statement in this comment thread.

Any particular reason you want to take this in a direction noone else has pointed it?

Oct 8, 2010, 7:37am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

She's quoting me and I don't refer to just the elderly as leeches. Anyone that takes from the government in order to better their lives instead of working hard for it, is leeching with few rare exceptions.

Oct 8, 2010, 7:56am Permalink
Mike Weaver

Well then maybe she should limit her use of it to when she is directly replying to you because noone else is labeling the elderly as leeches.

And I would hope that the elderly make your list of rare exceptions. Even if being old isn't rare at all.

Oct 8, 2010, 8:09am Permalink
Mike Weaver

LOL

I've still got 20 years to work.

We wouldn't have to support our elderly with taxed money if families supported their own. It is an unfortunate side effect of the movement away from extended families.

Oct 8, 2010, 8:54am Permalink

Authentically Local