Fox News’ Hasselbeck calls air conditioning ‘the ugly side’ of welfare
Fox News host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on Thursday suggested that welfare recipients who had air conditioning and cell phones were part of the “ugly side of entitlements.”
During Thursday’s Fox & Friends, Hasselbeck plugged a report that libertarian Fox Business host John Stossel is running this week that he claims will show how welfare creates a culture of dependency.
“Do these folks really need to be on welfare,” she asked, followed by video of Stossel interview apparent welfare recipients on the street.
“Yeah, I have a TV,” one woman says.
“Yeah, I have a television,” a man tells Stossel.
“Do you have air conditioning,” Stossel presses. “Yes,” the man replies.
“John Stossel checking into that and exposing the ugly side of entitlements,” Hasselbeck remarked following the video clip.
In a second teaser, Stossel probed welfare recipients about having cell phones and the Fox News host again called it “the ugly side of entitlements.”
“Is welfare creating more victims than it’s actually helping?” she later wondered.
Stossel pointed out that he was getting “free stuff” like Medicare, but welfare encouraged people “not to look for work.”
“The motivation to go get a job is almost non-existent in 35 states,” Hasselbeck opined.
Why don't they spend their time trying to get corporations to give up tax breaks.
I wouldn't talk to Stossel or anyone from Fox. They should slam the door in his face.
That fucking ignorant bitch...people can not get by in our society without a phone and let her live in a climate where the humidity is 70 to 80 percent most of the year...with no air conditioning. She is nothing more than filth that should be wiped off the bottom of your shoe before entering the house.
Isn't welfare the same thing as unemployment benefits, unless there's some documented reason (disability or whatever) that you are not fit to work?
Or does Hasselback have magical powers and she can tell who's a lazy parasite, vs who's an unlucky person who lost their job and is trying to find another job?
[quote]Why don't they spend their time trying to get corporations to give up tax breaks.
Oh, they do.
A television is a luxury?
No one gives a shit when Halliburton bills taxpayers $900 for a hammer, but people freak the fuck out if a black woman on food stamps buys a bag of Doritos!
Disgusting. I can't believe how much these assholes hate poor people. Can you imagine living in a highrise housing project in the sweltering summer (thanks global warming!) without ac? How austere, how deprived, do poor people have to be in order to satisfy the likes of Hasselbeck and Stossel?
R3, you are unbalanced in your thinking.
People can certainly 'get by without a cellphone'.
You are completely brainwashed, R3, and have no ability to think for yourself. You're a lemming.
She wouldn't think so if she lived in Phoenix like I do.
...and I'm a refuck CUNT!
r9, you're kind of an idiot. Everyone needs a phone in order to get a job and a cell phone is often a cheaper option than a landline.
I love you R7-- that's a perfect summation of what's going on.
r9 you must be old. Cellphones are a neccessity for (younger) people in this day and age. They are here to stay and that is not going to change. You cannot be a young person with any kind of life without one, and most jobs require you have a personal cell phone or guess what? You ain't gettin' hired!
Hasselbeck is a pampered princess from a well-off family who's never had a fucking hard day in her life. It always bothers me when people like her mouth off about segments of society that they have never had any real contact with. Useless cunt.
R9, how does one apply for a job without giving a phone number to the potential boss? "Sorry, I don't have a telephone" doesn't sound good to a prospective employer. Where does he/she call to offer the job? Phones are needed in emergencies, keeping track of children, etc. Many of these people don't have landline telephones - fewer and fewer do.
Also, many of these cell phones are donated by nonprofit agencies to individuals because having a phone is so crucial to survival today. Many plans are cheap - far cheaper than a monthly bill for a landline.
R3 is no lemming, but you could stand to follow your own advice: Think.
Let the food stamp wars begin.
People like Hasselcunt want to see poor people living in the gutter with tattered clothes, begging for scraps. They want Calcutta circa 1930.
Nothing less will makes these fucks happy.
Bitch needs to spend a summer in Houston with no A/C.
I bought an air conditioner this summer for $160. This bitch begrudges a poor family $160??
R14, R12, R15 one certainly does NOT need a cellphone to get a job.
All you need is a landline and email to function well.
R15, what absurd thinking from you. Of course people with a cellphone still have a phone - a landline.
Where did you get the absurd idea that people without a cellphone do not have a phone.
And R14, you are wrong and brainwashed, most jobs do NOT require a cellphone.
Will someone PLEASE shit in my mouth??!???!??
meant to type:
Of course, people without a cellphone still have a phone - a landline.
[quote]People can certainly 'get by without a cellphone'.
Fucktard at R9, NOWHERE in R3's response did they mention the word CELL phone.
Here's exactly what they posted: "people can not get by in our society without a phone" A PHONE, period. Read and comprehend!
Though, as others here have stated here, it's equally important to have a cell phone as well as a land line phone, especially if a prospective employer wants you to come in for an interview and they cannot track you down at home.
You must be a Faux News viewer!
a cell phone can be much cheaper than a landline. I pay $60/month for a landline and I hardly ever use it.
R20 is an elderly retiree who hasn't had to look for work in decades. And likely a Fox News viewer, too.
R15, just a bit of recent history, how do you think people 'kept track of children' before cellphones hit the market?
Cell phones are not luxuries. Neither is air-conditioning in hot places. Is her argument that if we offer assistance to the poor we should offer just enough assistance that they don't starve to death? That's the sort of argument that could send a Christian like EH straight to hell.
R20, I don't have a landline. More than half of the people I work with don't either. Every year, more people get rid of their landline phones to save money - just take a look at the white pages compared to years past.
Your reasoning is ridiculous. You're saying someone should pay for a landline phone, a computer and internet access when they can pay for a cellphone that does all of the above for far cheaper?
Since you insist on being an idiot, r20 let me state once again that a cell phone is often a cheaper option than a land line for poor people. In addition, it allows them the freedom of answering calls any time and anywhere, which is crucial to anyone looking for any kind of job.
You are, in short, a fucking moron.
Hasselbeck is the ugly side of humanity.
R24, you are getting robbed paying $60 per month for a landline.
Landlines are available for $30 to $35 - or $40.
R29, it is not crucial to have a cellphone to anyone looking for any kind of a job.
Messages can be left at the landline and by email.
Believe what you wish, of course, and be unaware of how brainwashed you are.
Astounding and appalling lack of empathy for the suffering of other people whose circumstances differ from her own. She is a failure as a human being.
Do not feed the trolls!!
I cannot believe we have someone here who believes job seekers in this job market do not need cellphones.
Can you seriously believe that sitting home all day waiting for a landline to ring is a viable job-hunting tactic? How out of touch can you possibly be? People looking for jobs are often OUT looking for jobs. They're often working temp jobs or menial jobs to get by while job-searching. And prospective employers are less likely than ever to "leave a message at the beep"; they'll just hang up and move down the list until someone picks up.
The idea of relying solely on a landline while job-hunting today is patently absurd.
Christ, we have a lot of clueless idiots posting here.
R15, please answer:
just a bit of recent history, how do you think people 'kept track of children' before cellphones hit the market?
R29, you don't answer the question. Why pay more for a landline phone, computer and internet access when you can replace all three with a cellphone? Why do you insist on paying more? Do you understand?
Elisabitch is mentally deranged, always was, always will be. She's a waste of flesh and space.
She's a smarmy, fake, entitled bitch, whose bottom like, like Sarah Palin, is the Almighty Dollar.
You do have to wonder if she honestly believes the shit flowing out her mouth, can she honestly be so ignorant or is all about the paycheck and just a pose? Fuck her, that rancid bitch.
She seems as absurd as most Tea Party freaks, their ears shut down when confronted with FACTS and LOGIC!
How any sane person can waste time listening to this lunatics shallow screeching rants is beyond me. How any sane person wastes time watching Faux News is baffling.
John Stossel has always been an annoying freak, period.
When did he stop stuttering, when he joined Fox?!
When he was on either ABC or CBS, I don't remember where he initially worked when he first hit the reporting scene, he stuttered like a banshee on crack! Fuck him too.
The poorest people live in the south. I'd love for this bitch to have to live for even a single week in some slum in Mississippi, during the middle of summer, without AC or telephone.
I'm really starting to believe these neocon types suffer some mental defect. Possibly genetic.
Personally, I'd rather my tax dollar go to help some less fortunate people in this country, rather than blowing up people in other countries. But that's just me.
R35, we appear to have one older person who can't think outside his or her own little life. It's sad really.
R35, how do you think people obtained jobs and found jobs before the recent advent and creation and invention of cellphones?
By your logic, no one was able to obtain and find a job before cellphones were invented and on the market.
R36, I think the world has changed over the years. I think my parents didn't know where I was quite a bit when I was growing up, but it was a small town with fewer opportunities for trouble then exist today.
Yes, it is much more convenient for a person out looking for a job - or working two jobs - to have a cellphone to track his or her kids. The world changes. Keep up.
R39, I agree with your sentiment and politics.
But be aware, that many poor people in Mississippi and other states sit on the front porch to get relief from a hot dwelling.
(if a porch is available. Or they sit in a yard)
And it is very common in southern states for poor people NOT to have an air conditioner.
You seem to think it is the norm that most poor people in Mississippi and other southern states have air conditioning. They do not.
Shouldn't a majority of welfare recipients get a job?
Fuck, I can not afford to buy a/c for the home I live in (it's $5k for an a/c system) & I live in a hot climate. I also could not afford the a/c bills either at .35 a KWH. The poor get a lot of breaks for their PGE bills (electricity & gas), and a/c, etc.
R39, no one is saying anyone should live without a phone.
Ginning up hatred over $10 prepaid phones is what Fox does best.
Many older people in the South and elsewhere die each year from heat-related reasons.
[quote]Messages can be left at the landline and by email.
Again, dumbkopf, please explain why someone would have a landline when a cell phone is cheaper AND allows the person to respond immediately to calls from potential employers.
I am nearly 50 years old and not poor or unemployed and I got rid of my landline 11 years ago. I certainly would not expect a poor person who is looking for a job to pony up for a landline because some idiots think that cheaper and more practical cell phone is a luxury.
r45, I grew up in the south. I'm familiar with front porch tradition, even for households with AC. My grandparents never ran theirs because they were so stingy.
What I'm suggesting is that I would like to see these pampered assholes like EH who complain about "entitlement" culture experience similar conditions while also living around or below the poverty level.
How will we create a permanent underclass and keep minorities in their place if we let them have cell phones and air conditioning?
What will happen to all the white people?
When Stoessel was still on 20/20 he did a report alleging that people should not have employer provided health insurance. He said that we should all just be responsible for paying our own medical bills. He completely neglected to mention that his employer at the time, ABC, provided him and his spouse and kids, the best health insurance available all absolutely FREE.
Scratch a "libertarian", find a lying hypocrite. He's exactly the same as that phony Ron Paul, wanting to end "entitlements" like Social Security for everyone else but neglecting to mention that he was happily receiving it himself. And Medicare.
Hey, no-cell phone person, when was the last time you saw a working pay phone?
R39, R50, but R39, you said at R39 that you'd like to see people in the southern states including Mississippi live without air conditioning for even one week.
As if it is unusual to live without air conditioning.
Now at R50 you are trying to correct your thinking and act as if you knew all along.
R41, are you at all aware that the world has changed??
You keep asking everyone "how do you think the world got by before cell phones", but what you fail to realize is that "the world before cell phones" no longer exists. It hasn't existed for almost 2 decades now.
How old are you? When was the last time you did a job search because your livelihood depended on it? 1985?
You are laughably out of touch.
You can buy a Tracfone for $29, you own it and get service for $7.00 a month, much cheaper than a land line. The landline fanatics must be over 60. Landlines are a dying breed, much like those over 60.
I am old. I don't have a cell phone. I hate them, and what they've done to ruin life as I knew it.
BUT, they're absolutely essential if you're looking for work today. As someone else pointed out, people who are looking for work are OUT looking for work, and the ability to receive and answer a calls from prospective employers ASAP is invaluable.
How could someone could see it any differently.
FWIW, my landline + internet costs $53+ per month.
I don't know where some of you idiots live but around here, you won't be getting a job without a cell phone. You don't need the landline but if you don't have a cell phone, you are done.
Sound quality is lousy on Tracfones. It is difficult to have a satisfactory conversation on a Tracfone.
Another thing, if you are past 50, you are not getting a job, and yes, they find out your age and even though age discrimination is suppose to be outlawed...forget about a job if you are over 50.
Have Tracfones done away with buying prepaid minute cards and now have $7 per month service?
If Tracfone is your only phone, you eat up tons of money from the prepaid cards trying to have conversations of any length.
r60, if you are looking for a "job" past 30, you're screwed. By that point in life, you should be more established than to be looking for a job, even in this economy.
But if you're an accomplished professional past 50, recruiters still call. At least that's been my experience.
So, now we know why this repulsive, ignorant, bigoted cunt was kicked out from The View - she was too stupid, transparent and infantile even for them.
Nowadays, if you want to get a job, R20, you have to be available at all times. A mobile phone makes it easier for you to do that than a land line. Equally, air conditioning is necessary in many areas where Spring and Summer temperatures are unbearably high. Moreover, having an old television doesn't make anyone privileged. What is it, that people who have to survive on welfare don't even have a right to watch TV?
I hope that there is a God because, if there is, everyone at Fox will end up rotting in hell.
Funny thing is, these holier-than-thou creeps like Hasslebitch actually think what they do is REAL work. What a joke, making that kind of money essentially spewing venom on daily basis and working less than 5 hours?! Disgusting.
My stomach turns watching phony entitled bitches, Hasslebitch and the uber phony Kathie-Lee Gifford come immediately to mind.
I cannot stand these two talent free idiots, they look down on almost everyone they've ever interviewed. Kathie-Lee really irks me, her best friend is Pimp Mom, Kris Jenner! Exactly how does that jibe with Kathie-Lee's Born Again values? The mind boggles.
Put these two lunatics into real jobs, then let's see if they can get through one full day of real work on an actual job, one which involves both thinking and physical work.
Only then will these two bitches have the right to comment on real life, something which has never actually touched their cushy lives.
[quote][R35], how do you think people obtained jobs and found jobs before the recent advent and creation and invention of cellphones?
People got jobs and found jobs and used the English language redundantly before the not-so-recent advent and creation and invention of landline telephones, too, but that doesn't mean that doing so would be possible today, now that phones are ubiquitous and people are assumed and expected to be reachable by phone. People also created written documents and communicated with colleagues before the "advent and creation and invention" of personal computers and email, but good luck to you if you inform your employer that you prefer to do all your writing on a typewriter and will be delivering messages to your coworkers in person.
Once a technological advance has been implemented widely enough, it's difficult-to-impossible to get along well in society using some earlier method or tool that's now outdated. At this point, that's pretty much what's happened with cell phones.
"They should just die."
Why don't we just cut to the chase?
"They. Should. Just. Die."
R63, the point is that many people, including a high percentage of poor people, do not currently have air conditioning, even in the southern states.
Our dream is to one day be as rich as America's poor.
R59, I don't know from Tracfone, but two friends of mine recently bought the latest iteration of fabulous from Samsung, and I can't understand what either of them is saying half of the time. Worst. Sound. Ever.
I don't know what sort of field you work in, R62, but I know people over 50 with PhDs and Masters degrees who cannot even get a job stacking shelves in a supermarket. I know a woman with a degree in Medicine who was reduced to applying for jobs as a cleaner and guess what - she was rejected every single time.
Also, there aren't any jobs. Many people have been made redundant and are trying to find a way to subsist. It's not a matter of being "established", but a matter of seeing how the economy is slowly collapsing under the impossible wealth accumulation of the most privileged strata in society.
I'd like for Stossel to go back in time and experience The Long Hot Summer.
Riots used to break out. People were sweltering. The cops would arrest someone, crack him over the head and thousands of people who were out on the streets (because it was too hot to stay indoors) would lose it.
This didn't just happen in big cities, btw. It happened in small towns and rural areas. Houses would be burned in the white section of town. People would snap.
Stossel and Hasselback should count their lucky stars that millions of desperately poor people stay indoors in such weather.
What is this "air conditioning"?
Basically any house built after 1975 has central air conditioning.
I do not have a car, and have never had one.
I get along fine without a car.
Cars were invented in the 1920's.
R54 - my last response. Please work on your reading comprehension so as to avoid pointless debates on the Internet.
I did not write that I would like to see "people in the southern states including Mississippi live without air conditioning for even one week." I wrote that I would like to see Elizabeth Hasselbeck do so.
Children in grade school are getting homework that has to be done on a computer. Schools have gone paperless so they don't send notes or newsletter home any more, they send out e-mails instead. Now it is getting to the point where everybody needs a computer too. Life is expensive.
R73, it is obvious you have not seen how poor people live in the south.
Without air conditioning - in houses.
I wish I could get into a good death panel.
EH proves that ignorance is no obstacle to getting a highly-paid job.
Houses in the south used to have "sleeping porches".
And kitchens were often out buildings because they heated up the house too much.
"Modern" people have been living in the south WITHOUT air conditioning since the 1600s.
American Indians for thousands of years.
R41 sounds like my 90 year old aunt. She keeps telling me to go to an employment agency. The last employment agency I went to told me to keep looking on my own because they have to compete with LinkedIn, Craigslist and Monster. They wished me good luck. I'm over 50.
Even having a debate on the "worthiness" of cell phones in 20fucking13 is ridiculous. People need them now. Just like they need Internet. They are not 'luxuries,' you ignorant old fucks.
I'm really getting tired of the ornery old fuck recluses on here who are completely unfamiliar with real life and contemporary society and think every goddamned thing is exactly the same it was in the year they stopped socializing/paying attention, which, judging by the threads on here, was around 1990. And the younger people on here who patiently try to explain to grandpa why real modern society works these days, and get scoffed at by these clueless fucktard fossils.
[quote] Basically any house built after 1975 has central air conditioning.
Ridiculous. My house was built in 1992. No AC. No cable. One phone jack in the kitchen wall and nowhere else.
R45, genuinely curious, do you live in a house with windows that could fit a window AC? I live in an old house with hot summers, and central AC is not a necessity if you have a few window units in. Definitely less than 5K!
[quote]if you are looking for a "job" past 30, you're screwed. By that point in life, you should be more established than to be looking for a job, even in this economy.
But if you're an accomplished professional past 50, recruiters still call. At least that's been my experience.
Well, smell YOU. Lots of professionals, as well as hard working people who had mere 'jobs,' have lost their jobs due the greed of the corporations they worked for.
Tons of people are looking for work. Lots of professionals past 50 cannot find work, years of experience means little to much younger bosses, Younger bosses are most likely threatened by seasoned older workers.
Companies are cutting back, Art Directors are now doing the work of their former graphics people, fact not fiction. A close friend, an AD, has now absorbed the work of five people, he has no life. Is he not still a professional?
You seem bitter and clueless.
College is not for everyone, lots of young people should have the option to learn an actual needed skill, not just earn a Master's in some obscure subject they have no chance of finding a job with!
Why post such bullshit anyway? You are veering off the subject, your post had nothing to do with much of anything in this thread. Now I am veering off the subject too!
Are you here to troll and put down others?
Basically any type of phone, as well as an email is important in order to find work, even if you have a headhunter or recruiter, at some point you will need to communicate directly with the potential employer or the account manager.
I'm a freelancer, I need email to send out samples files of my graphic work to potential accounts.
Every person's method of communication might be different due to the field a person works in.
[quote] if you are looking for a "job" past 30, you're screwed. By that point in life, you should be more established than to be looking for a job, even in this economy.
Yes, because people over 30 NEVER get laid off. Christ, you're an idiot.
R39 and R85, no one said anyone should live with a phone.
R85, yes, as you stated, any type of phone - landline or cell - is fine.
Having marketable skills is something to strive for starting at a young age.
[quote]if you are looking for a "job" past 30, you're screwed.
sorry, no one said anyone should live WITHOUT a phone.
"But if you're an accomplished professional past 50, recruiters still call. At least that's been my experience."
Obviously that wasn't part of MY post.
My mother lives in FL. Her area was hard hit by real estate speculators. Now there area lot of renters in her neighborhood and she said she is seeing all these houses with aluminum foil in their windows. WTF is that about? Is it to keep the house cooler?
[quote] how do you think people obtained jobs and found jobs before the recent advent and creation and invention of cellphones?
[quote]By your logic, no one was able to obtain and find a job before cellphones were invented and on the market.
You fucking retard, no one is claiming that cell phones have always been required for job hunting, but here in 2013, where everyone but you apparently lives, it's pretty much a requirement.
Sounds like Cape Coral, r91.
[quote]What is this "air conditioning"?
[quote]by: Your Pioneer Ancestors
... who were lucky if they lived past 50.
Hissing Republican elder-cunts.
[quote I do not have a car, and have never had one. Cars were invented in the 1920's.
I don't have a car, either. I live in NYC and don't need one because I can use the subway and cabs. I would assume, unless you are some giant pain the ass who asks friends to drive you everywhere, that you are in a similar situation.
But so the fuck what? You and I may not need to own cars, but that doesn't mean we don't use them on occasion or that we go everywhere on foot or on horseback or via a mode of transportation invented pre-1920s.
Suggesting that job hunters do not really need a cell phone on which prospective employers can reach them instantly is a bit like suggesting you don't need a car to deliver pizzas in the boondocks because, hey, before cars were invented, people waited hours or days for deliveries, so why can't they do that now?
[quote]I do not have a car, and have never had one. I get along fine without a car.
What is the point to this? Are you actually saying that because you don't need a car, other people don't?
Trolldaring you is like taking a trip down the rabbit hole. Exactly what year do you live in?
R91, meth labs.
I missed the episode where they read the Gamblers' Anonymous questionnaire to the one percent.
The "Money" question, good for automat entry into GA, is this:
HAVE YOU EVER HAD A BAILOUT?
I agree that cell phones and internet are a necessity for everyone these days. But A/C? Well, I work and I can't afford it. I live in a very hot climate. So it chaps a little that welfare recipients can get it provided to them. But, just a LITTLE.
"Once a technological advance has been implemented widely enough, it's difficult-to-impossible to get along well in society using some earlier method or tool that's now outdated."
Cars were invented in the 1920's. I have no car and have never had one.
So R65's axiom does NOT hold true. And it need not be applied to cellphones in all cases.
Shift workers use foil on their windows so they can sleep during the day - blocks out all the light.
R101, try getting along without a car if you live in a country town or an outer suburb.
You get along without a car because of unusual circumstances. You live in a city with a great public transit system, or a very small town where all of your needs are walkable, or you rely on someone with a car to drive you around, or you don't work (or live within walking distance of your job, which requires no travel) and are perfectly happy being largely housebound. Chances are its a combination of all of these things.
Although you have to realize on some level that your experience is far removed from the norm, you seem hellbent on playing the role of the idiot contrarian in this thread.
[quote]So R65's axiom does NOT hold true.
So you do believe that cars are unnecessary in 2013, just like cell phones. That's what you're arguing?
R102, the axiom R65 presents is that almost ALL people need to purchase and own many commonly-held technological items that many others have.
All people do not need a car. Some need a car, but many can live without one.
All people do not need a cellphone. Some people need a cellphone, but many people can live just fine without one.
So the axiom does not hold true.
R104, I do not 'get along without a car because of unusual circumstances'.
I have lived in FIVE Midwestern states without a car, and I have lived in THREE eastern states without a car.
Nothing is unusual about it.
I do not rely on nor ask anyone with a car to drive me around.
I love how they continue to insist that what is wrong with the country is people on welfare or abusing the system. 98% of any kind of welfare recipient are the elderly, the disabled or the working poor (those who work but do not make enough to live). 2% are the abusers and this is what is wrong with the country?? I will never understand how republicans eat this shit up.
This is how they win elections, they convince the lower middle class whites who work very hard that the democrats are giving all their money to them freeloading blacks and mexicans. It is pure racism.
R108, it is not racism as much as it is holding a work ethic for those able to work.
(and yes, I know jobs are scarce or very scarce these days)
Why does Elisabeth Hasselbeck hate poor people?
[quote]Why does Elisabeth Hasselbeck hate poor people?
Because she's a miserable bitch.
[quote] Why does Elisabeth Hasselbeck hate poor people?
Be cause she's a fucking cunt.
I hope she gets hit by a bus and splattered all over the pavement in front of the Fox News headquarters.
They give her somebody to feel superior to, R110. After all, Elisabeth isn't poor, so they must have done something wrong in their lives to be in this situation. Many people on the far right are unable to see beyond their own personal experiences.
[quote]I have lived in FIVE Midwestern states without a car, and I have lived in THREE eastern states without a car.
How did you get to work? How did you do grocery shopping? How would you get to the doctor's? How would you get around, generally? How did you managed to move between 8 different states?
I still can't decide what is worse to me. If someone like Hasselbeck really agrees with what she is presenting in these reports or if she knows it is horseshit but knows being a right wing loon makes her wealthy.
The anti-cell phone carless wonder is trolling this thread hard. R109 is proof of his freeper bona fides.
Excepting Chicago, there is no city in the Midwest that you can live in without a car. Well, no city you can THRIVE in at least.
Nobody has answered an important question for me. Do welfare recipients have air conditioning in their cars?
R116, you are absurd and absolutely wrong on everything you wrote at R116
As an aside, left-wing liberal progressive Democrat here.
Yes, a progressive liberal coming down on poor people for having cell phones.
How much are the teatards paying you?
Here in eastern KY, most people couldn't get a job without a car. Most of us live at least a 20-30 minute drive away from the nearest town where all the jobs are (and where all the stores are).
Landlnes are actually rather expensive compared to the simple cells people on public assistance can obtain. I just got my Verizon landline bill and I'm staggered, seriously considering dropped landline service altogether.
Forty years ago when I had an internship with a non-profit studying social issues, we were told that in New Orleans and Washington DC public assistance recipients were entitled to AC, since the weather in summer was so brutal, especially hard on the elderly and those with asthma and other conditions.
[quote]Although you have to realize on some level that your experience is far removed from the norm, you seem hellbent on playing the role of the idiot contrarian in this thread.
While not agreeing with the Freeper Contrarian in this thread, most people who live in Manhattan don't own cars. Unless they live in a condo or co-op complex with parking, owning a car in the city is next to impossible.
I live in an outer borough. I never learned to drive. I started taking the subways, alone, around 13-14. I took the subway into Manhattan to attend high school and college. I traveled to work via subway. I now freelance from home.
I walk a lot, I enjoy it. If I have to shop for the Holidays and I pick up a lot of gift items, I take a cab home. I also do a lot of online shopping. I even walk to my local Costco. Sure the situation is not always ideal, but it works for me and the walk is pleasant.
If I have to attend a party or get-together not reachable by subway, I usually get a ride from a friend or family member.
You'd be surprised how many native New Yorkers don't drive. Most people who left Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens as children, to live on Long Island and upstate NY, had no alternative but to drive, you can't do much when all the places you need to get to aren't within walking distance.
Why stop at AC? Do those people really need heat either? I mean, why can't they just sleep in their coats and pile on some extra blankets? Or keep their oven doors open if the whiners think it's THAT cold?
What a pair of idiots these two are. A lot of welfare recipients are elderly, disabled, "working poor" and so on. They're not all lazy ass slackers who deserve to be punished.
We have an older tea bagger our office who recently came in waving some internet tea bag propaganda about like 50% of the country being on some type of government assistance. I pointed out to her that SHE WAS ONE OF THEM.
But, no, no, no...That's an ENTITLEMENT! Apparently she thinks she's entitled to tax payer handouts for doing nothing but those other people who could really use a hand up are not.
R32, so you're OK with poor people having computers so they can get email, but not having a smartphone so they can get email AND phone calls?
I'm one of the "working poor", and for my last job, I had to catch 3 buses to and from work for a journey that would have taken 20 minutes in a car. Being poor sucks!
Would love for this cunt to lose her money and be forced to live in subpar conditions.
R122 the troll has stated he goes carless in the Midwest (5 separate states no less). And I think we're all familiar with the concept of walkable cities. The post you quoted even mentioned that.
[quote] All people do not need a car. Some need a car, but many can live without one.
No they can't. Where do you live? I live outside of Atlanta and there isn't any type of bus service for over 30 miles from my house. The closest store is 7 miles away
Drive into the parking lot of your local unemployment (welfare) office. Your car will be the oldest model in that lot..notice the Caddy's, the Lincoln's, Lexus, Acura's. My brother laid off from his job, diagnosed with cancer was given the 3rd degree of questioning, and turned down for benefits while blacks were whizzing in/out in short time. I asked my local congressional people that I wanted a breakdown by race of the benefit approval/disapproval percentages. I am still waiting, meanwhile my brother passed away.
[quote]Landlines are actually rather expensive compared to the simple cells people on public assistance can obtain.
Precisely. I still maintain a bare bones land line with voicemail (which I just never get around to cancelling) which costs me $54 a month. I also have a flat rate cell phone with internet which costs me $45 a month. Now which would make more sense for a person of limited meand seeking a job? People like Hasselback complaining about the poor having cell phones are living in 1991.
this cunt was on Survivor. It's like someone giving a shit about what Richard Hatch has to say.
Who the fuck is this stupid cunt?
R129 = racist teabagger
The majority of welfare recipients are white.
R129, I've been on food stamps. No nice cars in the parking lot. It was near a big transit center, though.
[quote]Would love for this cunt to lose her money and be forced to live in subpar conditions.
Well, smarty pants, living conditions were pretty tough on that island I was stranded on when I was on Survivor. No food, no running water, no soap or toothbrush......AND NO AIR CONDITIONING.
Cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt.
[quote] Drive into the parking lot of your local unemployment (welfare) office. Your car will be the oldest model in that lot..notice the Caddy's, the Lincoln's, Lexus
Oh bullshit. Welfare Queens driving around in Cadillacs -What is this, 1988?
[quote] "Once a technological advance has been implemented widely enough, it's difficult-to-impossible to get along well in society using some earlier method or tool that's now outdated."
[quote]Cars were invented in the 1920's. I have no car and have never had one. So R65's axiom does NOT hold true.
Listen, Mary Lou, do you go the grocery store via horse and buggy? Travel the Midwest in your covered wagon? Take your exercise atop a penny farthing? Or do you perhaps use buses and trains and taxis and bikes, just like any other person in 2013? Because if you in fact use one, some, or all of the latter four, perfectly modern and up-to-date conveyances, you are not in fact attempting to get around using "some earlier method or tool that's now outdated" and the fact that you don't happen to own or drive your own car does nothing to disprove my axiom.
Sure, there are some people who can get along okay without a cell phone. Most of them are little kids or elderly, retired people whose lack of a cellphone the rest of the world still expects and is willing to accommodate. Some are people who plain don't like or care to be constantly available by phone AND who have the *luxury* of not needing to make themselves available. Job hunters—you know, the people we were actually talking about when pointing out the need for phones--are decidedly not in one of the aforementioned groups. If you're a poor person up for some unskilled or entry level job that a zillion other people could fill just as easily as you could, and the boss can't reach you when she calls to make the offer, how long do you think she's going to wait around before calling someone else? Especially when she considers how she'll never be able to shoot you a quick text when she has a question outside business hours, and you'll never be able to call her when you're stuck in traffic and running late for work? Oh, but it'll be okay, because some guy on DL says people in 2013 don't need cell phones.
R119, I am not saying welfare recipients should not have cellphones.
I was making a more broad argument that many people from many walks of life with many different types of jobs do not really need a cellphone and can exist fine without one.
I did not mean to portray that welfare recipients specifically should not have cellphones.
I just do not think that everyone in the U.S. needs a cellphone.
I was not focusing on denying them to welfare recipients in any way.
R130, you are over-paying for your landline.
Depending upon where you live and which utility or company provides service you should get a much better deal. Landlines here cost $30 to $45.
Stossel has always equated modern technologies with luxury. "Do you have a microwave?" is a question he has asked in the past.
What next? Do you have heat and don't have to chop wood to make a fire? Do you have access to a washing machine instead of walking down to the river to beat the clothes against rocks?
It's a stupid and disingenuous argument.
[quote]Landlnes are actually rather expensive compared to the simple cells people on public assistance can obtain.
you are misinformed. UNless you mean installing a new landline.
My cell phone costs 45 a month. My landline only 17
[quote]Well, smarty pants, living conditions were pretty tough on that island I was stranded on when I was on Survivor. No food, no running water, no soap or toothbrush......AND NO AIR CONDITIONING.
You were also competing for a million bucks. Not to mention you were guaranteed some large pay out based on how far you went.
Average Americans aren't so lucky.
R138, a large number of towns and cities have grocery delivery by the major large grocery stores in the area directly to your apartment or home with the grocery orders being placed online. I've used it for years in various cities where I've lived. Plus walking for groceries in the past using a large backpack and a satchel, or a pull wire grocery cart.
You seem a bit behind the times not knowing about grocery delivery by major grocery stores in many towns and cities with placing the orders online. Ironic.
(As an aside, Amazon.com has a huge array of grocery items that can be ordered online. You would be surprised by the variety)
I'm familiar with grocery delivery service, freepster. Perhaps you could explain once again how your reliance on groceries ordered online and delivered via motor vehicle somehow DISPROVES my axiom that it's tough to get along using outdated methods and tools?
What? You have HEAT in the WINTER? You scum sucking welfare queen!
She's a dumb bitch
I don't have grocery delivery around here and could not afford it if it was available.
This is something many people don't get. A lot of people who are on public aid, have it because they have health problems and when you have health problems, you simply can't do the same things you did when you were strong and healthy.
I'm sure Hasselbeck thinks those people should just die and maybe they should but if that's the case, then the government should have suicide centers set up so that anyone who needs to take advantage of them, can. Until that happens you can fuck that Hasselbeck cunt, with a jackhammer.
One of the major grocery stores in my area charges only $5.00 for delivery.
And their online website for ordering is excellent.
I agree about your 2nd paragraph, R150, so true.
R4, she certainly knows lazy parasite. Otherwise if she had to work, she'd have a real job.
She's a dumb piece of shit
[quote] a large number of towns and cities have grocery delivery by the major large grocery stores in the area directly to your apartment or home with the grocery orders being placed online. I've used it for years in various cities where I've lived.
So what you're saying, schmucko, is NOT, "I don't need a car because before the 1920s, no one had a car and everyone got along fine." What you're saying is, "I don't need a car because today in 2013, I can turn on my newfangled computer machine and order up some groceries online and have them delivered to me in somebody else's car." (Or, in other words, you do need a goddamned car, you just don't need to be the owner of the car.)
Do you really fail to see how that argument does NOT in any way support your notion that job hunters today don't need cell phones because job hunters 20 years ago found jobs without them?
Yeah, probably you do fail to see it, because clearly your ability to reason is very limited.
SERIOUSLY, r146? Order groceries from Amazon? Sure, if you need a 12-pack of some processed overpriced goodies. If you want fresh meat, produce, dairy, or bakery products, forget it. And many areas do not have local grocery delivery.
Groceries all over the city and suburbs are NOT delivered in a CAR!!
Groceries are delivered in a truck that looks like a UPS or FedEx truck. And another store uses a large van-like truck.
They are delivering LARGE quantities of groceries to many multiple households every 15 minutes. Why would you think they use a CAR?
Anyway, you are sputtering and fretting about this way too much.
And YES, people got along just fine without automobiles before they were invented in the 1920's.
I'm dropping it now and hope you do too. I do not agree with your point, so it is useless for you to keep trying.
She has no point, she's totally stupid
R155, groceries are ordered from the local large grocery stores in my city who deliver.
The only thing ordered from Amazon is great rice varieties, occasionally great coffee, and a few other items. But amazon.com does carry a large quantity of items for those who wish to explore there.
Your post makes no sense R155. Not sure why you wrote it. Of course, all fresh produce, vegetables, fruit, chicken, etc are bought locally and delivered to me.
Grocery shopping is 99 percent done locally with the large major stores in my city and locale who deliver.
I guess you didn't bother to read or your comprehension is weak.
The people who are stupid and unenlightened and isolated from thought are those who have never heard of living without a car, as if that is new topic in society, and those who insist it is not possible.
A person chooses where he wishes to live. One can live in a town or city or area where owning a car is not necessary. Or one can live in eastern Kentucky and the suburbs of Atlanta where a car is necessary.
I'm done with this. Too many ignoramuses who are not worldly.
You CANNOT be serious with that latest line of reasoning, r156. Of course, groceries are delivered in a truck, not a car, and that is entirely beside the point.
You can live without your own car (or truck, and for the purposes of this argument, they are interchangeable, no matter how dense you want to be about it) because shit* gets delivered to you in someone else's motor vehicle, and not because you're some kind of pioneer gal who can get along just fine without modern modes of transportation.
That does not disprove my argument that it's hard to get along in society using outdated tools and methods, and it does not support your point that people today should be able to find jobs w/o having cell phones because people did so before cell phones were invented—YOU FUCKING MORON.
R160, you're the one who simple-mindedly said groceries are delivered in a CAR at R154 because you do not know better.
The same reason you did not even mention grocery delivery which has been popular for about 10 years or more in your talk about me using buses, trains, bikes to get my groceries - leaving out walking and grocery delivery - because those two modes did not even occur to you.
You are happy with the point you think you are trying to make at R160 - so be happy with your point. I don't agree, but you can still be happy and others will appreciate that you stop.
[quote]And YES, people got along just fine without automobiles before they were invented in the 1920's.
No one has suggested they didn't, you illiterate fucking ignoramus. Obviously, people got along fine without cars (and trucks!) before cars (and trucks!) were even invented. The point is that, today, when the whole world operates on the assumption that most people have some sort of access to the services of motor vehicles, it's not so easy to get along without them— and that's clearly true in your life just as it in everyone else's, if you do indeed have groceries delivered to you in a truck, you dumb fuck.
By the same token, its not that easy for non-cell-phone owners to find a job in a world in which most prospective employers now assume you are reachable by cell phone.
Jesus H Christ, you must be one of the very dumbest motherfuckers I've ever communicated with on Datalounge, and that is saying something.
Peapod.com does national delivery of groceries for more than one city, I think.
I haven't looked at that website lately, but I've seen it advertised, and I used it at one point living on the east coast for inner city delivery using local stocks of groceries.
I easily found two major well-paid jobs in a large east coast city without using nor owning a cellphone.
A cellphone was not needed to find nor land the two jobs.
Really, r161, you are so mind-blowingly stupid that I beg you to leave your brain to science.
Given that I am 48 years old and have never owned my own car (and have had groceries delivered on numerous occasions, though I prefer to select them in person), I am quite aware that it is possible to live without being a car owner and that groceries are generally delivered in trucks.
I did not mention grocery delivery in that previous post because I would not have thought it necessary to provide an exhaustive goddamn list of every single possible way one could be car-less yet rely on up-to-date modern conveniences to live. And I did not distinguish between "car" and truck" in my grocery delivery post because the distinction is entirely irrelevant to my point, which is, AGAIN:
You're not getting along just fine with no car because people don't really need cars and trucks and other conveyances we once lived without. You're getting along just fine without a car because you can rely on other people's/companies' motor vehicles to bring shit* to you as needed, and no doubt to cart your fat, stupid, waste-of-space ass from one place to another when that's needed.
So your argument that people don't need cell phones because we used to be fine without them does not hold water and is not supported by your bullshit about cars.
* And just so your painfully literal mind is not confused, yes, I realize you don't actually order fecal matter to be delivered.
Datalounge is full of off-the-grid weirdos who make bizarre life choices like our resident no-car troll. Good for you, but most of us are normal people who enjoy being part of the larger society.
If grocery delivery were not available, I would walk to get my groceries using a large backpack and a large satchel, or my pull wire grocery cart which is how I got my groceries for many years.
As I mentioned, I landed two major well-paid jobs in a large east coast city without owning nor using a cellphone just a couple of years ago when cellphones were popular. And it was easy to do.
How unworldly you are, R166. You really do not know what you are talking about.
bizarre life choices? off the grid?
What a foolish, unlearned, arrogant, small-minded fool you are.
You know, I don't really believe that you landed two jobs under any circumstances, r168. I'm guessing you subsist on SSDI because you are too addled to work. But even if you're telling the truth, so what? The fact that ONE guy found well-paid work a couple years ago without the benefit of a cell-phone hardly proves that your typical unemployed poor person, competing with dozens of other poor people, students, teenagers, etc., for some NON-well-paid, crappy job that any candidate could handle about as well as any other would be at no disadvantage as one of the few candidates not reachable by cell phone.
There's no grocery delivery in the city I live in.
Most of you people have no clue that in most grocery chains do not have stores in the poorer sections of town.
[quote]If grocery delivery were not available, I would walk to get my groceries using a large backpack and a large satchel,
But it IS available and you DO use it, so so fucking what about your backpack and your satchel?
If cell phones weren't available, I'd have a landline, and no employer would expect anything different. But they are available, and employers often do expect people to have them.
And if telephone technology weren't available at all, I'd attach two tin cans to a very long string, toss one can to you, stick the other up my ass, and blow you a big, giant fart from Brooklyn. So consider yourself lucky that phones exist.
r168, I read your post in Darth Vader's voice.
r168 you've also just proved my point.
Why do you need a cellphone to get a job?
i think we can all agree: the poor should suffer brief lives of misery.
[quote]What a foolish, unlearned, arrogant, small-minded fool you are.
Says the biggest buffoon in this thread.
Do you realize you've been arguing with at least 20 separate posters on this thread? And not one has agreed with you or backed you up? You are a fool of the highest order.
She's in her glory now. The Mothership calls, no greater honor, and she gets to spew her poison and there's no one sitting across from her to call her out on it.
Why have all the Freepers from Craigslist Rants and Raves come to DL?
R168, et al, seems to think people exist only at her level in the world, not realizing that people who are on a severely limited income or who live in abject poverty need only ring up the grocer to have their weekly or daily order delivered. Or that those who live on the outskirts of society should be perfectly happy to hotfoot it miles and miles with their wire cart or other "satchel" to go to market, because of course they have chosen to live in that tin-roofed shack out along the interstate, and not in the city where they would have better access to shopping and transit.
Hassleback and her ilk feel that anyone who's not white, rich or xtian should be punished for being that way.
Fox News is the ugly side of "journalism."
Though one can purchase a luxury TV and spend a lot of money monthly feeding it with expensive cable/satellite subscriptions, a TV is certainly not a luxury in the U.S.
I'm old enough to remember when home air conditioning was not standard but indeed a luxury (even in the South.) Still, it doesn't seem ridiculous largesse to give people on public assistance [bold]some reasonable[/bold] provision for what's become a basic comfort more than a luxury. For reasons of conservation on the broad scale and on the home budget front, people still curb their usage of air conditioning so as not to be wasteful of either. Plenty of people in hot as hell places still use simple fans. If Fox News can find examples of families on public assistance windows open, a/c blasting, chilling the great outdoors til icicles grow on their eaves, let them expose such excess. Otherwise their speculation is mean spirited.
Cell phones are the one area where people of all stripes are most likely to spend far more than they should. Of course a phone is a necessity in a household, but phones can be very expense and unlimited texting, data plans, and other services can add up as real extravagances. It may be a legitimate question to about outfitting all of the children in a family with cell phones, or paying a phone provider to act as a source for watching Youtube videos. Phone expenses can easily push past the point of necessity to luxury and to excess. The portion of money that goes toward phones has long been the subject of various studies looking at the impact on various levels of income -- from before the widespread adoption of cell phones to the present. But if that's to be the focus of news reporting, how about grounding it somewhat in facts instead of incendiary speculation?
R79, these days in the corporate world it is mandatory.
[quote]If grocery delivery were not available, I would walk to get my groceries using a large backpack and a large satchel, or my pull wire grocery cart which is how I got my groceries for many years.
That's great for you but what if you were handicapped or elderly?
[quote][R168], et al, seems to think people exist only at her level in the world, not realizing that people who are on a severely limited income or who live in abject poverty need only ring up the grocer to have their weekly or daily order delivered.
Yes, and I love how she fancies that not *owning* a car makes her Pollyanna Pioneer Wife, proving to us all that modern conveniences aren't necessary; meanwhile, she's really just paying others to do her driving.
R186 she doesn't own a car, because both at The View and now at Fox she has her own car service. Paid for by the network.
R170, in cities where grocery delivery is done, grocery delivery is done all throughout the large city and all throughout the suburbs-
grocery delivery is not done just in one's neighborhood.
And the large major grocery stores which do grocery delivery do NOT need to be located in one's neighborhood for grocery delivery. The grocery delivery is done for everyone living anywhere in the city or suburbs.
This thread got way off topic.
I am not saying that poor people should live without car and not saying that poor people should necessarily use grocery delivery if delivery is available.
And for the handicapped and elderly, many cities and towns have special van service especially for the handicapped and elderly. In my city, it is called Metro Mobility. (and yes, I realize not all cities and towns have this van service for the handicapped and elderly, but it is quite prevalent)
And actually I have a medical handicap at this time, and use it.
And yes, I definitely landed two major well-paid jobs in a large east coast city without owning nor using a cellphone, and it was easy to do.
I really hope she dies soon...maybe her husband could kill her, I'm sure he'd like too.
My mother would have suffocated without air conditioning. She couldn't breathe at any temp over 80.
People living without air conditioning is just inhumane. The argument always is "well people lived without a/c for many years, a/c is a modern invention." True, but people back in the old-timey days did not know any different way of life, and the weather was not as hot as it is now.
R191, you are very ( and pathetically) sheltered from the real world.
Plenty of people in the U.S. do not have air conditioning and just use fans in their apts and houses.
And billions of people all over the world do not have air conditioning.
Millions upon millions of people in the U.S. do not have air conditioning.
The IQ of people on Datalounge is really going down.
[quote]And yes, I definitely landed two major well-paid jobs in a large east coast city without owning nor using a cellphone, and it was easy to do.
a) one piece of anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
b) a major, well-paid job is likely much easier to land w/o a cell phone than the kind of shitty, low-paid job many poor people are going after. A major, well-paid job is going to require specific skills, experience, and other qualifications. If you've got what the position require, sure, the hiring manager might be willing to overlook that you're a cranky old weirdo with no cell phone. Plus, if they need you to be immediately reachable whenever, they will probably give you a company smartphone.
But if you're some poor person with little education or work experience, trying to land a shitty entry-level or unskilled job that plenty of other people could do, not having a cell phone could put you at a distinct disadvantage. Not only might the boss decide to move along to some other candidate if you don't pick up when he calls to offer you the job, you might not get the offer in the first place because they 'll figure you're going to be a pain in the ass to contact if they need you to switch shifts, come in a little early, come in on your day off, whatever.
[quote]Plenty of people in the U.S. do not have air conditioning and just use fans in their apts and houses.
R191 did not say that no one in the US lives without air conditioning. He simply said it's inhumane when people do. (I'd say that depends on factors such as climate, age, health conditions, etc.)
No one got a well paying job recently, without a cell phone...nobody.
I most certainly did, R196.
I meant to add that the companies emailed me and called me on my landline.
It was no problem whatsoever.
Also meant to add that it was the headhunters/employment agencies as intermediaries who emailed me and called me on my landline to set up interviews and then informed me that I had landed both jobs after the interviews.
People died at much younger ages years ago. I'll bet many of them were people with asthma and heart disease who died from heat and humidity and no such thing as air conditioning.
But then again to the evil like Hasselbitch the quicker the poor die the better.
Also, back in the days before cars there were such things as horses and wagons. Of course the very poor back then didn't have any but most did have some way of getting around when going on foot wasn't possible.
Again, when life was so much harder, people died much younger as today, the poor who have the least die at much earlier ages. In the US infant mortality among poor infants is much higher than among those with means. Why do you think that is, because the poor in this country have it so great.
My god how long is the Reagan message hate the poor and blame them for everything going to last! It's been 35 years. In that time who has hurt the average American more, the poor or the very, very rich?????
[quote]Also meant to add that it was the headhunters/employment agencies as intermediaries who emailed me and called me on my landline to set up interviews and then informed me that I had landed both jobs after the interviews.
Thank god you remembered to add this final detail. It's just the piece of information we all needed to hear to convince us that the poor and unemployed can indeed do just fine without air conditioning, motorized transportation, and cell phones.
Gotta go now ... have to check my email to see if the headhunter's gotten back to me about that job behind the counter at McDonald's.
Most anyone can live without air conditioning and a cellphone.
And many people can do without a car if they choose to live without one and by choosing location of apt or house advantageous to that choice.
Not just poor people, anyone can.
(except for some elderly who are harmed by heat)
Multiple millions of people live in the U.S. without air conditioning, using fans, and yes, in the South.
And having a cellphone has absolutely nothing to do with successfully finding and landing a job whether at McDonald's or at a company.
(unless it is a job that requires a cellphone be used on the job - and then in many or most of those cases, a business cellphone would be supplied by the company hiring)
By the way, all poor people are not relegated to low level jobs like McDonalds which you keep mentioning repeatedly and in a demeaning manner.
I never said that poor people should not have cellphones and should not have air conditioning. I'm just saying that people on all income levels and from all walks of life can live without them. They are not necessities.
When employers are calling, they do not know whether they are calling a landline or a cellphone.
A person just gives the employer a phone number (whether landline or cell) and that is all that is necessary
My job requires me to have a cell phone, and no, the company didn't supply me with one.
It must be nice to know everything, though, even though you're clueless, R202.
R204, you did not read carefully.
Here is what I said:
unless it is a job that requires a cellphone be used on the job - and then in many or most of those cases, a business cellphone would be supplied by the company hiring)
I said in many cases, not ALL cases, a business cellphone will be provided by the company hiring.
Nowhere did I say ALL cases. I specifically said many or most cases to include the cases where a business cellphone is not provided.
It's my experience, R205, that "many or most" employers expect their workers to have cell phones but don't provide them.
[quote][R119], I am not saying welfare recipients should not have cellphones. I was making a more broad argument that many people from many walks of life with many different types of jobs do not really need a cellphone and can exist fine without one. I did not mean to portray that welfare recipients specifically should not have cellphones. I just do not think that everyone in the U.S. needs a cellphone.
Hey fuckhead: if you want to debate the importance of cell phones in general society, start another thread on the subject.
THIS thread is about WELFARE RECIPIENTS WITH CELL PHONES, you fucking jackass! Stop fucking hijacking it with your boring, unrelated bitching!
Oh, and surprise surprise, the stupid cunt arguing about cell phones is the same dickweed arguing about cars.
Why can't we /ignore posters on DL?!?
She needs to go to the Fox News Deck and slam her head through one of those 37" touch screens.
Challenging conventionally held, robotic,
unthinking, lemming thought and behavior hurts no one, R208.
As a good deal of conventionally held, robotic, lemming thought and behavior is incorrect.
[quote]* And just so your painfully literal mind is not confused, yes, I realize you don't actually order fecal matter to be delivered.
I fucking love you, R165.
Isn't arguing with an Asspie just the worst?
I think Gabourey Sidibe eating all that fried chicken in Precious was the ugly side of welfare.
[quote]Not just poor people, anyone can.
Why would anyone think JUST poor people can do these things? The whole point is that it's way EASIER to live out without cars, cell phones, and probably air conditioning, too, if you are NOT poor.
People like you and I can choose to live without cars because we can afford luxuries such as taxis, grocery deliveries, and homes in the locations of our choosing. Not everyone is so lucky. But go ahead and think that you are striking some major blow against lemming-dom by paying others to do your driving instead of owning a car yourself.
Completely nonsensical post at R213.
You are trying so hard to prove your point that you have resorted to nonsense.
(as an aside, I can get my groceries by using the city bus any time I choose - I do not need to depend upon grocery delivery which costs just $5.00 by the way, and I use no taxis ever)
It is the exactly the same living without a cellphone and air-conditioning for the poor as well as the non-poor.
Same goes for a car.
Some person on here said erroneously that "all homes built after 1975 are built with AC". BS, I live in a very hot climate most of the year, my house was built in 1999 and ours was not built with AC.
And we can't afford to buy it nor afford to pay monthly fees for it.
There are plenty of poor people in my locale and they live on the city bus lines to give them mobility and access to everything.
In towns without city buses, poor people often team up to go grocery shopping or have friends and relatives help them grocery shop.
[quote]as an aside, I can get my groceries by using the city bus any time I choose - I do not need to depend upon grocery delivery which costs just $5.00 by the way,
Of course you CAN get your groceries via city bus if you please, but if your own posts are to be believed, you often opt to pay the $5 for delivery instead. How the hell does that NOT make carless life easier for you than for people who HAVE to take the bus because they can't afford delivery?
How the hell is not owning a car "exactly the same" for someone who can't afford deliveries when they feel like it as for someone who can? How is it "exactly the same" for someone who cannot afford taxis/private transportation as for someone who can? You may not use taxis ever, but many carless people (such as I) do and obviously, living without a car is easier for us than for people who can't afford such things.
I've been poor in NYC w/o a car, and now I'm comfortable in NYC w/o a car, and believe me, it is way easier to live w/o car when you are not
Likewise, it is much easier to live in a well-ventilated, well-insulated, spacious, shaded, celing-fanned home w/no AC, than in an an overcrowded, cheaply constructed, low-rent apartment that may not even have any decent (i.e., expensive) fans. Guess who is more likely to live in the former? Not the fucking poor, you goddamned halfwit.
Taking the bus costs $3.50 to $4.00. ($1.75 or $2.00 each way) Some places $2.25 each way.
Grocery delivery at $5.00 is the very same cost as taking the bus to get groceries.
Not everyone who is not poor lives in a spacious, shaded, well-ventilated, celing fanned home or apt without air-conditioning.
Being non-poor does not equal the above by a long shot. Millions upon millions of the non-poor do not live in spacious, shaded, well-ventilated, ceiling-fan homes or apts.
I am not poor and I certainly do not live in the above. I live in a small apartment which is not well-ventilated nor shady, as do millions of other people who are not poor.
R217, you behave as if owning and using a car is free or cheap for poor people
Cars require insurance, fuel, repairs, and sometimes monthly payments.
Cars are not cheap to own and use for poor people.
[quote]Cars are not cheap to own and use for poor people.
No shit, nitwit! Cars are not cheap to own and use for anybody; that's one reason poor people often don't own them.
I "behave" as though living without a car is easier for the affluent than for the poor--because, in general, it is. How the fuck that gives you the idea I think owning and using cars is cheap for poor people, I have no idea. You really ought to consider taking a class in logic, or maybe just getting your GED.
We are going to hear a lot more idiot ideas from Hasselbeck now that she doesn't have anyone to call her on her shit. She joined a network of enablers who are no smarter than she is.
I finally got a chance to watch the clip. What a smug and slanted piece of shit.
There are a lot of faces of poverty and a lot of reasons behind every one of them. It's not a one size fits all proposition.
[quote]I do not need to depend upon grocery delivery which costs just $5.00 by the way
I'm sure you won't believe me, R202/218/a million other fucked up posts on this thread, but for some people, "just" $5.00 LITERALLY means the difference between being able to eat food today and not being able to eat food today.
Also, many poor people do not live in an area that is served by a grocery delivery system.
Also also, many grocery stores that DO deliver insist upon such barriers as a $50 minimum purchase or having a credit card on file with the store to pay for the groceries before delivery.
The point is R223, that grocery delivery at $5.00 costs the same as using the city bus to get groceries.
The city bus to get groceries costs $4.00 or $5.00 (if $2.00 or $2.50 each way on the bus which is common)
So the cost is the same.
That was the point.
Lots of people cannot walk to get groceries, so a bus trip both ways is needed to get groceries.
Having a car to get groceries is expensive too.
Poor people without a car need to use the city bus or depend on a friend to go shopping with.
And not having grocery delivery available was covered in several posts upthread so you introducing that is not new. Of course, it is not available everywhere and I was not suggesting that everyone should use it, but here it happens to cost the same as riding the bus to get groceries as it would in most locales around the U.S.
And yes, I know that $5.00 is not small to a poor person. But again, the point was that it costs the same amount of money to use the bus to get groceries. And again, both are just modalities that some people use.
[quote] (as an aside, I can get my groceries by using the city bus any time I choose - I do not need to depend upon grocery delivery which costs just $5.00 by the way, and I use no taxis ever)
It is the exactly the same living without a cellphone and air-conditioning for the poor as well as the non-poor.
That's great that you live in a city. Towns don't have buses. They don't. How are they supposed to get their groceries?
Maybe people who live in NYC or Boston don't have air conditioning, or you have to use window units, but the rest of the country does have air conditioning in their homes. It's standard in almost every house built after 1976. It's central air. It was put in when the house was built. It isn't some luxury someone went out and bought. It's part of the house
You do need a phone if you are searching for a job. You can get a cheap one. You don't need a smart phone, but you do need a phone. Some jobs ask that you call for information about how to apply. You can get a phone for less than $10 a month. And that's $10 well spent. You really don't want to tell a prospective employer you don't have a phone and they need to e-mail you instead
R225, not having a phone was never even mentioned. Of course, people have a phone, and for a good number of people it is a landline. Why are you giving gratuitious statements about telling an employer you don't have a phone - not having a phone was not an option - having a landline was the option. Not everyone needs a cellphone.
It was already discussed at length that not all towns have buses. Why are trying to act like that is new information? In those places, people need cars or friends and relatives with cars.
And R225, you state:
"Maybe people who live in NYC or Boston don't have air conditioning, or you have to use window units, but the rest of the country does have air conditioning in their homes. It's standard in almost every house built after 1976. It's central air. It was put in when the house was built. It isn't some luxury someone went out and bought. It's part of the house"
That is absurdly WRONG, R225. It is so wrong it is completely absurd and laughable. Not all houses built after 1976 have central air conditioning. And its not only people in NYC and Boston who don't have air conditioning - it is multi millions of people all over the U.S. who do not have air conditioning.
[quote]Millions upon millions of the non-poor do not live in spacious, shaded, well-ventilated, ceiling-fan homes or apts.
True, assbrain, but a large percentage of those non-poor people probably DO have air conditioning. The point is, if you can afford air conditioning but opt not to have it, you likely live in a home and location that can be kept pretty comfortable in hot weather without AC. If you're poor and have no air conditioning, on the other hand, you very well may live in a place that is fucking miserable w/o AC, but you don't have it because you can't afford it.
So, again, easier to live w/o AC if you are affluent.
The stupid in this thread is quite powerful.
Also, R225, millions of people live in houses that were built before 1976.
And plenty of those houses do not have air conditioning.
Oh, Stossel is more than old enough to remember that summer, and other summer riots of the past, R71. He just conveniently forgets it.
He and EH also forget 15,000 people died in France during a heat wave just a decade ago.
In fact, ALL of the hissing elder Republicunts on DL forget heat-related deaths, and ignore than Walmart and other discount stores have window unit air conditioners as low as $125, because it does not suit their purpose to remember these things.
Why are people continuing to argue with the socially retarded troll?
r230 can you imagine the grief porn Fox News would subject us to if 15,000 Texans died in one summer due to the heat?
Before air conditioning, poor people would riot every summer.
I wonder if any of these "let them eat cake" types stop to think why most apartments and condos for middle class and above require that tenants not let the temperature go above 78 degrees?
(My workplace tried to save money by turning off the a.c. on weekends and then spent over a million to clean out the mold after only six months of a.c.-less weekends.)
Stossel is not a Libertarian--he is an elitist who is being paid off by the corporate media barons.
Stossel and Hasselbeck, for that matter, are not representing true conservatism. They are being bought off, they are slaves to the elites. True conservatism and especially Libertarianism is about self-fulfillment and responsibility. These two whores are about selling their souls to the elite and being trapped in that milieu.
With so many on food stamps, welfare, and disability with no hope of finding work anytime soon I find the timing of this most interesting.
This is an effort to demonize our poor, fellow Americans. It is designed to make you hate your neighbors, see them as different, and look down on them.
This is designed to make our fellow Americans our enemy. Hitler did this, Stalin did this, Reagan did this, and now the media is doing it.
It sets a very dangerous precedent.
When the draft comes and the poor are sent to die in some backward country people won't care, because 'they deserve it.'
Big mind fuck.
When the guys in uniform drag the poor out of their homes people will say 'they deserve it.'
Remember: the media pushed very hard to start riots with the Zimmerman trial.
Her comment is indicative of the disdain for the poor esp. Blacks. With each generation there will always best some kind of problrm or complaint with Blacks. There was resentment & dislike before welfare & its after effects. Wheter it was 50 yrs ago, 100 yrs ago its will be some kind of complaint. Sadly she says what too many think. Fortunately many won't allow anyone else to llabel them
Yes. I had a friend who when she was young and healthy, assumed everyone on welfare was lazy. When she lost her own health, she finally understood the truth.
Some of us understand the truth without having to live it for ourselves.
[quote]It's standard in almost every house built after 1976. It's central air. It was put in when the house was built. It isn't some luxury someone went out and bought. It's part of the house
r225 stop posting erroneous information on this thread. You've repeated it several times and it's not true. My home was built in 1999 & does not have air conditioning in it. And we live in a very hot climate which frequently gets over 100, and there are months when it's over 90.
Just stop posting bs you know nothing about.
And as I've said we could not afford to have it put in, it's $5k or $10k, and the monthly at .35 a KWH (AC is about 5 KWH per hour) would literally leave us broke. So no, we do not have ac. It is terribly hot in our house starting in the spring. Even this week it's to get up to about 85.
r225 stop posting bs about a/c.
What about people who were doing okay and then lost their job or became disabled and end up on welfare or SSD and on food stamps. If they have an AC should they have it removed because no matter how ill or disabled or elderly it's a sin for the poor to have anything other than a crust of bread?
Not everyone has been poor their entire life and these days it is more likely to become one of the poor than one of the rich.
Hasselbeck and Nancy Grace are the stupidest women to have ever drawn breath. I hate to use the word "Cunt" to describe them, but if the vadge fits...
Being on Social Security Disability is very different from being on welfare.
No one is complaining, R239, about "the ill or disabled or elderly", as you state.
People complain over many decades about able-bodied men and women on welfare (not the elderly and not the ill and not the disabled).
And over the decades they complain about able-bodied women with children who are on welfare.
You are getting your categories all mixed up, R239, by mentioning the ill and disabled who are not on welfare, but are instead, on Social Security Disability, and almost no one complains about money given to the ill and disabled.
No one is complaining about any financial aid that the elderly receive for housing, food, or living expenses.
I've never heard of A/C being provided through "welfare." Where the fuck did that notion even come from?
R242, air conditioning window units are usually not provided through welfare.
People who get welfare money can spend that money on buying a window air conditioner if they choose to do so.
[quote]You really don't want to tell a prospective employer you don't have a phone and they need to e-mail you instead.
Not to mention the fact that if you can't afford the cheapest bare bones cell phone you probably can't afford your own computer or an internet connection either. But who really needs a computer either? Why can't everyone just hike a few miles and wait in line to use the public one at the library?
I have a feeling that Stossel and Hasselbeck are projecting their own "luxury items" like tricked out smart phones with unlimited data plan, big ass flat screen TVs and posh homes with central air onto the poor when that's not what most of them have. More like the cheapest prepaid cell phone they can get, an old tube TV someone else tossed out or cheapy window unit so they can at least have one room that's livable.
There's an interesting documentary series that I think was called 30 Days and made by the same guy who made Supersize Me. Not every episode hits the mark but one that very much did was he and his wife trying to get by on two minimum wage jobs. And then three and four. Whatever they tried to do to get ahead something unexpected kept coming along to push them even further behind. I would love to see Stossel and Hasselbeck put in that same scenario. They'd be whining and crying for their mommies and their toys before the first day was over.
It gives a lot of food for thought about just how you would hand it if you suddenly found yourself trapped by the same set of circumstances.
Most homes & apartments are equipped with air conditioning. Just in case some don't know. Nose upturned much? The poor shouldn't suffer in heat. I'm AA and I don't like the cheats, but she doesn't hage the intelligence to advise true reform. It always amazed me that she sat on "The View" that long. Had no problem with her conservative views it was just that attitude.
Here are the percentages of households below the poverty level that the Census Bureau estimates had the following appliances:
Clothes washer: 68.7%
Clothes dryer: 65.3%
Dish washer: 44.9%
Food freezer: 26.2%
Air conditioner: 83.4%
Video recorder/DVD: 83.2%
Telephone (landline): 54.9%
Cell phone: 80.9%
derived by the Census Bureau from its Survey of Income and Program Participation. The latest report on this survey, released this month, published data (Sept 2013) collected in 2011.
From Census figures above, 17 percent of the U.S. households do not have air conditioners.
17 percent of the U.S. population of 313.9 million equals 53,380,000
Approximately 53,380,000 people in the U.S. do NOT have air conditioning.
Even using the figure of 87 percentage of households below the poverty limit having air conditioning which is what some articles and statistics cite, therefore:
13 percent of the population of the U.S. (313.9 million) equals 40,820,000 people which do not have air conditioning.
What percentage of them, R247, are in the northern states and rarely would need AC?
Rthirtynine I agree with what you are saying. Just like each person making over six figures are not Like hasslebeck. Not everyone of welfare are there because they are lazy. I work with people that had to apply because the company I work for cut their hours from twenty-eight hours a week to nine some fifteen hours. How are they expected to survive, as the company continues to liter the walls with how well the company is doing in these trying times.
Is the Asperger's shut-in still going on about grocery deliveries and how many jobs he got without a cell phone?
I'm not the one who posted the stats, but you couldn't assume more than 1/3 wouldn't need a/c, R248. Stats say 87% of people in the US have air conditioning.
States like Minnesota have days over 100 degrees, larger cities are much hotter even when they're coastal or further north. It also depends on how the buildings are situated; a friend lives in Hawaii and says the older buildings with large open windows and doors designed to let air through are disappearing, forcing people to get a/c when decades ago they wouldn't have needed it.
I tried looking up articles on how to live without air conditioning and got Texas moms with 10 kids whose goal is to "get off the grid."
Look, a television or air conditioner are hardly luxuries.
On the other hand, as someone who has friends who work with welfare recipients, it's the ticket price that's the issue. Yes, there are cheap cell phones and TV's. But some welfare recipients have expensive iPhones, and giant screen TV's. Expensive sound systems, etc. THAT'S the problem.
Hey pigfucker at 246/247, who FUCKING cares if poor people have a TV, air conditioning or DVD player? You fucking sicko republicans won't be happy until all poor people are living in concrete slabs deprived of EVERYTHING!
You fucking sick republicans have already worked your magic in the school district of my city, Philadelphia. Gov. Corbett has essentially stripped inner city schools of art, music, sports, after school programs and even school nurses (and a child has already DIED as a result).
You pieces of SHIT just want to take, take, take, take, TAKE! All the while you enjoy your swimming pools and vacations to Florida, government tax breaks and full health coverage. And you know why you're so insistent on watching the poor be abused? Because you yourself are terrified of becoming poor.
For people like you and Hasselebeck, the poor aren't even human. They are a subspecies that must be destroyed.
I cannot WAIT for 30 years down the road and look back at what will be known as one of the worst political parties in US history.
I live in downtown Brooklyn and am pretty much a bleeding-heart liberal. But it still gets me riled up to drive by the projects in my ten-year-old car and see the free parking lots filled with late-model gas-guzzling SUVs. I recently took my car out of the monthly parking lot because I just couldn't justify the expense, but if I lived in the projects, I could afford a much newer car and get free parking.
I honestly believe that, if they can afford those luxuries, they should not be living in subsidized housing. NYC housing is ridiculously expensive but pricing should be controlled for everyone - not just for those in the projects.
I'd rather have an older car and not live in the projects.
You can buy a window unit air conditioner for $89 at Walmart. You can turn it on, cool the room, then turn it off. Keep your window blinds down.
It's not a kings ransom to turn a window AC on a few times a day.
My house, built in 1992, was built without central AC. It has hot water heat. Two years ago we put in a Mr Slim unit that cools the first floor for $7,500. We can't afford to do the second floor. The installer said it would be $3,000 per bedroom. Since we have 3 bedrooms and their doorways do not face each other, that means it would cost $9,000 to cool what essentially works out to be about 650 sq ft. So we use window units for $200 each. They last for about 3 summers. It would take many years to work up to $9,000 worth of AC window units.
I'm betting most welfare recipients with AC have window units.
R254 I'm AA and I have no problem with reform & getting rid of the system of enabling. They only take what you give. But what I
will not accept is that hateful attitude.
I watched the movie 'The Purge' this morning. Thought it was stupid, but reading this thread makes me see how Hasselcunt and Stosseldouche would probably think that society is Utopian.
R 7: AMEN!
Yes, everyone knows that housing projects are paradise on earth.