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.

(Fox 21 News)   Good News: You can use your government-issued EBT card at Colorado marijuana stores. Bad News: You have a government-issued EBT card   (fox21news.com) divider line 162
    More: Spiffy, EBT, lists of places, Colorado, welfare programs  
•       •       •

3959 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2014 at 5:20 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-16 08:34:44 AM  

markfara: Speaking as one, I'd love to hear, just once, an acknowledgement by my party's "leaders" that there is indeed a segment of society who, generation after generation, pops out kids for a living and freeloads off of the rest of us while b*tching nonstop about what is owed them.


A rather tiny one but that is what all those fancy education and youth programs are for.

The worst mistake ever made was building "projects" to cram all the poor people into. It may have been well meaning at the time but it has only isolated the most vulnerable and at risk creating some very real and very dangerous problems that affect us all.
 
2014-01-16 08:35:17 AM  

GoldSpider: markfara: GoldSpider: jso2897: So you are saying that no recipient of any form of welfare should receive any discretionary income? Or not?
Yes or no?

As a public benefit?  Ideally no, that's not what the programs are for.

And I get it that there's no way to ensure that all of that money is spent only on "needs".  For example I think ideas like drug testing for welfare recipients is a stupid idea, for obvious reasons.  However just once I'd like to see welfare funding advocates turn to the people they're advocating for and show them a little tough love: "We'll continue fighting for these programs, but you guys gotta stop wasting it!"  It's almost as if acknowledging that wasteful spending happens, for some people, is some kind of ideological defeat.

Those people are called "Democrats". Speaking as one, I'd love to hear, just once, an acknowledgement by my party's "leaders" that there is indeed a segment of society who, generation after generation, pops out kids for a living and freeloads off of the rest of us while b*tching nonstop about what is owed them.

And republicans need to acknowledge that people do need these programs and that many of their supposed attempts to curb abuse cost far more than the anise itself and belie a more sinister motive.


True, and far worse in my book.

Don't hold your breath waiting for either side to get that real, tho.
 
2014-01-16 08:35:49 AM  
This guy needs to move to Colorado.
 
2014-01-16 08:37:26 AM  

jso2897: And again - if you are really concerned about government giving bad people money to do shiatty things with - you m,ight want to look a couple of other places first. Priorities of scale, y'know.


Yeah it's hard to take advocates of "welfare reform" seriously when they vote for billions of wasteful funding for the Pentagon.
 
2014-01-16 08:37:51 AM  

here to help: markfara: Speaking as one, I'd love to hear, just once, an acknowledgement by my party's "leaders" that there is indeed a segment of society who, generation after generation, pops out kids for a living and freeloads off of the rest of us while b*tching nonstop about what is owed them.

A rather tiny one but that is what all those fancy education and youth programs are for.

The worst mistake ever made was building "projects" to cram all the poor people into. It may have been well meaning at the time but it has only isolated the most vulnerable and at risk creating some very real and very dangerous problems that affect us all.


True, but relocating them into more affluent, less crime-ridden neighborhoods might not be the brightest solution, either.
 
2014-01-16 08:38:08 AM  

NutWrench: The purpose of EBT cards is to buy food. You shouldn't be able to draw cash on them no matter where the ATM is located.


Theres a "food side" and a "cash side" at least in CA. Cash benefits for women with children are supposed to get it, but I know of some guys with no kids at all that have managed to get them. All it takes is a sympathetic caseworker that happens to be a personal friend or some love interest to fudge things. (not me, but I know of a couple people and am tempted to blow the whistle as much of that "aid" is spent on lottery tickets and beer)

Government knows what you buy too with EBT. Someone has to do the auditing. However, POS machines often register THAT a purchase was made, not WHAT was, so some people get away with all sorts of stuff. Throwing medical MJ in the mix I'm not sure that's going to solve anything, other than say, allow people to use "cash sides" for what people use for cigarettes (note, people get cash first, then pay for their smokes). There are other tricks people use that I've seen go on right in front me.

Now onto a bigger Q; I'm curious how many pizza joints that take EBT have filed franchise permits next to the dispensiaries?
 
2014-01-16 08:39:17 AM  

GoldSpider: jso2897: And again - if you are really concerned about government giving bad people money to do shiatty things with - you m,ight want to look a couple of other places first. Priorities of scale, y'know.

Yeah it's hard to take advocates of "welfare reform" seriously when they vote for billions of wasteful funding for the Pentagon.


And oil subsidies, and foreign aid for nations that hate our guts, and tax exemptions for businesses and real estate owned by churches, and. . . .
 
2014-01-16 08:41:35 AM  
Very few of the things that government must do to keep us whole as a civilization are glorious things. Moon shots are few and far between.
Most of it is dirty, muddy, mundane shiat. Wars, cops, jails, epidemics, disasters, and the boring stuff, like schools and ag subsidies and welfare and potholes and all that shiat. It's all work, a lot of it is unpleasant - and it never ends. And it all costs money.
And like it or not - it's all highly morally and ethically ambiguous.
Unless you plan to move to a different dimension - deal with it.
 
2014-01-16 08:50:31 AM  

jso2897: Very few of the things that government must do to keep us whole as a civilization are glorious things. Moon shots are few and far between.
Most of it is dirty, muddy, mundane shiat. Wars, cops, jails, epidemics, disasters, and the boring stuff, like schools and ag subsidies and welfare and potholes and all that shiat. It's all work, a lot of it is unpleasant - and it never ends. And it all costs money.
And like it or not - it's all highly morally and ethically ambiguous.
Unless you plan to move to a different dimension - deal with it.


Yup. Just toss your hands up in the air and shrug.  Oh well.  Just smile as you're told they'll need to increase taxes to support more social welfare programs. See abuse of the system? Smile to yourself,knowing  it's small cost compared to helping others. what ever system is currently in place must be the best we can do, after all trying to fix it would jsut cost too much.

After all, whatever the current system is, then is must be the best. And it would cost to much to improve upon it, right?
 
2014-01-16 08:51:39 AM  
I think I can put my finger on what I don't like about this argument, emotionally (not that that carries any weight - not saying it does).
It sounds like we are talking about imposing ethics upon the poor with the justification that we are giving them a crappy sammich so they have to do what we say.
And let's face it - there is no segment of American society upon which we are imposing any real ethical or moral standards any more. Certainly not our ploitical leaders, or the captains of industry and finance.
The wealthy and powerful do precisely what the f**k they want, and we all aplaud like wind-up monkeys.
So we are going to impose some crappy puritan morality on people just because we have the power to do so?
It feels small and stinky and hypocritical to me.
 
2014-01-16 08:53:36 AM  

jso2897: gfid: jso2897: What do you think I pulled out of my ass? The opinion that micromanaging welfare expenditures is not cost-efficient?

Yeah, that would be the one only I wouldn't call restricting public assistance from being spent on booze, pot or cigarettes to be "micromanaging".

For an opinion I just pulled out of my ass, it's a pretty widespread opinion.

Well then, perhaps you can cite a source for that opinion.

Why would you think I just pulled it out of my ass?

It smelled?

You seem to be more interesting in quarreling than in learning anything, or arguing any opinion of your own.

Hey, I asked for you to enlighten me and I get nothing in return.  I don't even understand why it is a controversial idea to prohibit welfare payments from buying booze (or pot or tobacco).

For numerous reasons - some of them Constitutionsl (see the links I posted above) and also that it rarely proves to be cost effective. For example, the Florida program charged people for drug tests - but they got a refund if they passed - courtesy of the taxpayer, and Scott's shadow company got paid. It cost the taxpayers many dolars per penny saved. And this is not atypical. Beyond broad and  general categories like food stamops or housing vouchers, it is complex and expensive to micromanage evry dime a welfare recipient spends.
Now, i"m trying to grasp the gist of this discussion - are you saying  that you find that somehow difficult to believe, based on everything you know about human nature and government efficiency? Really??
Frankly, like most people to whom it is not a moral issue, I don't think it's worth it.
Of course, if you view it as a critical moral issue - cost is no object. But as a taxpayer, I'm not fond of the phrase "cost is no object".


Sorry, I missed your links.  just went through the thread again and still didn't see them.  Drug tests can actually be very cheap.  The problem with corruption in Florida is a problem with government corruption, not policy,.   Well, okay I'll grant you that corruption is policy,.

And being a "moral issue"?  What does that even mean?  Does that mean you think smoking pot is bad?  Or does that mean you think that you shouldn't be wasting your money on pot when you can't even feed your children?
 
2014-01-16 08:54:52 AM  

Danger Mouse: jso2897: Very few of the things that government must do to keep us whole as a civilization are glorious things. Moon shots are few and far between.
Most of it is dirty, muddy, mundane shiat. Wars, cops, jails, epidemics, disasters, and the boring stuff, like schools and ag subsidies and welfare and potholes and all that shiat. It's all work, a lot of it is unpleasant - and it never ends. And it all costs money.
And like it or not - it's all highly morally and ethically ambiguous.
Unless you plan to move to a different dimension - deal with it.

Yup. Just toss your hands up in the air and shrug.  Oh well.  Just smile as you're told they'll need to increase taxes to support more social welfare programs. See abuse of the system? Smile to yourself,knowing  it's small cost compared to helping others. what ever system is currently in place must be the best we can do, after all trying to fix it would jsut cost too much.

After all, whatever the current system is, then is must be the best. And it would cost to much to improve upon it, right?


No. That's not whaty I said about that- I said this:
"You can't wish pragmatic realities away with moral platitudes, and that applies to people on both sides of this issue, no doubt.
The need that we have, as civilized men, to provide for the weak, helpless, or deficiennt members of the tribe is always going to be a messy business. That doesn't mean we should ever stop striving to improve it - but we must be prepared to accept a few imperfections, if I may employ the subtle art of understatement.
It actually does suck - but making the best we can of it is one of the neasures of how good a people and a nation we are - we can't walk away from it."

At no point have I said or implied that we should give up on trying to improve anything - I am here arguing issuies of how and how not to improve them.
 
2014-01-16 08:59:50 AM  

jso2897: fireclown: Is nobody other than me angry that taxpayer money can be used to buy weed? Im not an anti welfare type who wants to let folks starve or die of untreated illnesses, but I rankle at buying intoxicants for the jobless.

I can sorta see that, but the problem is that micromanaging every single dime of welfare money spent has been tried - and it's proven to be unwieldy, complicated, and costly. I also don't like seeing welfare money pissed away on administrative costs - you end up with idiotic, crooked shiat like that drug-testing grift they tried in Florida.
We are never going to acheive an "ideal" form of welfare - "optimum" is about the best we can hope for.
If we want to micromangae something, maybe we should look into the billions in subsidies and tax breaks that go to corporate industies - some of them littlle better than crime cartels. Seems like if a person was REALLY "fiscally conservative" they would look where the big bucks are first.


These days, Republicans are no more "fiscally conservative" than the Democrats are, IMHO.

/ it's just another political soundbite.
 
2014-01-16 09:01:19 AM  

profplump: Some Coke Drinking Guy: something like 20 percent

Are you seriously suggesting that people poor enough to qualify for cash aid -- as an aggregate group -- spend 20% of their money on strippers? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

I could maybe believe that 20% of cash-benefit EBT card were at one point in history used at a strip club ATM (though even that seems a stretch to me). But the idea that strippers get 20% of cash aid to poor people flies in the face not just of common sense, but of every actual study on the topic.

I know for the sake of justifying our own wealth it's easy to believe that poor people deserve to be poor, and that they're bound to spend whatever money they get on wasteful things like strippers and booze, but actual study clearly indicates that poor people, as an aggregate group, rarely increase "undesirable" spending when you give them more money. Certainly some individuals make bad choices, as in any group, but even in studies targeting people with criminal and drug histories, unearned income is overwhelmingly spent on things that most people would consider worthwhile expenditures.


He's saying, I'm pretty sure, that 20% of cards used outside of strip clubs are EBT.
 
2014-01-16 09:03:01 AM  

gfid: jso2897: gfid: jso2897: What do you think I pulled out of my ass? The opinion that micromanaging welfare expenditures is not cost-efficient?

Yeah, that would be the one only I wouldn't call restricting public assistance from being spent on booze, pot or cigarettes to be "micromanaging".

For an opinion I just pulled out of my ass, it's a pretty widespread opinion.

Well then, perhaps you can cite a source for that opinion.

Why would you think I just pulled it out of my ass?

It smelled?

You seem to be more interesting in quarreling than in learning anything, or arguing any opinion of your own.

Hey, I asked for you to enlighten me and I get nothing in return.  I don't even understand why it is a controversial idea to prohibit welfare payments from buying booze (or pot or tobacco).

For numerous reasons - some of them Constitutionsl (see the links I posted above) and also that it rarely proves to be cost effective. For example, the Florida program charged people for drug tests - but they got a refund if they passed - courtesy of the taxpayer, and Scott's shadow company got paid. It cost the taxpayers many dolars per penny saved. And this is not atypical. Beyond broad and  general categories like food stamops or housing vouchers, it is complex and expensive to micromanage evry dime a welfare recipient spends.
Now, i"m trying to grasp the gist of this discussion - are you saying  that you find that somehow difficult to believe, based on everything you know about human nature and government efficiency? Really??
Frankly, like most people to whom it is not a moral issue, I don't think it's worth it.
Of course, if you view it as a critical moral issue - cost is no object. But as a taxpayer, I'm not fond of the phrase "cost is no object".

Sorry, I missed your links.  just went through the thread again and still didn't see them.  Drug tests can actually be very cheap.  The problem with corruption in Florida is a problem with government corruption, not policy,.   Well, ok ...


The post, with the links, are in the thread, along with several responses to what you ahve said. I might post more if and when you take the time to read what I have already posted - but frankly, I am quickly wearying of your demands for attention.
 
2014-01-16 09:03:24 AM  

markfara: DubyaHater: This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies".

I get that. But if it helps keep them from taking my things to finance their bad choices, I classify that under "necessary evil".


s2.quickmeme.com

 
2014-01-16 09:06:15 AM  

Callous: markfara: DubyaHater: This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies".

I get that. But if it helps keep them from taking my things to finance their bad choices, I classify that under "necessary evil".


[s2.quickmeme.com image 604x453]


One never know, do one?
 
2014-01-16 09:07:36 AM  

jso2897: So we are going to impose some crappy puritan morality on people just because we have the power to do so?


I don't see it so much as puritanical as I do reasonable.   If I see someone who is hungry and I give them a few bucks to help them, do I really want them to spend it on weed?

At the very least they should come back and share that joint with me, but that's not what you're arguing for.  You're saying I should go without weed and give money to someone else so they can buy weed and not even share it with me.
 
2014-01-16 09:09:01 AM  

Callous: markfara: DubyaHater: This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies".

I get that. But if it helps keep them from taking my things to finance their bad choices, I classify that under "necessary evil".


[s2.quickmeme.com image 604x453]


Dead serious, my friend. History shows us what happens when poor people (regardless of why they're poor) get desperate. If I've got to help cough up some bribe money to keep them from taking my sh*t, I'll hold my nose and live with it.
 
2014-01-16 09:11:04 AM  

gfid: I don't even understand why it is a controversial idea to prohibit welfare payments from buying booze (or pot or tobacco).


It's not so much controversial as it is impossible (or, at the very least, highly impractical)... If it can be taken out in cash, then obviously the game is lost from the start, since cash can be untraceably spent for absolutely anything you like... So, if you forbid conversion to cash, you must rigidly define what sort of things it can be spent on and every place that accepts the cards will need to rigorously enforce the rules... But, what's to prevent the person from simply buying some high-value popular item with their card and either trading that directly for the pot/booze/whatever, or selling it to someone else who desires it (presumably cheaper than they can buy it themselves from the store) and using the resulting cash from that to buy their pot/booze/whatever? Sounds unlikely you say? Tell that to the people using laundry detergent as currency to buy drugs... Now, how to propose to stop that sort of thing from happening? Hire people to follow around every poor person and observe what they're doing 24 hours a day?  Do you honestly think the savings from stopping that sort of "waste" would be worth the cost of any measures necessary to stop it?
 
2014-01-16 09:13:21 AM  
There is a particular type of troll who comes on very serious and sincere, and claims to be interested in hearing what you have to say.
So you tell them, and then, they ask again. If you have given arguments, or posted links - they ignore them. They just rephrase the questions you have already ansered, while ignoring the answers they were given.
It's like an annoying five year old:
"Why, Daddy?"
"Because reasons"
"But, why, Daddy?"
"Because same reasons i just said"
"Show me a picture of it, Daddy"
"OK - Her's a picture of it"
"Show me ANOTHER picture of it , Daddy"
"I JUST SHOWED YOU A GODDAMN PICTURE OF IT!"
"But, why, Daddy?"
And so on, until you leap shrieking from a tenth storey window.
They are a drag because no matter how good a troll-master you are, you can't detect them until you have already wasted time on them.
 
2014-01-16 09:15:05 AM  

GoldSpider: And I get it that there's no way to ensure that all of that money is spent only on "needs".


Sure there is, but the logistics could be tricky.

If the problem is people using EBT cards for junk food, or people trading EBT cards to crooked deli owners for cash, or last week's example of people buying shiatloads of cases of Pepsi to trade that for cash, then the solution is easy enough.

Let the people who use EBT cards as intended continue to do so, but the farkups get their cards pulled and replaced with soup kitchens (where population density will allow) and periodic pickups and/or deliveries of food, in the form of nutritious but perishable items that can't be used as a means of exchange because they could go bad before the person on the other end of the transaction can turn the product around. Mom-of-the-year dumbshiat in Kentucky may be able to convert her EBT card to soda to cash and from there to drugs, but she'll have a hell of a time trying to do that if the government gives her a head of cabbage, a gallon of milk, a turkey sandwich, etc.
 
2014-01-16 09:18:39 AM  

RobSeace: gfid: I don't even understand why it is a controversial idea to prohibit welfare payments from buying booze (or pot or tobacco).

It's not so much controversial as it is impossible (or, at the very least, highly impractical)... If it can be taken out in cash, then obviously the game is lost from the start, since cash can be untraceably spent for absolutely anything you like... So, if you forbid conversion to cash, you must rigidly define what sort of things it can be spent on and every place that accepts the cards will need to rigorously enforce the rules... But, what's to prevent the person from simply buying some high-value popular item with their card and either trading that directly for the pot/booze/whatever, or selling it to someone else who desires it (presumably cheaper than they can buy it themselves from the store) and using the resulting cash from that to buy their pot/booze/whatever? Sounds unlikely you say? Tell that to the people using laundry detergent as currency to buy drugs... Now, how to propose to stop that sort of thing from happening? Hire people to follow around every poor person and observe what they're doing 24 hours a day?  Do you honestly think the savings from stopping that sort of "waste" would be worth the cost of any measures necessary to stop it?


Also all people need to do is go to the grocery store and pickup any of the hundreds of receipts that you find in trash cans, in carts or even left at the self scan.  Go and buy those items with their EBT and then return for cash.  Nothing is unscamable.  WIC is a great program for families that need help but go to craigslist or ebay and see how much formula is for sale.  I bet a good portion of it is from WIC people that get too much or from people that don't add enough of the powder to sell one can because they need cash.
 
2014-01-16 09:19:19 AM  

gfid: jso2897: So we are going to impose some crappy puritan morality on people just because we have the power to do so?

I don't see it so much as puritanical as I do reasonable.   If I see someone who is hungry and I give them a few bucks to help them, do I really want them to spend it on weed?

At the very least they should come back and share that joint with me, but that's not what you're arguing for.  You're saying I should go without weed and give money to someone else so they can buy weed and not even share it with me.


I'm not saying any such thing. I pay taxes too. I can't afford everything I'd like, either. It just doesn't translate into a desire to micromange every detail of somebody else's life - especially if I will end up paying more anyway. Especially when there are billionaires using the government to pick our pockets as we speak.
You know - you and me just might have different priorities in life.
 
2014-01-16 09:20:34 AM  

RobSeace: gfid: I don't even understand why it is a controversial idea to prohibit welfare payments from buying booze (or pot or tobacco).

It's not so much controversial as it is impossible (or, at the very least, highly impractical)... If it can be taken out in cash, then obviously the game is lost from the start, since cash can be untraceably spent for absolutely anything you like... So, if you forbid conversion to cash, you must rigidly define what sort of things it can be spent on and every place that accepts the cards will need to rigorously enforce the rules... But, what's to prevent the person from simply buying some high-value popular item with their card and either trading that directly for the pot/booze/whatever, or selling it to someone else who desires it (presumably cheaper than they can buy it themselves from the store) and using the resulting cash from that to buy their pot/booze/whatever? Sounds unlikely you say? Tell that to the people using laundry detergent as currency to buy drugs... Now, how to propose to stop that sort of thing from happening? Hire people to follow around every poor person and observe what they're doing 24 hours a day?  Do you honestly think the savings from stopping that sort of "waste" would be worth the cost of any measures necessary to stop it?


Well, the solution to that peoblem was supposed to be drug testing.
 
2014-01-16 09:21:12 AM  

fusillade762: Marijuana industry lobbyists argued for the bill, saying there's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs and that the prohibition would assure the public that disability benefits or other entitlements aren't being used on pot.

Dude, if the businesses you're targeting are arguing for it maybe you should listen to them.


Some disabled people need marijuana most, it's pain relieving properties have already been proven.

 From experience, natural marijuana is much better than most of the man made crap that Big Pharma spews out.
 
2014-01-16 09:21:58 AM  
You know what else is discretionary? Toys. You know what's a needed non-perishible commodity? Gasoline. You want these people trading in black market gasoline? That shiat will be hilarious!
 
2014-01-16 09:22:25 AM  

jso2897: The post, with the links, are in the thread, along with several responses to what you ahve said. I might post more if and when you take the time to read what I have already posted - but frankly, I am quickly wearying of your demands for attention.


Oh the one about the corruption in Florida?  I thought I had already dealt with that issue a couple of times at least.

It's one thing to buy a starving man a sandwich.  It's an entirely different thing to pay his bar tab.
 
2014-01-16 09:25:57 AM  

markfara: History shows us what happens when poor people (regardless of why they're poor) get desperate.


Nothing much happens, or we'd be hearing about violent coups every six months in India.

Show me a desperately poor country and I'll show you a country being run by one of those tinpot president-for-life bastards. And those guys have little to fear. More often than not they die peacefully, in their own bed or a luxury hospital suite, still in power or in comfortable exile, surrounded by cronies one way or the other.

A dictator who gets the Ceausescu treatment has been the exception and not the rule.
 
2014-01-16 09:28:01 AM  

Gulper Eel: markfara: History shows us what happens when poor people (regardless of why they're poor) get desperate.

Nothing much happens, or we'd be hearing about violent coups every six months in India.

Show me a desperately poor country and I'll show you a country being run by one of those tinpot president-for-life bastards. And those guys have little to fear. More often than not they die peacefully, in their own bed or a luxury hospital suite, still in power or in comfortable exile, surrounded by cronies one way or the other.

A dictator who gets the Ceausescu treatment has been the exception and not the rule.


And violent crime in desperately poor countries is almost nil. Good point.
 
2014-01-16 09:29:43 AM  

markfara: Gulper Eel: markfara: History shows us what happens when poor people (regardless of why they're poor) get desperate.

Nothing much happens, or we'd be hearing about violent coups every six months in India.

Show me a desperately poor country and I'll show you a country being run by one of those tinpot president-for-life bastards. And those guys have little to fear. More often than not they die peacefully, in their own bed or a luxury hospital suite, still in power or in comfortable exile, surrounded by cronies one way or the other.

A dictator who gets the Ceausescu treatment has been the exception and not the rule.

And violent crime in desperately poor countries is almost nil. Good point.


Well it's hard for the poor to do a good uprising when they are malnurished and don't have the funds to arm themselves.
 
2014-01-16 09:30:50 AM  

Goimir: You know what else is discretionary? Toys. You know what's a needed non-perishible commodity? Gasoline. You want these people trading in black market gasoline? That shiat will be hilarious!


i26.photobucket.com
It was one of the funnier episodes of Always Sunny
 
2014-01-16 09:40:49 AM  

markfara: True, but relocating them into more affluent, less crime-ridden neighborhoods might not be the brightest solution, either.


Yes. That is why it was a huge mistake and should have been promptly shut down after it became apparent what was happening. I lived in a city that tried tearing down one of the worst projects and scattering it's residence throughout the city. It led to widespread turf wars and power struggles amongst the gangs across the city instead of staying localized and status quo.

It is probably one of the trickiest problems society needs to deal with right now but it never even gets discussed.
 
2014-01-16 09:45:08 AM  

markfara: Callous: markfara: DubyaHater: This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies".

I get that. But if it helps keep them from taking my things to finance their bad choices, I classify that under "necessary evil".


[s2.quickmeme.com image 604x453]

Dead serious, my friend. History shows us what happens when poor people (regardless of why they're poor) get desperate. If I've got to help cough up some bribe money to keep them from taking my sh*t, I'll hold my nose and live with it.


So we should just give them our shiat to keep them from stealing it?
 
2014-01-16 10:00:35 AM  

jso2897: Well, the solution to that peoblem was supposed to be drug testing.


Perfect example of a solution that costs more than it saves in "waste"...

Not to mention that it's not actually a solution to the problem to begin with... If the person tests positive for pot, booze, or whatever they're testing for, it doesn't mean they used their benefits money to buy it... People have friends that sometimes share their booze/drugs... Why should a person be kicked off benefits because their friend gave them a fifth of scotch as a present or shared a joint with them? It's ridiculous... All it's actually a "solution" to is how to further punish and humiliate poor people for having the audacity to be poor... Next step would be to forbid them owning TVs or computers, since those luxuries are an obvious waste they shouldn't be allowed to have... Then, make them all wear nothing but clothes from Goodwill, and eat nothing but store brand food... There will be strict inspections of their trash to ensure no name brands are found... Nevermind the fact that we now spend triple what we were spending when we allowed them to waste it on name brand food; what's important is that those scum don't deserve to eat name brand food, and by god we're not going to let them!
 
2014-01-16 10:03:11 AM  

Callous: So we should just give them our shiat to keep them from stealing it?


Would you rather pay a few bucks a year on your taxes to feed hungry people and make them feel like society actually gives a damn which them makes them more likely to at least TRY to participate or have them feel so desperate and loathed that they snap and don't think twice about smashing your door down, caving your skull in, raping your wife and then stealing your sh*t?

Compassion is far less costly and painful. Think of it as an investment.
 
2014-01-16 10:04:54 AM  

Callous: markfara: Callous: markfara: DubyaHater: This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies".

I get that. But if it helps keep them from taking my things to finance their bad choices, I classify that under "necessary evil".


[s2.quickmeme.com image 604x453]

Dead serious, my friend. History shows us what happens when poor people (regardless of why they're poor) get desperate. If I've got to help cough up some bribe money to keep them from taking my sh*t, I'll hold my nose and live with it.

So we should just give them our shiat to keep them from stealing it?


Nah, the government will do that for you
 
2014-01-16 10:06:29 AM  

RobSeace: All it's actually a "solution" to is how to further punish and humiliate poor people for having the audacity to be poor...


It's more about scumbags using hate and prejudice to get their hands on public coffers so they can live like kings.

Damned hell assed KINGS!
 
2014-01-16 10:18:13 AM  

here to help: Would you rather pay a few bucks a year on your taxes to feed hungry people and make them feel like society actually gives a damn which them makes them more likely to at least TRY to participate or have them feel so desperate and loathed that they snap and don't think twice about smashing your door down, caving your skull in, raping your wife and then stealing your sh*t?


Nice emotional appeal.

Poverty's relationship to violent crime does not work that way - otherwise, to take an example from my neck of the New York woods, shiatty-ass Mount Vernon and posh Larchmont right down the road would have the same rate of violent crime.

Second, what happens when it's no longer "a few bucks" paid but thousands, with damn little to show for it?
 
2014-01-16 10:29:16 AM  
Not sure why that's "spiffy" -- it'd be in the same category as using SNAP funds to buy booze or cigarettes.  I've got nothing against legalized pot, but that's not what "food stamps" are supposed to be for.
 
2014-01-16 10:37:22 AM  

Gulper Eel: Nice emotional appeal.


I love this line from cons. You're able to whinge and moan and scream and cry and threaten armed revolution over your petty selfish wants but as soon as someone talks about doing something positive in nothing other than a flat monotone it's an "emotional appeal" and can be dismissed. Then the dry monotone appeals get dismissed as "elitist, egghead, smugness". It's all so very convenient. I got news for ya, bub. This IS an emotional issue because people are hurting very badly and being abused by a sh*tty system and manufactured prejudices.

Gulper Eel: Poverty's relationship to violent crime does not work that way


Bullsh*t and your little personal anecdote about an area I've never even heard of is not proof of anything. You have said nothing.

Gulper Eel: Second, what happens when it's no longer "a few bucks" paid but thousands, with damn little to show for it?


Well you master fiscal managers should be able to cut some bloat somewhere. Might I suggest the insane military budget or corporate welfare? Also investing in citizens will ALWAYS give you something to show for your investment. However you don't just hand it all directly to them. You give them enough to actually survive without becoming a criminal, you raise the minimum wage so it's worthwhile to actually get out of the system, you invest in the companies that are willing to be responsible corporate citizens to fill any potential vacuum created by the lecherous scumbag companies who cry foul over the wage increase and extra taxes and leave, you fix up the schools and open addiction counseling centers and youth complexes/programs and you ensure people can obtain decent housing in decent neighborhoods IF they show they are not criminals who will ruin the neighborhood.

The national debt is so out of control at this point anyway and tax revenues are only going to go down if the country isn't repaired so make the investments needed to right the ship. At the very least we'll end up with a couple generations of healthy, educated and productive people who may be able to cooperate long enough to find a permanent solution instead of this rapid descent into a third world hellhole.

Too emotional for you? Too bad. Suck it.
 
2014-01-16 10:38:56 AM  

jshine: Not sure why that's "spiffy" -- it'd be in the same category as using SNAP funds to buy booze or cigarettes.  I've got nothing against legalized pot, but that's not what "food stamps" are supposed to be for.


Spiffy is almost Spliffy therefore it's funny or clever or something.
 
2014-01-16 10:55:39 AM  

Gulper Eel: Second, what happens when it's no longer "a few bucks" paid but thousands, with damn little to show for it?


Well shiat how many people do you think are going to be dropped into welfare?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-bureau-mean s- tested-govt-benefit-recipients-outnumber-full

For your thousands to be true it would have to be almost everyone.  So can you please get off of the chicken?
 
2014-01-16 10:59:58 AM  
well... I tried to sleep.
 
2014-01-16 11:00:58 AM  

here to help: Bullsh*t and your little personal anecdote about an area I've never even heard of is not proof of anything. You have said nothing.


Then where is there a community rich or middle-class that experiences regular incursions of violent (because they're poverty-stricken) criminals from the poor community down the road? How come Detroit's poor haven't invaded Grosse Pointe? Why do the poor of Brooklyn not go all pitchforks-and-torches after the nouveau riche invading their borough? Why doesn't Anacostia go on regular mugging sprees in Georgetown?

You're the one who made the initial assertion, sou can provide the evidence - but what you're going to find is that violent criminals from poor neighborhoods commit their crimes against other poor people in those neighborhoods.

here to help: Well you master fiscal managers should be able to cut some bloat somewhere. Might I suggest (leftist ranting)


Not all taxes are paid to the central government...and given our annual deficits, most of us are moochers when it comes to what Uncle Sam spends versus what we pay. But states and local governments have to balance their budgets in a way that Washington does not. If you live in the area where state and local governments are still contained to their proper role, maybe the taxman still has a soft touch - and good for you if it is. But my wife and I are getting farked for about an eighth of our income in state and local taxes, and what we get back in services, for the poor and otherwise...is pitiful. And most of what we're paying is for the poor, in my case a gigantic Medicaid program whose patient outcomes are the very definition of "meh" even on a good day.

Corporate welfare? I'm all for zeroing that out, along with their taxes. Government should not be pressing any third party into the role of tax collector, which is what a tax on business amounts to. You want a corporation to have a social responsibilty? Sure. That's what regulations are for.

Minimum wage hike? Fine by me - and in fact I'd go for a guaranteed minimum income/earned-income tax credit boost if it also came with a commensurate zeroing-out of the hundreds of redundant "anti-poverty" programs that serve more to allow favored constituencies in government to take their pieces of the action before the poor get what they need.
 
2014-01-16 11:04:20 AM  

Gulper Eel: Then where is there a community rich or middle-class that experiences regular incursions of violent (because they're poverty-stricken) criminals from the poor community down the road? How come Detroit's poor haven't invaded Grosse Pointe? Why do the poor of Brooklyn not go all pitchforks-and-torches after the nouveau riche invading their borough? Why doesn't Anacostia go on regular mugging sprees in Georgetown?

You're the one who made the initial assertion, sou can provide the evidence - but what you're going to find is that violent criminals from poor neighborhoods commit their crimes against other poor people in those neighborhoods.


Maybe because they are getting assistance now, if you take that away it would be more of an issue.  Maybe the crimes are committed in the poor areas because it's easier since those people don't have cameras, security systems, etc.
 
2014-01-16 11:10:26 AM  

Gulper Eel: Then where is there a community rich or middle-class that experiences regular incursions of violent (because they're poverty-stricken) criminals from the poor community down the road? How come Detroit's poor haven't invaded Grosse Pointe? Why do the poor of Brooklyn not go all pitchforks-and-torches after the nouveau riche invading their borough? Why doesn't Anacostia go on regular mugging sprees in Georgetown?

You're the one who made the initial assertion, sou can provide the evidence - but what you're going to find is that violent criminals from poor neighborhoods commit their crimes against other poor people in those neighborhoods.



Are you seriously suggesting that criminals don't regularly target affluent neighborhoods for break ins? luuulz Then by all means leave your doors unlocked and your cash on the kitchen counter.

Gulper Eel: an eighth of our income in state and local taxes,


An EIGHTH?! Jesus, dude. That's f*cking nothing ESPECIALLY compared to actual civilized countries. Quit your whining. You live in a society and you are required to contribute to make it function. Don't like it? Go start a dirt farm in Africa or something. I'm sure you'll be much happier.
 
2014-01-16 11:25:33 AM  

here to help: An EIGHTH?! Jesus, dude. That's f*cking nothing ESPECIALLY compared to actual civilized countries.


It doesn't matter if I'm paying an eighth or a third or 1/100 - if I'm not getting what was paid for, it's a ripoff. And yet to complain is to hear a drumbeat of YOU RACIST YOU HEARTLESSMONSTER YOUHATETHECHILDRENS!!!1

And again, I do have a federal tax bill on top of the state/local taxes, which has come to an effective 15-20 percent over the years on top of the ~13% I pay to governments closer to home.

I wouldn't mind paying high taxes if I got commensurately excellent services, but I don't. And neither do the poor, who still get farked on the state and local taxes even if they're getting a break on income taxes.

So why is it again that any of us are supposed to let Uncle Sam or any other taxman have a cut if they didn't deliver as promised?
 
2014-01-16 11:34:44 AM  

Gulper Eel: I wouldn't mind paying high taxes if I got commensurately excellent services, but I don't


This is a separate issue. That is a complaint about waste and mismanagement which I despise as well. That is not an excuse to erode what little social safety net is there and attack the poor for being poor. Your anger and efforts should be directed at the POLITICIANS who mismanage the money. Poor people aren't doing that to you. In fact many politicians are actively trying to trick you into thinking they are which is even slimier.

And with your adjusted number including your federal tax rate that is more what I would expect so I retract my earlier comment. I thought you meant an eighth of your income total goes to taxes. It is however still lower than many other western countries but we won't get into that.
 
2014-01-16 11:49:41 AM  

Gulper Eel: It doesn't matter if I'm paying an eighth or a third or 1/100 - if I'm not getting what was paid for, it's a ripoff. And yet to complain is to hear a drumbeat of YOU RACIST YOU HEARTLESSMONSTER YOUHATETHECHILDRENS!!!1


How aren't you getting what you paid for?  When you pay taxes you are not buying anything so how again are you buying something?
 
Displayed 50 of 162 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 »
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