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.

(Kansas.com)   If you're in a bad mood or show up late for an appointment in Kansas, that obviously means you're on drugs and therefore ineligible to for welfare. "The tests will not look for alcohol use"   (kansas.com) divider line 200
    More: Stupid, Kansas, recess appointment, Sam Brownback, Kansas Senate, drug tests, drug testing, welfare, welfare recipients  
•       •       •

8221 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2013 at 10:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-17 11:34:12 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Nadie_AZ: What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?

because by simply putting down "drugs" you automatically get Catholic supporters in droves.  cause they're against anything that's not wine


No beer is okay as long as you don't enjoy it.
 
2013-04-17 11:34:34 PM
let's be honest, if you're rocking the ganja you can't be serious about looking for work (unless you have skills in a field that never drug tests for employment (like maybe rock musicians, or actors?)
just stop until you get a job. what's so hard about that.

personally, i'd rather give up booze.

i know somebody that worked on industrial machinery.
he was well paid when working.
but after he got fired (boss found him and his work truck at the bar more than once)...he still wouldn't stop smoking.
got three job offers real quick, but failed the drug screening....
six months later...still smoking...still not getting any jobs because he can't pass a test (so he basically won't test).
three months later...he tries the masking drinks and fails more tests....
after 99wks or whenever unemployment runs out, he shacked up with some old lady...
all the while boozing it up at the bar every day on the government dime.
but he did work 30 years before he started effing up....

/csb
 
2013-04-17 11:36:14 PM
Rufus Lee King:

What's the trouble? Why can't I get some temporary help?

My only conclusion is that's it's due to the color of my skin.


Maybe you should move someplace where the richest politicians are white, where most of the high-ranking bureaucrats are white, etc.

Or maybe you piss them off with your crappy attitude.
 
2013-04-17 11:37:27 PM

The One True TheDavid: Doktor_Zhivago:

FTA "That could be triggered by a person's demeanor, missed appointments or police records."

AKA you're black now piss in this cup you farking druggie

Actually I've never been on any "welfare" program in Kansas but I can tell you that from my decades of experience with such city/county office bureaucracies in San Francisco CA, Baltimore MD and Lexington KY, as well as employees of the Social Security Administration in those cities as well as in Louisville, KY and Berkeley, CA, a lot of the workers in those offices are Black. And female to boot.

And there doesn't seem to be a racial pattern when workers "got tough" with me: Blacks were no more likely to do so than fellow Caucasians, and other whites sometimes seemed to be harder on me because I'm "a debit to (our) race."

What it usually boils down to, in my case and in the others I've seen while I'm there, is demeanor and dress: if you're clearly an asshole, if you're in an argumentative mood, if you're barely conscious or very jittery, or if you look/smell especially sloppy you'll get singled out.

On the other hand if you're clean, presentable, polite and cooperative then workers (of whatever race!) might even cut you a little bit of slack with a piece of paperwork or being late or whatever.

Consider that their job, which is always at least boring and tiresome, is to make things easier for you by giving you benefits, so the easier you make it for them to deal with you and process your case the more you're likely to get out of them. You don't have to bake cookies, just treat them with a little human respect.



So much THIS.

If anything, they're happy to find some obscure rule that works to your benefit.
 
2013-04-17 11:37:49 PM

Popular Opinion: let's be honest, if you're rocking the ganja you can't be serious about looking for work (unless you have skills in a field that never drug tests for employment (like maybe rock musicians, or actors?)
just stop until you get a job. what's so hard about that.

personally, i'd rather give up booze.

i know somebody that worked on industrial machinery.
he was well paid when working.
but after he got fired (boss found him and his work truck at the bar more than once)...he still wouldn't stop smoking.
got three job offers real quick, but failed the drug screening....
six months later...still smoking...still not getting any jobs because he can't pass a test (so he basically won't test).
three months later...he tries the masking drinks and fails more tests....
after 99wks or whenever unemployment runs out, he shacked up with some old lady...
all the while boozing it up at the bar every day on the government dime.
but he did work 30 years before he started effing up....

/csb


my BIL is an investment banker and he smokes dope. Lawyers smoke it too. Ask Peter Tosh.
 
2013-04-17 11:38:10 PM

reitage: Actually, anything over the minimum necessary for a simple majority (50.1%) is a supermajority.


All that pedantry, and still so much fail.
 
2013-04-17 11:41:11 PM
Kansas welfare recipients:  no illicit drugs for you.  Instead, you'll have to limit yourself to tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, Robitussin, Oxycontin, Vicodin, Valium, Scientology, religious fundamentalism, and popping out babies like a human Pez dispenser.  Tough noogie...
 
2013-04-17 11:43:29 PM

skullkrusher: Popular Opinion: let's be honest, if you're rocking the ganja you can't be serious about looking for work (unless you have skills in a field that never drug tests for employment (like maybe rock musicians, or actors?)
just stop until you get a job. what's so hard about that.

personally, i'd rather give up booze.

i know somebody that worked on industrial machinery.
he was well paid when working.
but after he got fired (boss found him and his work truck at the bar more than once)...he still wouldn't stop smoking.
got three job offers real quick, but failed the drug screening....
six months later...still smoking...still not getting any jobs because he can't pass a test (so he basically won't test).
three months later...he tries the masking drinks and fails more tests....
after 99wks or whenever unemployment runs out, he shacked up with some old lady...
all the while boozing it up at the bar every day on the government dime.
but he did work 30 years before he started effing up....

/csb

my BIL is an investment banker and he smokes dope. Lawyers smoke it too. Ask Peter Tosh.


they might smoke now, but not just before they got hired.
they probably aren't stupid like people who think it's fine to smoke up when they are on assistance and need a job.
 
2013-04-17 11:44:18 PM
well this thread went to derp in a handbasket.
 
2013-04-17 11:46:08 PM

Psycat: Kansas welfare recipients:  no illicit drugs for you.  Instead, you'll have to limit yourself to tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, Robitussin, Oxycontin, Vicodin, Valium, Scientology, religious fundamentalism, and popping out babies like a human Pez dispenser.  Tough noogie...


yeah, i think they should test for prescription drugs.
hell, if you're going to insist on them giving up certain liberties to get help, i suppose you could demand all their health records too so you know what drugs they are supposed to be taking (if any).
 
2013-04-17 11:46:34 PM

ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.


Here's how this will play out:

"I just got out of the slammer for dealing drugs and have certainly learned my lesson about government approved substances. Now it's time to get back on my feet above the board and on the straight and narrow. Given that I'm a convicted felon, it isn't likely that I'll get more than a minimum wage job, if any job at all. The bills are piling up. . . I wonder if there's a way I can remedy my situation? Oh! I've got it! Wanna buy some blow?"

Given that the war on drugs is already systematically racist (racial 'minorities' have around the same statistical likelihood for illegal drug use than any other group, yet the percentages locked in jail for drug related crimes is far above other groups), this will probably result in a new 'Jim Crow' in anything but name. "Welfare for whites only!"  <-- I know it's an extreme example, but it's an extreme law. You know you've entered the Twilight Zone where the law enforcement actually becomes more of a menace to society than the problem it's supposed to fix.
 
2013-04-17 11:48:03 PM

Popular Opinion: skullkrusher: Popular Opinion: let's be honest, if you're rocking the ganja you can't be serious about looking for work (unless you have skills in a field that never drug tests for employment (like maybe rock musicians, or actors?)
just stop until you get a job. what's so hard about that.

personally, i'd rather give up booze.

i know somebody that worked on industrial machinery.
he was well paid when working.
but after he got fired (boss found him and his work truck at the bar more than once)...he still wouldn't stop smoking.
got three job offers real quick, but failed the drug screening....
six months later...still smoking...still not getting any jobs because he can't pass a test (so he basically won't test).
three months later...he tries the masking drinks and fails more tests....
after 99wks or whenever unemployment runs out, he shacked up with some old lady...
all the while boozing it up at the bar every day on the government dime.
but he did work 30 years before he started effing up....

/csb

my BIL is an investment banker and he smokes dope. Lawyers smoke it too. Ask Peter Tosh.

they might smoke now, but not just before they got hired.
they probably aren't stupid like people who think it's fine to smoke up when they are on assistance and need a job.


well, yeah, I'd imagine they'd have the sense to stop smoking dope if they were looking for a new job
 
2013-04-17 11:49:46 PM
skullkrusher: 
my BIL is an investment banker and he smokes dope. Lawyers smoke it too. Ask Peter Tosh.

That would take some magical ganj to speak to him.
 
2013-04-17 11:50:29 PM
Oops left the important bit out.

HERE is how this will play out:

"I just got out of the slammer for dealing drugs and have certainly learned my lesson about government approved substances. Now it's time to get back on my feet above the board and on the straight and narrow. Because of the new drug law, I am ineligible to get any public assistance to aid me in legally getting back on my feet and starting over. Time to find a job: Given that I'm a convicted felon, it isn't likely that I'll get more than a minimum wage job, if any job at all, leaving any legal potential revenue stream other than winning the lottery out of reach. The bills are piling up. . . I wonder if there's a way I can remedy my situation? Oh! I've got it! Wanna buy some blow?"
 
2013-04-17 11:51:47 PM

BradleyUffner: Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.

My sister proves otherwise.


a friend refutes your sister. katrina relief went right past her. no FEMA, no SBA, red cross said they'd like to but -- don't remember what their half assed excuse was. she rents, had cancer, lost her job, lost her insurance. it sucked and all the while the TV was covered up with stories about folks getting big screen TVs.

hurricane Issac she finally got $200 for lost food. first disaster around here since 2005 she got anything at all. i'm glad your sister has done better.
 
2013-04-17 11:51:47 PM

Popular Opinion: Psycat: Kansas welfare recipients:  no illicit drugs for you.  Instead, you'll have to limit yourself to tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, Robitussin, Oxycontin, Vicodin, Valium, Scientology, religious fundamentalism, and popping out babies like a human Pez dispenser.  Tough noogie...

yeah, i think they should test for prescription drugs.
hell, if you're going to insist on them giving up certain liberties to get help, i suppose you could demand all their health records too so you know what drugs they are supposed to be taking (if any).


What I think is that all welfare recipients have to submit to an IQ test.  Below a certain number, and you have to get sterilized as a condition of receiving payments.

/actually, an IQ test to vote or run for Congress should also be mandatory
//you know how they have those cartoon characters at amusement parks that point to certain height (e.g. 48") and have a cartoon balloon that says "You must be this high to ride the Vomit Comet"; how 'bout a cardboard picture of Albert Einstein outside of every polling station pointing to the number 100 and saying "You must be this smart to vote"--sure would improve American society in a hurry
 
2013-04-17 11:54:27 PM
If they want to drug test welfare recipients make sure they test the corporate welfare people too.
 
2013-04-17 11:54:33 PM
imageshack.us

                                          GOOD

/and hand over your guns too, Potheads
 
2013-04-17 11:56:11 PM

gobstopping: Oops left the important bit out.

HERE is how this will play out:

"I just got out of the slammer for dealing drugs and have certainly learned my lesson about government approved substances. Now it's time to get back on my feet above the board and on the straight and narrow. Because of the new drug law, I am ineligible to get any public assistance to aid me in legally getting back on my feet and starting over. Time to find a job: Given that I'm a convicted felon, it isn't likely that I'll get more than a minimum wage job, if any job at all, leaving any legal potential revenue stream other than winning the lottery out of reach. The bills are piling up. . . I wonder if there's a way I can remedy my situation? Oh! I've got it! Wanna buy some blow?"


keeping in mind that i think the war on drugs is stupid...and failing....and that pot should be legal...

if you go for big money and profit off the misery of others...karma can be a biatch.
 
2013-04-17 11:57:56 PM

cman: But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote

All of it was partisanship

When one party has a supermajority stupid shiat like this happens.


How is it stupid? Did you read the article? No, of course you didn't.
 
2013-04-17 11:58:11 PM
This might actually work for Kansas in the long-term. Why would welfare-dependent, drug-using people not start moving out of the state to New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, or any other state without testing requirements? Although some may be home-owners, most probably rent and are mobile. It is like the Club theory. Putting a club on you car doesn't make it impossible to steal, just more difficult than a car without one. Kansas may just be planning to make these people some other state's problem.
 
2013-04-17 11:58:20 PM

reitage: Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

I had to take a drug test to get my job, why shouldn't someone have to take one to take my money from me?


Supposing you're a competent professional trusted significant responsibilities, whether or not you use drugs reasonably relates to your ability to handle those responsibilities. The logic goes thus: if you use drugs, you're disobeying the law. If you're disobeying the law, you're not a responsible person. Therefore, you shouldn't be trusted with significant professional responsibilities.

No like purpose is served by conditioning receipt of public assistance on drug tests. Public assistance beneficiaries have no significant job responsibilities to be undermined by behaviors associated with drug use. If a public assistance beneficiary spends his day high on marijuana, no client's case is prejudiced, no patient's health is endangered, no major contracts are put at risk, etc.

But conditioning public assistance on the results of drug tests sure does undermine some of the policy purposes of public assistance. Two such purposes are reduction in interpersonal crime and homelessness. Many drug addicts denied public assistance benefits will turn to other social safety nets, like family--so in effect, you're penalizing those family members put to the excruciating choice of helping a loved one, or watching him go homeless. Many other drug addicts denied public assistance will end up homeless, turn to crimes against persons and property, or both.

Neither does it even make fiscal sense. Empirically, where this kind of thing has been enacted elsewhere, the costs of the drug testing have actually exceeded the costs saved by kicking the view beneficiaries who test positive off of public assistance. You're actually willing to spend more money to deny people benefits than it costs just to give them benefits in the first place.

On the other hand, conditioning public assistance benefits on the results of drug tests does serve the policy purpose of deterring illegal drug use. If the war on drugs is your priority, then the public policy course you've suggested makes a lot of sense. If maintaining social stability, protecting property values, and diminishing interpersonal crimes are your priority, it does not make sense.

But your post makes one thing clear: yours and many others' support for this kind of policy isn't really grounded in any public purpose other than hostility to the concept of public assistance itself. You don't like public assistance at all, but you can't convince people it should be abolished. So you and persons sympathetic to your view have turned instead to a strategy of denying public assistance to as many otherwise qualified persons as possible through tricks of bureaucratic harassment, and assorted exclusionary criteria.

I disagree with your policy preference, but what bothers me isn't the disagreement. It is that you pretend your goal with this law is anything other than undermining public assistance itself. It's just dishonest, and stands in the way of real debate.
 
2013-04-17 11:59:33 PM

oldcub: This might actually work for Kansas in the long-term. Why would welfare-dependent, drug-using people not start moving out of the state to New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, or any other state without testing requirements? Although some may be home-owners, most probably rent and are mobile. It is like the Club theory. Putting a club on you car doesn't make it impossible to steal, just more difficult than a car without one. Kansas may just be planning to make these people some other state's problem.


Yep.
 
2013-04-18 12:00:52 AM

jylcat: This infuriates me just because

of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money. I'm on welfare and do drugs and I'll look for any excuse to call this a bad law to preserve my degenerate way of life.

At least be honest.
 
2013-04-18 12:04:49 AM

skullkrusher: spawn73: Why isn't recieving a welfare that provides for basic food and shelter a human right in USA?

Probably because you guys don't consider recieving free treatment and education is a right either.

I think that's partially the point of this backasswards policy. They want to ensure that welfare is not used on drugs and instead is used on food and shelter


If that was the point, they'd do something to ensure that people could get food and shelter but not get money which can be used instead for drugs. And since most welfare benefits nowadays are not cash benefits--something people on Fark, along with the legislators of Kansas and indeed most of the rest of the country, seem wildly unaware of--this bullshiat is just bullshiat, and evil, poor-hating bullshiat at that.

Most "welfare" is not cash money, nor is it a check which can be converted into cash money for the use of the individual. TANF/SNAP payments are (in most states I know of) done on EBT cards, like an ATM card, and no cash ever changes hands, so the old canard of "buying an apple with food stamps and using the change to buy vodka" is very old and very ripe bullshiat indeed. Section 8 housing or other subsidized housing checks go to the landlord, not to the recipient; so nobody is taking their housing benefits and cashing the check to buy drugs or booze (unless they have some kind of very deranged landlord). Now, General Relief payments can be cash-out payments, but GR is temporary and usually reduced by whatever the recipient is getting in other benefits (SNAP, housing, etc.)

In my experience, when I was running around with strange & sketchy people, anyone on benefits who was also using drugs was generally using their benefits for food and shelter....and doing crime to pay for the drugs. So if you take away their benefits, you're not going to stop them from using drugs, you're just going to increase the amount they need to earn doing crimes, to pay for the food and shelter. Still, I could be wrong, there could be lots of people somehow spending their nonexistent cash benefits on drugs and whores, and doing crimes to pay for their food and rent, but I suspect my experience is more common than the reverse.
 
2013-04-18 12:05:37 AM

bugontherug: I disagree with your policy preference, but what bothers me isn't the disagreement. It is that you pretend your goal with this law is anything other than undermining public assistance itself. It's just dishonest, and stands in the way of real debate.


You are so correct, and you stated that elegantly.
 
2013-04-18 12:07:43 AM

Gyrfalcon: Still, I could be wrong, there could be lots of people somehow spending their nonexistent cash benefits on drugs and whores, and doing crimes to pay for their food and rent, but I suspect my experience is more common than the reverse.


Silly lib, you've let your bleeding heart get in the way of perceiving reality. DRUGS ARE BAD, POORS ARE BAD, THEY MUST SUFFER BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE POOR IF JESUS LOVED THEM.
 
2013-04-18 12:08:59 AM

bugontherug: reitage: Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

I had to take a drug test to get my job, why shouldn't someone have to take one to take my money from me?

Supposing you're a competent professional trusted significant responsibilities, whether or not you use drugs reasonably relates to your ability to handle those responsibilities. The logic goes thus: if you use drugs, you're disobeying the law. If you're disobeying the law, you're not a responsible person. Therefore, you shouldn't be trusted with significant professional responsibilities.

No like purpose is served ...
other social safety nets, like family--so in effect, you're penalizing those family members put to the excruciating choice of helping a loved one, or ...
the costs saved by kicking the view beneficiaries who test positive off of public assistance. You're actually willing to spend more money to deny people ben ...



while your argument is compelling, the statistics regarding the "results" of similar requirements is not that easy to quantify.

if only 10% of applicants; failed, it just means that 10% of applicants are sooo retarded, they don't know better than to take a test when they are dirty. this doesn't tell us how many were smart enough to stop smoking before they applied for assistance, or just stopped smoking and got a job.

also, you can take the test a 2nd time, and if clean, be reimbursed for the cost, so if you accidentally get caught positive, stop smoking and take the test again.
 
2013-04-18 12:12:57 AM

Nadie_AZ: What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?


I'm not going to read through the comments, but if someone else hasn't said it, I'd like to try and  answer the question:

What is Jebus?

Thanks Alex. American history for $800...
 
2013-04-18 12:16:56 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: spawn73: Why isn't recieving a welfare that provides for basic food and shelter a human right in USA?

Probably because you guys don't consider recieving free treatment and education is a right either.

I think that's partially the point of this backasswards policy. They want to ensure that welfare is not used on drugs and instead is used on food and shelter

If that was the point, they'd do something to ensure that people could get food and shelter but not get money which can be used instead for drugs. And since most welfare benefits nowadays are not cash benefits--something people on Fark, along with the legislators of Kansas and indeed most of the rest of the country, seem wildly unaware of--this bullshiat is just bullshiat, and evil, poor-hating bullshiat at that.

Most "welfare" is not cash money, nor is it a check which can be converted into cash money for the use of the individual. TANF/SNAP payments are (in most states I know of) done on EBT cards, like an ATM card, and no cash ever changes hands, so the old canard of "buying an apple with food stamps and using the change to buy vodka" is very old and very ripe bullshiat indeed. Section 8 housing or other subsidized housing checks go to the landlord, not to the recipient; so nobody is taking their housing benefits and cashing the check to buy drugs or booze (unless they have some kind of very deranged landlord). Now, General Relief payments can be cash-out payments, but GR is temporary and usually reduced by whatever the recipient is getting in other benefits (SNAP, housing, etc.)

In my experience, when I was running around with strange & sketchy people, anyone on benefits who was also using drugs was generally using their benefits for food and shelter....and doing crime to pay for the drugs. So if you take away their benefits, you're not going to stop them from using drugs, you're just going to increase the amount they need to earn doing crimes, to pay for the food and shelter. Still, I could ...


I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.
 
2013-04-18 12:21:31 AM
If I have to pee in a cup to get a government job, you have to pee in a cup to get your free government money. Deal with it.
 
2013-04-18 12:22:29 AM

tuna fingers: bugontherug: I disagree with your policy preference, but what bothers me isn't the disagreement. It is that you pretend your goal with this law is anything other than undermining public assistance itself. It's just dishonest, and stands in the way of real debate.

You are so correct, and you stated that elegantly.


no, that is not correct,
I want people on assistance to not be willingly sabotaging their ability to get off assistance.
this is not "undermining public assistance" in any way.
it is promoting self sufficiency.
people who are so stupid that they test positive only lose benefits until they complete a short training program.
if you can't be bothered to complete the program (cause you're too stoned, or too busy feeling sorry for yourself), then too farking bad.
 
2013-04-18 12:22:56 AM
skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.
 
2013-04-18 12:24:00 AM

skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.


Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.
 
2013-04-18 12:25:44 AM

djkutch: jylcat: This infuriates me just because of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money.

If it cost Florida money, someone received it. I wonder where follow the money goes?


Straight to the governor's mansion in Tallahassee.  The main laboratory contracted to do the testing is "owned" by Mrs. ScottThis is the business that the Governor started after he weaseled his way out from under the largest Medicare fraud in history as CEO of HCA.
 
2013-04-18 12:27:37 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.

Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.


not sure why you're snarking up a farking storm to me based on my ignorance of how EBT works.
 
2013-04-18 12:28:12 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.


I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.
 
2013-04-18 12:31:38 AM

randomjsa: DeaH: Yes, denying people their benefits and sending the to the streets will totally solve their drug problem. People on the streets never do drugs, and they NEVER commit crimes to support their drug habits.

So instead we should support their drug habit with tax dollars.




Why not end the war of Drugs?
 
2013-04-18 12:36:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.

Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.


we already have section 8 housing assistance (up to $2200/month)
 
2013-04-18 12:39:12 AM

jjorsett: If I have to pee in a cup to get a government job, you have to pee in a cup to get your free government money. Deal with it.


Ah jealousy.
 
2013-04-18 12:40:38 AM
RANDOMJSA: YOU ARE SUPPORTING THE TESTING FIRMS WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS, NOT DRUG ADDICTS. THE ACTUAL IMPACTS ARE LAUGHABLY LOW, EXCEPT IN YOUR TV WORLD. ITS LIKE A MAINLINE FROM WELFARE TO GLAXOKLINE, YOU ARSE.

if you guys wouldn't quote him, i wouldnt' have to break out the stupid-ray.
 
2013-04-18 12:41:01 AM

skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.

I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.



I don't know whether they're universal or individually flagged in each store's system. If they can enter the prices, they can set EBT yes/no flags easily enough.
 
2013-04-18 12:42:31 AM

StoPPeRmobile: jjorsett: If I have to pee in a cup to get a government job, you have to pee in a cup to get your free government money. Deal with it.

Ah jealousy.


nope.

envy,

put down the pipe and figure out the difference.
 
2013-04-18 12:45:50 AM
Um i think this is a good thing. Wish Canada would do it
 
2013-04-18 12:50:29 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.

I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.


I don't know whether they're universal or individually flagged in each store's system. If they can enter the prices, they can set EBT yes/no flags easily enough.


For SNAP, the feds makes the rules but it's totally enforced by the retailers, and the retailers are generally the big winners in ineligible item fraud schemes.  The USDA has an entire unit in every Food and Nutrition Service field office dedicated to data mining for those schemes, and the major cheaters get tossed over to their Office of the Inspector General, which employs armed federal agents to look into this stuff.
 
2013-04-18 12:51:32 AM

skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.

I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.


Programmer that worked on something similar. Super easy, just a few lines of code and a db lookup.  You can lock out certain locations or items.  I didn't work on EBT cards, but with FSAs and you would not believe the things people would try to pull.  No that 60 inch TV is not a medical device because you need glasses.

However there is a catch, some do yes by default and others do no by default.  If no by default you can't go to a store or buy something that's not in the db.  Usually that irritates people so most do yes by default.  With that setup it will approve until someone updates the db and some unauthorized purchases do make it through.

Even then it's not in your interest as the program flags it and locks your account when the db is updated.  You either lose the funds still in your account, have to pay back the amount spent, or the info is sent to the IRS which witholds or adjust as needed.
 
2013-04-18 12:52:37 AM

friend49: Um i think this is a good thing. Wish Canada would do it


Why, because you're a vindictive ass? It's money straight from welfare to big business (testing corps).. oh that's real nice. And the companies with literal billions in welfare? Not a single test. What are you buying with this except humiliating normal people with testing and time and travel expense cause someone don't like the browns, huh?

Here's your "grand accomplishment", from TFA:

"Kansas is one of dozens of states that have been considering such drug tests. Florida required all new applicants to take such tests, as opposed to Kansas' plan that hinges on "reasonable suspicion." Data showed that program provided no direct savings to the state and only 2.6 percent of those tested failed tests, usually for marijuana use"


Yeah, way to bust gramps for being old. Way to intimidate minorities. And way to do NOTHING about making ANYTHING CHEAPER or ANYTHING SAFER. YOU SUCK.
 
2013-04-18 12:55:20 AM
trailerparkboys.org
 
2013-04-18 12:55:21 AM

hutchkc: skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.

I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.

Programmer that worked on something similar. Super easy, just a few lines of code and a db lookup.  You can lock out certain locations or items.  I didn't work on EBT cards, but with FSAs and you would not believe the things people would try to pull.  No that 60 inch TV is not a medical device because you need glasses.

However there is a catch, some do yes by default and others do no by default.  If no by default you can't go to a store or buy something that's not in the db.  Usually that irritates people so most do yes by default.  With that setup it will approve until someone updates the db and some unauthorized purchases do make it through.

Even then it's not in your interest as the program flags it and locks your account when the db is updated.  You either lose the funds still in your account, have to pay back the amount spent, or the info is sent to the IRS which witholds or adjust as needed.


yeah I just figured that the DB didn't exist because of a lack of standardization across product lines but I've read a bit about it and apparently prepared food is disallowed so it really is a case of just maintaining UPCs for a shiatton of manufactured stuff I guess
 
2013-04-18 12:56:23 AM

LookForTheArrow: friend49: Um i think this is a good thing. Wish Canada would do it

Why, because you're a vindictive ass? It's money straight from welfare to big business (testing corps).. oh that's real nice. And the companies with literal billions in welfare? Not a single test. What are you buying with this except humiliating normal people with testing and time and travel expense cause someone don't like the browns, huh?

Here's your "grand accomplishment", from TFA:

"Kansas is one of dozens of states that have been considering such drug tests. Florida required all new applicants to take such tests, as opposed to Kansas' plan that hinges on "reasonable suspicion." Data showed that program provided no direct savings to the state and only 2.6 percent of those tested failed tests, usually for marijuana use"


Yeah, way to bust gramps for being old. Way to intimidate minorities. And way to do NOTHING about making ANYTHING CHEAPER or ANYTHING SAFER. YOU SUCK.


Holy shiat shut the fark up.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report