Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Addicting Info)   North Carolina finally passes a background check law. Fark: For people receiving Food Stamps   (addictinginfo.org ) divider line
    More: Fail, North Carolina House, North Carolina, background checks, food stamps  
•       •       •

6363 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Apr 2013 at 4:19 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



528 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-12 08:50:00 PM  
Illegals are taking our welfare!
 
2013-04-12 08:59:14 PM  
Are they going to make the applicants pay for the background check too?
 
2013-04-12 09:04:02 PM  
If you get housing HUD you are required to have a background check. They want to make sure people are not collecting welfare/food stamps in multiple counties, which by the way is very common. They also want to know if you have ever been convicted of welfare fraud. Many have and will move to another area or state and lie on the form as it does ask. If you have been convicted you will still get the food stamps but your file will be flagged so they can keep an eye on you, tough shiat!
 
2013-04-12 09:22:54 PM  
I do kinda see their point, but I see it much narrower.

Perhaps this would be acceptable if it was a background check to check that they havent committed fraud of Governmental services.

Besides that I see no other logical reason for background checks except to intimidate.
 
2013-04-12 09:51:36 PM  
Can they still buy their food at strip clubs, adult book stores, and casinos?
 
2013-04-12 10:02:13 PM  

cman: I do kinda see their point, but I see it much narrower.

Perhaps this would be acceptable if it was a background check to check that they havent committed fraud of Governmental services.

Besides that I see no other logical reason for background checks except to intimidate.


Given that NC is run by the GOP, I'd bet that intimidation of a demographic that generally doesn't vote Republican is the general idea.

Actually checking for a history of welfare fraud is probably only incidental.
 
2013-04-12 10:03:20 PM  

IronTom: Can they still buy their food at strip clubs, adult book stores, and casinos?


adult book stores sell food?  that's a new one.
 
2013-04-12 10:17:14 PM  

Bucky Katt: IronTom: Can they still buy their food at strip clubs, adult book stores, and casinos?

adult book stores sell food?  that's a new one.


Edible undies are pure sugar and carbs, pretty much the norm for some people!

/yes i just looked the nutritional content of that one up
 
2013-04-12 11:45:25 PM  

martissimo: Bucky Katt: IronTom: Can they still buy their food at strip clubs, adult book stores, and casinos?

adult book stores sell food?  that's a new one.

Edible undies are pure sugar and carbs, pretty much the norm for some people!

/yes i just looked the nutritional content of that one up


Probably there are edible lubricants there too, but the undies would be the icing on the cake.
 
2013-04-12 11:54:07 PM  
It passed in the House and has yet to pass in the Senate, Little Miss-Leading Subby.
 
2013-04-13 12:20:16 AM  

Bucky Katt: IronTom: Can they still buy their food at strip clubs, adult book stores, and casinos?

adult book stores sell food?  that's a new one.


Edible undies.
 
2013-04-13 12:23:23 AM  
I hope this is just as successful as drug testing welfare recipients was.
 
2013-04-13 12:24:58 AM  

King Something: cman: I do kinda see their point, but I see it much narrower.

Perhaps this would be acceptable if it was a background check to check that they havent committed fraud of Governmental services.

Besides that I see no other logical reason for background checks except to intimidate.

Given that NC is run by the GOP, I'd bet that intimidation of a demographic that generally doesn't vote Republican is the general idea.

Actually checking for a history of welfare fraud is probably only incidental.


Lower class whites? I think that is the demographically the largest recipient.
 
2013-04-13 12:33:20 AM  

Are we going to background check the next CEO of a company like Dell, before we hand them an eight-digit tax credit?
Maybe we'll make him piss in a cup first!  After all, that would only be a logically consistent extension of the law!



/I never thought I could be so ineptly represented by a cadre of human beings.
 
2013-04-13 12:47:34 AM  

EvilEgg: King Something: cman: I do kinda see their point, but I see it much narrower.

Perhaps this would be acceptable if it was a background check to check that they havent committed fraud of Governmental services.

Besides that I see no other logical reason for background checks except to intimidate.

Given that NC is run by the GOP, I'd bet that intimidation of a demographic that generally doesn't vote Republican is the general idea.

Actually checking for a history of welfare fraud is probably only incidental.

Lower class whites? I think that is the demographically the largest recipient.


Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter.  The NC GOP isn't doing this to harm lower class whites, they're doing this to harm "welfare recipients" (read: LaQueesha the welfare queen who spends her welfare checks on cartons of Newports and crack-cocaine, and uses her food stamps to buy 26" chrome rims for her Cadillac. The fact that LaQueesha does not exist, except as a straw-man, is irrelevent).

The general majority of the lower-class whites who will actually be harmed by this will very likely continue voting for the people who are harming them on the off-chance that those policies will harm LaQueesha; some of them would probably be willing to have their own benefits reduced if LaQueesha's are reduced as well or eliminated entirely.
 
2013-04-13 12:54:50 AM  

King Something: Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. The NC GOP isn't doing this to harm lower class whites, they're doing this to harm "welfare recipients" (read: LaQueesha the welfare queen who spends her welfare checks on cartons of Newports and crack-cocaine, and uses her food stamps to buy 26" chrome rims for her Cadillac. The fact that LaQueesha does not exist, except as a straw-man, is irrelevent).

The general majority of the lower-class whites who will actually be harmed by this will very likely continue voting for the people who are harming them on the off-chance that those policies will harm LaQueesha; some of them would probably be willing to have their own benefits reduced if LaQueesha's are reduced as well or eliminated entirely.


This
 
2013-04-13 12:56:21 AM  
So if you've got a record, does that mean your kids aren't in need of food assistance?  I'd assume quite the opposite, actually.

I see the fraud checks, no problem but the article wasn't clear on the actual substance of the checks.  Because it is the NC assembly, I'm naturally pushed towards assuming it is some poorly-thought-out, mean-spirited pandering,  why is that?
 
2013-04-13 01:13:42 AM  

factoryconnection: So if you've got a record, does that mean your kids aren't in need of food assistance?  I'd assume quite the opposite, actually.

I see the fraud checks, no problem but the article wasn't clear on the actual substance of the checks.  Because it is the NC assembly, I'm naturally pushed towards assuming it is some poorly-thought-out, mean-spirited pandering,  why is that?


Maybe because you've got more than three brain cells to rub together?
 
2013-04-13 02:02:23 AM  

Bucky Katt: IronTom: Can they still buy their food at strip clubs, adult book stores, and casinos?

adult book stores sell food?  that's a new one.


I'm pretty sure he was referring to this and is confused about the difference between food stamps and cash assistance.

BTW, Quarterly expenditures in KS for TANF were $6,300,000 in 2011. Assuming that number is similar in 2012, 43k is 0.68% of that amount.
 
2013-04-13 04:21:29 AM  
Now can they have a background check for their politicians for receiving welfare (albeit of a different kind)?
 
2013-04-13 04:28:44 AM  
You'll have my groceries

/firm my cold, dead hands
 
2013-04-13 04:32:20 AM  
Social Darwinism strikes again.
 
2013-04-13 04:33:41 AM  
The bill is especially outrageous when you consider that Republicans oppose strengthening background checks to buy guns,

Can anyone point to where it says in the constitution that states food stamps are a right?  And if someone brings up the welfare clause so help me...
 
2013-04-13 04:35:15 AM  

detritus: The bill is especially outrageous when you consider that Republicans oppose strengthening background checks to buy guns,

Can anyone point to where it says in the constitution that states food stamps are a right?  And if someone brings up the welfare clause so help me...


Do you have any regard for others?
 
2013-04-13 04:35:59 AM  
I have no problem with vigorous identity verification, but this just sounds like something designed to scare people away from even applying for aid. Poor, ignorant, uneducated, probably been told that bein black is a crime in that state their entire lives, and so terrified to seek aid.

That's charity in the style of hurperderpers, that's for sure.

Probably cost more running all those background checks than they will save though. Brilliant.

Doesn't it get old, to be so stupid and evil? My god, I would find it wearying.
 
2013-04-13 04:36:37 AM  
The time I applied for food stamps, I was surprised when my caseworker inquired about an address at which I hadn't resided for five years.  She didn't ask anything about my arrest record. No open warrants were mentioned.  I learned later, though other means, that I had one at the time I applied for food stamps.

My point is that TFA doesn't specify what sort of background check this is.
 
2013-04-13 04:43:30 AM  
why do I do this sh*t to myself reading crap like this

[punches self in face repeatedly]
 
2013-04-13 04:43:37 AM  

Alphax: detritus: The bill is especially outrageous when you consider that Republicans oppose strengthening background checks to buy guns,

Can anyone point to where it says in the constitution that states food stamps are a right?  And if someone brings up the welfare clause so help me...

Do you have any regard for others?


My thoughts exactly

/you need help to get your ass out of a hole, you need a mountain of ID just to get food
//you want to pot somebody in the hole, have all the guns you want
///America, you're not home of the brave, you're home of the paranoid and batshiat insane
 
2013-04-13 04:47:06 AM  

detritus: The bill is especially outrageous when you consider that Republicans oppose strengthening background checks to buy guns,

Can anyone point to where it says in the constitution that states food stamps are a right?  And if someone brings up the welfare clause so help me...


The welfare clause?
 
2013-04-13 04:48:29 AM  

Alphax: ..

Do you have any regard for others?


Nice distraction.  Do you have any regard for others' hard earned money?  And yes I do - I've bought groceries and have donated them to food banks several times a year.  It's harder to convert actual food to cash/drugs/booze than a free shopping spree of all the soda/candy/junk food you want.  If that makes me uncompassionate then so be it.
 
2013-04-13 04:48:39 AM  

KimNorth: If you get housing HUD you are required to have a background check. They want to make sure people are not collecting welfare/food stamps in multiple counties, which by the way is very common. They also want to know if you have ever been convicted of welfare fraud. Many have and will move to another area or state and lie on the form as it does ask. If you have been convicted you will still get the food stamps but your file will be flagged so they can keep an eye on you, tough shiat!


This was like the third post posted and yet all you idgits seemed to have skimmed over it in your rush to stereotype and project your own thoughts into the reasons why so here it is again.
 
2013-04-13 04:51:48 AM  

detritus: Alphax: ..

Do you have any regard for others?

Nice distraction.  Do you have any regard for others' hard earned money?  And yes I do - I've bought groceries and have donated them to food banks several times a year.  It's harder to convert actual food to cash/drugs/booze than a free shopping spree of all the soda/candy/junk food you want.  If that makes me uncompassionate then so be it.


Distraction?  No, it wasn't.

Bills like this are to punish the poor for being poor, as if it was something they had control over.
 
2013-04-13 04:53:44 AM  
Ah, there it is in earlier article:  a criminal background check.  Now I have to go googling for the use to which this information will be put.  Thanks, subby and sucky blog.

State Rep. Dean Arp, the bill's sponsor, said any applicant or current recipient with a pending warrant for a felony charge or probation or parole violation is not eligible for the program and the county offices need to do more to keep them from receiving aid.  http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/02/2796738/house-bill-would-requi r e-background.html

The legislation - House bill 392 - wouldn't affect the eligibility of other family members and those with outstanding warrants would be eligible once the matter is resolved.


Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/02/2796738/house-bill-would-requi r e-background.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/02/2796738/house-bill-would-requi r e-background.html#storylink=cpySeems perfectly reasonable to me. If you would choose to let your family starve rather than face your warrants, your kids should be taken from you.
 
2013-04-13 04:55:23 AM  

detritus: Alphax: ..

Do you have any regard for others?

Nice distraction.  Do you have any regard for others' hard earned money?  And yes I do - I've bought groceries and have donated them to food banks several times a year.  It's harder to convert actual food to cash/drugs/booze than a free shopping spree of all the soda/candy/junk food you want.  If that makes me uncompassionate then so be it.


This is literally what every self styled libertarian hero claims. Literally. If every forum Ayn Rand worshipping objectivist-tard did that when they said they did, literally noone in the known universe would ever go hungry. Ever.

Don't worry guy, eventually you will get out of your 20s, maybe have a personal tragedy or two, then you won't be such a dick.
 
2013-04-13 04:56:29 AM  
Well, that cut/paste job of mine got farked up royally.  I hate those hidden "read more at..." things.
 
2013-04-13 04:57:55 AM  

Alphax: detritus: Alphax: ..

Do you have any regard for others?

Nice distraction.  Do you have any regard for others' hard earned money?  And yes I do - I've bought groceries and have donated them to food banks several times a year.  It's harder to convert actual food to cash/drugs/booze than a free shopping spree of all the soda/candy/junk food you want.  If that makes me uncompassionate then so be it.

Distraction?  No, it wasn't.

Bills like this are to punish the poor for being poor, as if it was something they had control over.


You see, it's punishment for being born in a racist, socially unjust system where laws are made by old white coots hellbent on farking over the regular citizenry and been intentionally divisive

/and last i checked, whites were actually a high percentage of those who are on welfare, so I guess my racist card was moot
//White, Canadian, and middle class
///but still pissed you yanks can't get it through your thick skulls
 
2013-04-13 04:58:14 AM  

KawaiiNot: Don't background checks take weeks? The poor should starve until they are approved? This hatred of the weak and poor is pathetic.


The check is for outstanding warrants.  How long did it take the last time you were stopped for speeding?
 
2013-04-13 05:00:48 AM  
<In falsetto voice>

North Carolinaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.......................................North Carolina....................
 
2013-04-13 05:00:48 AM  
But noooo, doncha dare background check me for mah gunz.
 
2013-04-13 05:01:24 AM  
As for the cost of these checks and where the money will come from, I suspect it will be no greater than the cost incurred every time you hand your driver's license to a cop who's pulled you over.  The cost objection is being raised by social service workers who just don't want to do it.  It would require just another Web site for them to log into.
 
2013-04-13 05:05:29 AM  
This is an easy problem to solve....

If you don't want to submit to a background check, don't apply for food stamps.
On the flip side - if you are certain you won't apply for food stamps; you can opt-out and pay that much less in taxes.

Heck - you could even start your own food-stamp insurance company.  You could collect premiums from customers and if they meet certain conditions, pay out benefits without using a background check.
 
2013-04-13 05:06:32 AM  

Alphax: Do you have any regard for others?


Completely irrelevant in a discussion of the Constitutionality of a power claimed by the government.
 
2013-04-13 05:07:06 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: This is an easy problem to solve....

If you don't want to submit to a background check, don't apply for food stamps.
On the flip side - if you are certain you won't apply for food stamps; you can opt-out and pay that much less in taxes.

Heck - you could even start your own food-stamp insurance company.  You could collect premiums from customers and if they meet certain conditions, pay out benefits without using a background check.


You could give a catchy name like "Costco."
 
2013-04-13 05:08:27 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: As for the cost of these checks and where the money will come from, I suspect it will be no greater than the cost incurred every time you hand your driver's license to a cop who's pulled you over.  The cost objection is being raised by social service workers who just don't want to do it.  It would require just another Web site for them to log into.


Of course they don't want to do it.  They don't want to be conscripted into law enforcement.

Like that local city ordinance here forcing hotel front desk employees to get valid driver licence numbers of all guests, and hand them over to the police whenever requested, or else they'll see you in court.  Fortunately, I've not seen much enforcement on that lately.
 
2013-04-13 05:09:05 AM  

GoldSpider: Alphax: Do you have any regard for others?

Completely irrelevant in a discussion of the Constitutionality of a power claimed by the government.


Not the topic of discussion.
 
2013-04-13 05:10:51 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: This is an easy problem to solve....

If you don't want to submit to a background check, don't apply for food stamps.
On the flip side - if you are certain you won't apply for food stamps; you can opt-out and pay that much less in taxes.

Heck - you could even start your own food-stamp insurance company.  You could collect premiums from customers and if they meet certain conditions, pay out benefits without using a background check.


Don't even say that shiat, because in 20 years the government will force you to buy food insurance from a private insurer(because we can't do anything without letting a middleman skim profit out of the middle, like farking ferengi)
 
2013-04-13 05:11:28 AM  

detritus: The bill is especially outrageous when you consider that Republicans oppose strengthening background checks to buy guns,

Can anyone point to where it says in the constitution that states food stamps are a right?  And if someone brings up the welfare clause so help me...


Welfare is a property right. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970),

1. Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and procedural due process is applicable to their termination.[2]
2. The interest of the eligible recipient in the uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, which provides him with essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens.[3]


The court held in Goldberg that government benefits and entitlements are a type of property vested in the individual, and that therefore the individual has a right to that property which is the same as any other right guaranteed by the Constitution, assuming the individual qualifies for such benefits. Thus, if the person qualifies for food stamps, he or she has a Constitutional right to food stamps in the same way you have a right to possess your own property guaranteed by the Constitution. Do you believe you have a "right" to own a house guaranteed in the Constitution? If so, where and why? Then by that same argument, people who qualify for public welfare have a "right" to those benefits, under the holding in Goldberg, that gives them property rights to their entitlements.
 
2013-04-13 05:17:11 AM  

Alphax: BarkingUnicorn: As for the cost of these checks and where the money will come from, I suspect it will be no greater than the cost incurred every time you hand your driver's license to a cop who's pulled you over.  The cost objection is being raised by social service workers who just don't want to do it.  It would require just another Web site for them to log into.

Of course they don't want to do it.  They don't want to be conscripted into law enforcement.

Like that local city ordinance here forcing hotel front desk employees to get valid driver licence numbers of all guests, and hand them over to the police whenever requested, or else they'll see you in court.  Fortunately, I've not seen much enforcement on that lately.


Oh, if my job was to dole out benefits I wouldn't want to do anything to discourage applicants, either.  Hell, I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to get that job; still paying off the student loans.  I might even tell an applicant "I didn't hear that" rather than deny benefits as I'm being paid to do.

But it's not conscription.  I joined the government team voluntarily and these are the plays we're going to run now.  Teamwork is everything, y'know.

I don't see this depriving anyone of food stamps who is not supposed to be deprived already.  It just forces social workers to be honest and forthcoming with their government colleagues.
 
2013-04-13 05:18:12 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: KawaiiNot: Don't background checks take weeks? The poor should starve until they are approved? This hatred of the weak and poor is pathetic.

The check is for outstanding warrants.  How long did it take the last time you were stopped for speeding?


Excellent!  That way we can starve the fugitives kids.  That'll fix the problem of the poor.  Those poor people...getting rich off my money!!!  Derp derp derp!
 
2013-04-13 05:19:46 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: I don't see this depriving anyone of food stamps who is not supposed to be deprived already.


Then see an optometrist.

The purpose here is fear.  Fear of seeking help, to avoid malnutrition.
 
Displayed 50 of 528 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report