WIC..pay for each item separately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster that talked about the Christmas family and a simple thank you would have made it a lot better. I'm sorry but no matter how embarassed they might have been (which they clearly didn't seem embarassed with their smug attitudes) it's not too embarassed to have simple manners and say thank you.

How dare those peasants display an insufficient amount of gratitude for your benevolent charity? I hope you ripped the gifts right out of the children's hands and gave them to a family more "deserving" of your saintly largesse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I earned it. I worked hard (two jobs) while in school and didn't have my first baby until 38, when I could afford it.

My, my. Aren't you special?

Actually, I'm not. That's the point isn't it? That everyday people make sacrifices to do what's best for their families. My choice was to work to jobs, put myself through school, not have children until later in life. Others chose to follow a different path, which includes public assistance. There are fewer of them then there are of us - but I'm not sure why to be hateful to me for the choices I made, isn't the goal to get people off public assistance? To be one of the "special" who don't need goverment help?

OMG would you just STFU?

[Anonymous]

Many folks are complaining about some poor person getting $40 a month. I wonder how many of these people are as up in arms over the billions spent on defense contracting, on farm subsidies to the already-wealthy, and the money we don't collect because we're eager to cut taxes for the wealthy in the hope that they might create jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster that talked about the Christmas family and a simple thank you would have made it a lot better. I'm sorry but no matter how embarassed they might have been (which they clearly didn't seem embarassed with their smug attitudes) it's not too embarassed to have simple manners and say thank you.

How dare those peasants display an insufficient amount of gratitude for your benevolent charity? I hope you ripped the gifts right out of the children's hands and gave them to a family more "deserving" of your saintly largesse.

14:39 here. Time to play conservative here.

So it's ok for recipients of charity to feel entitled to charity and to treat the folks who give them free food rudely?

[Anonymous]

"FYI, all the planning in the world doesn't mean things will work out the way you plan them. "

Land a Goshen! There go my bragging & eye rolling rights!
Shit, how am I going to feel superior over the WIC recipients in the store? Dang!

[Anonymous]

"So it's ok for recipients of charity to feel entitled to charity and to treat the folks who give them free food rudely? "

LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many folks are complaining about some poor person getting $40 a month. I wonder how many of these people are as up in arms over the billions spent on defense contracting, on farm subsidies to the already-wealthy, and the money we don't collect because we're eager to cut taxes for the wealthy in the hope that they might create jobs.

WIC money comes out of the USDA funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many folks are complaining about some poor person getting $40 a month. I wonder how many of these people are as up in arms over the billions spent on defense contracting, on farm subsidies to the already-wealthy, and the money we don't collect because we're eager to cut taxes for the wealthy in the hope that they might create jobs.

It's not $40 a month. Check out how much the WIC program is costing you. Check out how much these programs cost, the government is not fixing (as the poster who told how difficult it was to get her checks) but actually making it more difficult (juicy juice is not a healthy option). Instead of just saying WIC is great, people on WIC are great, why not admit this program isn't working and it's not working for the people on it. You can flame me all you want, you can insult my spelling, but I still think there is a better way than making a woman with a newborn wait 3 hours for 4 different types of checks and then hold up a line in a grocery store for government subsidized foods and suger water. If you like the program as is, power to you, but you either don't understand it or never lived on it.

I'm not educated enough about farm subsidies to speak intelligently on it, but I'm sure most of the DCUM community will argue about it (informed or not).

[Anonymous]

Have some compassion people, please. Do you think anyone wants to be in a situation where they can't feed their kids? Come on now.

[Anonymous]

Ungracious"? Are you serious? I guess when -- or perhaps I should say, "if" -- you offer to buy a meal for a homeless person on the street, you do so only if that person eats at McDonald's, even if he or she would prefer to have sandwich with fresh ingredients.... You must have invented the wonderful phrase, "Beggars can't be choosers." I really hope that you re-examine your values.

My values are fine, thank you. And yes, I think it is ungracious to complain that the brands of wheat bread offered are not ones that you like, or that the fruits and vegetables provided are not organic. Nobody is suggesting that WIC recipients are required to eat unhealthy food, or offering them McDonalds. And yes, if you are getting something for free, you don't have a right to have it be exactly what you want. You absolutely do have a right to receive healthy food in line with the program goals. It would be like giving a homeless person a gray coat to keep them warm, and having them say, "Gee, I would really prefer a blue one."

[Anonymous]

"It's not $40 a month. Check out how much the WIC program is costing you. Check out how much these programs cost, the government is not fixing (as the poster who told how difficult it was to get her checks) but actually making it more difficult (juicy juice is not a healthy option). Instead of just saying WIC is great, people on WIC are great, why not admit this program isn't working and it's not working for the people on it. You can flame me all you want, you can insult my spelling, but I still think there is a better way than making a woman with a newborn wait 3 hours for 4 different types of checks and then hold up a line in a grocery store for government subsidized foods and suger water. If you like the program as is, power to you, but you either don't understand it or never lived on it.

I'm not educated enough about farm subsidies to speak intelligently on it, but I'm sure most of the DCUM community will argue about it (informed or not). "

Still having trouble with spelling?

[Anonymous]

Hello. WIC and the school breakfast/lunch program are administered by USDA and have as a primary goal the support of US farmers and food production industries.

That's why it's limited to certain types of foods. Those foods represent agricultural interests -- it's all about price supports and market stabilization.

USDA has no interest in stabilizing small or organic farmers -- it's all about big factory farms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It's not $40 a month. Check out how much the WIC program is costing you. Check out how much these programs cost, the government is not fixing (as the poster who told how difficult it was to get her checks) but actually making it more difficult (juicy juice is not a healthy option). Instead of just saying WIC is great, people on WIC are great, why not admit this program isn't working and it's not working for the people on it. You can flame me all you want, you can insult my spelling, but I still think there is a better way than making a woman with a newborn wait 3 hours for 4 different types of checks and then hold up a line in a grocery store for government subsidized foods and suger water. If you like the program as is, power to you, but you either don't understand it or never lived on it.

I'm not educated enough about farm subsidies to speak intelligently on it, but I'm sure most of the DCUM community will argue about it (informed or not). "

Still having trouble with spelling?

Can't come up with anything to add to the grown up conversation? It's ok.

[Anonymous]

*Where the free shit at?*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster that talked about the Christmas family and a simple thank you would have made it a lot better. I'm sorry but no matter how embarassed they might have been (which they clearly didn't seem embarassed with their smug attitudes) it's not too embarassed to have simple manners and say thank you.

How dare those peasants display an insufficient amount of gratitude for your benevolent charity? I hope you ripped the gifts right out of the children's hands and gave them to a family more "deserving" of your saintly largesse.

14:39 here. Time to play conservative here.

So it's ok for recipients of charity to feel entitled to charity and to treat the folks who give them free food rudely?

I am Jewish, and my religion obligates me to give to those less fortunate. It is considered very honorable to give when neither party knows the other party's identity, less honorable to give when the giver knows the recipient's identity but the recipient doesn't know the giver's identity, and even less honorable to give when the recipient knows the giver's identity. The point is that the recipient should not be embarassed and the giver should not use giving as a reason to pat him/herself on the back (or worse, be patted on the back by the recipient.) So the PP's tale of adopting a Christmas family, showing up at their home, and then getting into a huff because she didn't like their manners or their nice TV kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It is of course nice if people say thank you. It's nice in every situation if people are pleasant and polite. But I do think less of someone who conditions charitable giving on some kind of behavioral expectation from the recipient.