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 (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-16 12:15:26 AM  
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.
 
2014-01-16 12:28:18 AM  
Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?
 
2014-01-16 02:07:18 AM  
I'll bite. What is an EBT card?

Never mind I'll go google it.
 
2014-01-16 02:08:27 AM  
Huh. Interesting.
 
2014-01-16 02:43:23 AM  

scottydoesntknow: Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?


Only certain people can get cash with them (disabled and the elderly, iirc) and it's a separate balance from the food benefits.
 
2014-01-16 05:31:06 AM  
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.
 
2014-01-16 05:48:27 AM  
Stoners eat snacks. Heh heh heh. I'm really funny.
 
2014-01-16 05:48:55 AM  
Check YouTube for "It's free swipe your EBT" for something so Poe-ish I don't know what side it's on.
 
2014-01-16 06:04:38 AM  
Because people on public assistance are known to be very responsible with their money.
 
2014-01-16 06:17:34 AM  
How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.
 
2014-01-16 06:21:18 AM  
Big deal.  Here in Maine, people use 'em in strip clubs and gambling.  That's progress!
 
2014-01-16 06:21:53 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.


They aren't talking about just a food stamp card.  You can't use SNAP at ATM's.  Yes, some people get cash benefits, whether they also get food stamps or not.  Here, unemployment benefits also use the same card (in addition to disability, welfare, etc), so I imagine the same location restrictions apply.
 
2014-01-16 06:23:03 AM  

markfara: How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.


I think only certain classes of people on EBT can get cash. People who aren't on welfare but on some other system like SS or disability. It would actually make sense to let people who are disabled and have some sort of chronic pain buy pot. I mean, if you have medical infrastructure already in place, it doesn't make as much sense, but there is some.

Further, I don't actually want them to pass a special law. An ATM is an ATM. It shouldn't matter where it's located. Banning them from using ATMs that happen to be in pot stores is just arbitrary and stupid. As someone else said, they can go to the 7-11 across teh street and use that ATM, so it solves nothing. The argument over who should be able to use EBT cards in ATMs and how much they should be able to get and at what rate is a completely separate argument.
 
2014-01-16 06:24:18 AM  
<i>Democrats on the committee all voted against the idea. They said people in poor neighborhoods already have difficulty accessing ATMs and that the bill isn't needed. </i>

Holy Fark, <i>Democrats</i> arguing against 'unnecessary regulation'?  If this keeps up I might have to switch parties.

fusillade762: Only certain people can get cash with them (disabled and the elderly, iirc) and it's a separate balance from the food benefits.


Then what's the use of restricting where you can pull cash?  It just creates regulatory overhead in that case.  Casinos and liquor stores I can almost understand, but why gun shops?It almost sounds like a compromise between a statist religious nanny and a statist 'for your own good' nanny.  Though as I think about it more the less sense the restrictions make.  For example, uniformed military members are banned from gambling.  However they're allowed to go to the buffets and such in Casinos.  Liquor stores are often attached to grocery stores, and even if not most people can get booze from convenience stores that aren't technically 'liquor stores'.

So I return to my basic policy of 'how much effort are we spending here?  For how much effect?  Don't bother, it's not worth it'.

abhorrent1: Because people on public assistance are known to be very responsible with their money.


But they're also highly creative on working around any restrictions placed on them to try to get them to be responsible.
 
2014-01-16 06:24:59 AM  

markfara: How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.


Because the government is giving them money that happens to be on a card and not food stamps?
Do you think that groups such as the disabled only buy food with their benefits?  Even if you don't think they should ever have any entertainment, that also means no clothes, rent, utilities, health costs....
How about those on unemployment insurance?  It's insurance.  We don't know what they have saved or not.  It's time limited.  Why even care what they buy?  It's the same amount of money regardless.
 
2014-01-16 06:26:03 AM  

ErinPac: 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.

They aren't talking about just a food stamp card.  You can't use SNAP at ATM's.  Yes, some people get cash benefits, whether they also get food stamps or not.  Here, unemployment benefits also use the same card (in addition to disability, welfare, etc), so I imagine the same location restrictions apply.


So, in other words, an EBT card ensures that the recipient has "spending cash" while at the same time keeping the food funds safe?
 
2014-01-16 06:27:34 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.


Not exclusively. EBT cards are used to disperse a wide number of public benefits, not just food stamps.

scottydoesntknow: Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?


Nothing.

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.


The pot industry supported the bill as a sort of, "fine, who cares" thing because they don't want the Republicans to be able to use this non-issue in campaigning against them.
 
2014-01-16 06:31:00 AM  
I have absolutely no problem with someone who is disabled by chronic (heh) crippling pain using their EBT for edibles to find relief. In fact I would look own upon anyone that would go out of their way to make sure these poor folks can't find relief, however temporary it may be. I know from experience that weed can go a long way towards relieving severe pain. I've had screws placed into my feet to put some bones back together after surgery. I've had a tib/fib that left the fib in a dozen pieces. Broken rib. wrist, etc. etc. An I sweat pot was as helpful as the oxycontin I was prescribed. People in pain should be able to help themselves however they can.
 
2014-01-16 06:31:58 AM  

ErinPac: markfara: How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.

Because the government is giving them money that happens to be on a card and not food stamps?
Do you think that groups such as the disabled only buy food with their benefits?  Even if you don't think they should ever have any entertainment, that also means no clothes, rent, utilities, health costs....
How about those on unemployment insurance?  It's insurance.  We don't know what they have saved or not.  It's time limited.  Why even care what they buy?  It's the same amount of money regardless.


I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.
 
2014-01-16 06:38:09 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.


On the one hand, this.

On the other hand, a good Rand worshipper should appreciate that one party is pushing back against regulations that will hurt capitalists.

On the gripping hand, allowing people on welfare to stay stoned on pot might not be a bad idea.
 
2014-01-16 06:39:11 AM  
Of course you can.  There's a Democrat in the White House.
 
2014-01-16 06:40:41 AM  

Firethorn: Then what's the use of restricting where you can pull cash? It just creates regulatory overhead in that case. Casinos and liquor stores I can almost understand, but why gun shops?It almost sounds like a compromise between a statist religious nanny and a statist 'for your own good' nanny. Though as I think about it more the less sense the restrictions make. For example, uniformed military members are banned from gambling. However they're allowed to go to the buffets and such in Casinos. Liquor stores are often attached to grocery stores, and even if not most people can get booze from convenience stores that aren't technically 'liquor stores'.


Basically because it makes for good media coverage and gets people raging about how the poor spending their tax money even though the only effect it might have is making it less convenient to find an ATM at all in certain neighborhoods.  Once they do get the cash, they cannot control where it is spent.  The liquor rule in particular would probably eliminate some relatively isolated and close to neighborhood locations.  I've seen some gas station quick mart/liquor stores that might count and not have a lot of other ATM's around.  In some of the poorer areas of the city, that's the easiest place to find an ATM.  But, the rule plays well for attention.

The casino one is the only one that really makes sense to me, and that's because if you have any sort of addiction going on, at least you have to leave the location before you continue, which might keep it a tad less impulsive.  Though, that would probably apply about as much to people not on any assistance.

The military stuff is different.  They have a lot of rules that are intended to make sure they look respectable and non-partisan in military uniform.  A lot of those go away when out of uniform.  That's more akin to an employer with rules about tarnishing their image or using a competitor's product while on duty.  I think the only gambling rule that stays in place out of uniform is don't bet against your subordinates, and there are a lot of rules about money/gifts and ranks which are similar.  They don't stop gambling entirely though - there's even slot machines in some base's officer's clubs.
 
2014-01-16 06:46:52 AM  

scottydoesntknow: Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?


There are two different types of EBT accounts.  The most common is a food assistance account, which is basically the old food stamps program.  The other account is welfare.  Rather than go through the expense of giving poor people two different cards, for two different programs they run off the same card.  Your food stamp card can only be used to buy approved grocery items, which are basically anything not cooked in the store, or that contains alcohol.  Your welfare account can be used almost like a regular debit card, but it won't let you buy alcohol, cigarettes, and you are not supposed to gamble with the money, or blow it on strippers.  However, you can use an ATM to pull out cash then turn around and spend it.  Colorado doesn't let you use ATMs inside liquor stores, gun shops, or strip clubs it seems.

In Florida, you can use your EBT card on any ATM you want, regardless of its location, and a sizable number gets used on ATMs in or right outside strip clubs, bars and liquor stores.  I forget the exact percent, but there was as local news story about it a while back, and I want to say it was something like 20 percent.  Coincidently, ATMs in those locations normally charge a hell of a lot more money for the user fee.  I've seen an ATM outside a nightclub charge a ten dollar fee, so even though EBT users can still walk across the street to an ATM, the rule does protect them from some impulse buying, as well as predatory ATM fees.
 
2014-01-16 06:47:18 AM  

markfara: ErinPac: markfara: How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.

Because the government is giving them money that happens to be on a card and not food stamps?
Do you think that groups such as the disabled only buy food with their benefits?  Even if you don't think they should ever have any entertainment, that also means no clothes, rent, utilities, health costs....
How about those on unemployment insurance?  It's insurance.  We don't know what they have saved or not.  It's time limited.  Why even care what they buy?  It's the same amount of money regardless.

I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.


You can get your Social Security benefits on a card.  Do you think she'd need to be protected from using the wrong ATM's if she switched to that option?  I wouldn't be surprised if eventually people had to choose between the card and direct deposit.  A lot of benefits have gone that way to save costs.
 
2014-01-16 06:47:21 AM  

AngryDragon: Of course you can.  There's a Democrat in the White House.


Yes, dear, of course there is.
Bless your heart.
 
2014-01-16 06:49:07 AM  
This reminds me of one of the weirdest pieces of conservative humor I've ever seen:  the "It's Free, Swipe Yo' EBT" rap video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII#t=18s

"Free housing free daycare free clothes
this is where the tax payer money goes.."

"But all you have to do is fark...
and nine months later you're getting the big bucks..."

/gonna be in my head all day now, dammit
 
2014-01-16 06:52:05 AM  

ErinPac: You can get your Social Security benefits on a card.  Do you think she'd need to be protected from using the wrong ATM's if she switched to that option?


No. But I don't really place Social Security in the "government handout" category, since she paid into it for years. She can have it all converted to dimes and throw them at the pigeons for all I care.
 
2014-01-16 06:52:12 AM  
markfara:

So, in other words, an EBT card ensures that the recipient has "spending cash" while at the same time keeping the food funds safe?

It's not necessarily connected to any food funds.  The person might get both, or might not.  It depends on the program.  If they get cash though, it's cash, just like any other cash they'd get.
 
2014-01-16 06:54:17 AM  
This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies". Why don't we just give them a monthly drug allowance as well?
 
2014-01-16 06:56:37 AM  

markfara: ErinPac: You can get your Social Security benefits on a card.  Do you think she'd need to be protected from using the wrong ATM's if she switched to that option?

No. But I don't really place Social Security in the "government handout" category, since she paid into it for years. She can have it all converted to dimes and throw them at the pigeons for all I care.


I wouldn't worry too much about disability or unemployment check spending either, but they use the same EBT card (at least here).

Cash is cash.

Most of the programs that give cash really weren't designed to babysit the beneficiaries budgets.

Even if it were just the money for poor single mothers or something similar...  the most you can really do is make them play games about what ATM to use or they use it on utilities and such... so they can spend any other money wherever they want.  It's at best a shell game.  Money is money and these sort of feel good rules are just useless fluff.
 
2014-01-16 06:58:01 AM  

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".

Why don't we just give them a monthly drug allowance as well?

We sort of do in many instances, I suspect.
 
2014-01-16 06:58:34 AM  

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.
 
2014-01-16 07:01:38 AM  

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". Why don't we just give them a monthly drug allowance as well?


Those damned evil 1% won't cough up more money for taxes is why come!
 
2014-01-16 07:01:43 AM  

Laobaojun: On the other hand, a good Rand worshipper should appreciate that one party is pushing back against regulations that will hurt capitalists.


Less a Randroid than a 'practical minarchist'.  I don't care that this 'will hurt capitalists' - the money will be spent one way or another.  What I care about is that I see the regulation being ineffective, taking what, 5-10 minutes to bypass, with probably quite a bit of regulatory overhead, as you now have to categories ATMs and the cards that go in them to deny transations in 'bad locations'.
 
2014-01-16 07:02:59 AM  

ErinPac: markfara: ErinPac: You can get your Social Security benefits on a card.  Do you think she'd need to be protected from using the wrong ATM's if she switched to that option?

No. But I don't really place Social Security in the "government handout" category, since she paid into it for years. She can have it all converted to dimes and throw them at the pigeons for all I care.

I wouldn't worry too much about disability or unemployment check spending either, but they use the same EBT card (at least here).

Cash is cash.

Most of the programs that give cash really weren't designed to babysit the beneficiaries budgets.

Even if it were just the money for poor single mothers or something similar...  the most you can really do is make them play games about what ATM to use or they use it on utilities and such... so they can spend any other money wherever they want.  It's at best a shell game.  Money is money and these sort of feel good rules are just useless fluff.


There's a lot to what you're saying, really. I had a part-time job in a convenience store a few years back, and it wasn't at all uncommon to have someone buy "food" with their food stamps and use their "cash cash" for cheap beer.

The only real alternative that I can see is to let them flounder, which might make a certain segment of society feel all tingly but would create far more trouble for us all in the long run.
 
2014-01-16 07:07:43 AM  
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.
 
2014-01-16 07:11:27 AM  

ErinPac: The military stuff is different. They have a lot of rules that are intended to make sure they look respectable and non-partisan in military uniform. A lot of those go away when out of uniform. That's more akin to an employer with rules about tarnishing their image or using a competitor's product while on duty. I think the only gambling rule that stays in place out of uniform is don't bet against your subordinates, and there are a lot of rules about money/gifts and ranks which are similar. They don't stop gambling entirely though - there's even slot machines in some base's officer's clubs.


I was using it as an example - I meant 'in uniform' - IE you're not allowed to gamble off base while in uniform.  But you are allowed to walk through the casino gambling area to reach the buffet for lunch.  And yes, it's an image thing.

Same deal with the other rules, I agree they're mostly about image.

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". Why don't we just give them a monthly drug allowance as well?


England ran a quite successful anti-drug program in regard to Heroin doing essentially this for decades; it's when they stopped providing 'free' drugs to addicts that the black market dealers managed to get a real foothold there.

profplump: 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.


Could have been one of the employees using the handiest ATM...  Or do they have proof that the money was withdrawn and then spent there?
 
2014-01-16 07:12:07 AM  

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 think that idea chaps the asses of most thinking people. I'd love to have a system that wouldn't be subject to that kind of abuse, but I can't think of one that wouldn't involve harming people who really do use public assistance responsibly. Any ideas?
 
2014-01-16 07:12:37 AM  

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.


Bread and circuses,  man.  And pot makes everything a circus.  No wonder the Republicans are backing this, stoned Democrats are less likely to get to the voting booths.
 
2014-01-16 07:17:55 AM  

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.


Because someone on Unemployment should never drink or smoke. My god. If you want a revolution, target a bunch of working class people who have time on their hands. The movement to stop people from applying for unemployment in person was done to stop them from networking.

Also, when I was on unemployment, I often used the ATM at the corner bar. Why?

Because it was 3 miles closer to my house and the cheapest ATM in the county. They charged $2 and the next closest ATM charged $3.50.
 
2014-01-16 07:18:11 AM  

markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.


To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.
 
2014-01-16 07:18:15 AM  

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.
 
2014-01-16 07:18:56 AM  

kitsuneymg: markfara: How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.

I think only certain classes of people on EBT can get cash. People who aren't on welfare but on some other system like SS or disability. It would actually make sense to let people who are disabled and have some sort of chronic pain buy pot. I mean, if you have medical infrastructure already in place, it doesn't make as much sense, but there is some.

Further, I don't actually want them to pass a special law. An ATM is an ATM. It shouldn't matter where it's located. Banning them from using ATMs that happen to be in pot stores is just arbitrary and stupid. As someone else said, they can go to the 7-11 across teh street and use that ATM, so it solves nothing. The argument over who should be able to use EBT cards in ATMs and how much they should be able to get and at what rate is a completely separate argument.


SS is a federal program not linked to EBT, because EBT is a state controlled program.  The SS department just sends a check or direct deposit.  Agreed, that there really isn't need to fuss about folks using ATMs.  However, if they allowed pot on the food stamp program, the federal government would likely shut the whole thing down.  Cutting funding to control the situation is how the federal government rolls.
 
2014-01-16 07:19:55 AM  

AngryDragon: Of course you can.  There's a Democrat in the White House.


Is this some racist, blacks and drugs thing? I don't get it.
 
2014-01-16 07:23:38 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.


MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.
 
2014-01-16 07:24:01 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: AngryDragon: Of course you can.  There's a Democrat in the White House.

Is this some racist, blacks and drugs thing? I don't get it.


Everybody needs to have their existence acknowledged by their fellow human beings. If the only way you can do that is butt into conversations you can't comprehend and say something pointless and stupid, that's what you do.
 
2014-01-16 07:24:42 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".

Why don't we just give them a monthly drug allowance as well?

We sort of do in many instances, I suspect.


Yeah, medicare.
 
2014-01-16 07:26:05 AM  

jso2897: Uchiha_Cycliste: AngryDragon: Of course you can.  There's a Democrat in the White House.

Is this some racist, blacks and drugs thing? I don't get it.

Everybody needs to have their existence acknowledged by their fellow human beings. If the only way you can do that is butt into conversations you can't comprehend and say something pointless and stupid, that's what you do.


And damned if I don; t o it really good like... but what issue do you have with me asking for clarification? Am I not allowed to ask someone to explain their comment?
 
2014-01-16 07:26:11 AM  

jso2897: 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 cost


citation needed.

Look, some states have sales taxes which exempt most "food".  Tax exempt food is well defined.  That banana you see in the store?  It's not taxed.  That Hershey bar is taxed.   It may not be a perfect system, but it is pretty good.  If we can do that then we can prevent tax dollars from going towards booze or pot or tobacco at the very least.
 
2014-01-16 07:27:42 AM  

markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.


That's great (that she was privy to proper budgeting). If only we could teach kids these days to do the same, and as long as we are dreaming, the GOP too.
 
2014-01-16 07:31:00 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I have absolutely no problem with someone who is disabled by chronic (heh) crippling pain using their EBT for edibles to find relief. In fact I would look own upon anyone that would go out of their way to make sure these poor folks can't find relief, however temporary it may be. I know from experience that weed can go a long way towards relieving severe pain. I've had screws placed into my feet to put some bones back together after surgery. I've had a tib/fib that left the fib in a dozen pieces. Broken rib. wrist, etc. etc. An I sweat pot was as helpful as the oxycontin I was prescribed. People in pain should be able to help themselves however they can.

tibs fibs and ribs.... damn, some BBQ and you are set.


yeah, but we gotta wait for Lucifer's Hammer to justify it =/
 
2014-01-16 07:31:09 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.

That's great (that she was privy to proper budgeting). If only we could teach kids these days to do the same, and as long as we are dreaming, the GOP too.


Hey! They're the Party of Fiscal Responsibility! Why do you hate fiscal responsibility?
 
2014-01-16 07:32:24 AM  

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.


Not all benefit programs give money, and perhaps not all benefit programs should.  There are different reasons and different benefits.  Some do include money.

Once you give them money though, how do you expect the government to babysit what they spend it on?  It's money.  It's not monopoly money or little coupons.  If it's something legal to purchase in the state, then money tends to work for it, and nobody usually asks where the money came from or why or accepts some money and not others.

If you want to worry about what its spent on, it might be more productive to argue in favor of housing assistance, utility assistance, food stamps, etc. rather than trying to analyze some media piece about what might happen to cash.

At most, you make it really really annoying to find an 'acceptable' ATM, at which point they pretty much need to withdraw all their cash to avoid traveling that far out of the way again, and then they have their whole month's cash in their pockets at once while they go back home...   and surely no problems will ever come from that.

Seriously, if they are an addict, of any sort, making them use a different ATM won't change that.  It may not be ideal in all situations, but if you're going to give people cash, then it's probably best to realize it is cash and can be used like other cash.  We don't have programs to babysit a poor person's entire budget, and that would probably be quite costly.... and I still don't see how you'd stop them from using any other cash how they wanted, even if that were desirable... you could not have that sort of control without making them into prisoner's, basically.

At some point, if they skimp on utilities, clothes and food for alcohol or any other vice or intoxicant...  I don't think a better babysitter is going to make them more successful for long.  Either they're going to fail or they really can manage to keep the vice in control and are fine anyways, and are presumably getting buy on less than what society thinks is the appropriate benefit.

Then there's things like disability payments...  I don't particularly want to argue to some disabled guy who will never work again that he shouldn't be permitted to drink or smoke away the pain.  Not really my business, and it probably isn't the thing somehow preventing him from becoming not disabled.
 
2014-01-16 07:32:41 AM  

gfid: jso2897: 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 cost

citation needed.

Look, some states have sales taxes which exempt most "food".  Tax exempt food is well defined.  That banana you see in the store?  It's not taxed.  That Hershey bar is taxed.   It may not be a perfect system, but it is pretty good.  If we can do that then we can prevent tax dollars from going towards booze or pot or tobacco at the very least.


Citation? Dude - Im not teaching a seminar here - I'm just answering another person's musing with thoughts of my own.
I don't really know what you are on about. The fact is that some of the income that some people on "welfare" get is going to be spent at their own discretion. I happen to think that that is as it should be, but you're free to disagree. As i stated - i think your "concern" about wasting government money could be better applied elsewhere - but that's just my opinion too.
If you are looking for some big long stupid "Fark debate", you are going to need to have that with somebody else.
 
2014-01-16 07:34:30 AM  

markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.

That's great (that she was privy to proper budgeting). If only we could teach kids these days to do the same, and as long as we are dreaming, the GOP too.

Hey! They're the Party of Fiscal Responsibility! Why do you hate fiscal responsibility?


My bad, you are right... it was totally Clinton and Obama's fault we went Trillions of dollars into debt between 2000 and 2008. How stupid of me. At least we can count on the GOP and their laser like ocus on creating new jobs.
 
2014-01-16 07:37:49 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.

That's great (that she was privy to proper budgeting). If only we could teach kids these days to do the same, and as long as we are dreaming, the GOP too.

Hey! They're the Party of Fiscal Responsibility! Why do you hate fiscal responsibility?

My bad, you are right... it was totally Clinton and Obama's fault we went Trillions of dollars into debt between 2000 and 2008. How stupid of me. At least we can count on the GOP and their laser like ocus on creating new jobs.


They protected us from Saddam's WMDs and brought stability to the region, too. You're obviously a Marxist ingrate! Why don't you just go get gay-married someplace and leave the rest of us alone!

;-)
 
2014-01-16 07:39:02 AM  

Goimir: 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.

Because someone on Unemployment should never drink or smoke. My god. If you want a revolution, target a bunch of working class people who have time on their hands. The movement to stop people from applying for unemployment in person was done to stop them from networking.

Also, when I was on unemployment, I often used the ATM at the corner bar. Why?

Because it was 3 miles closer to my house and the cheapest ATM in the county. They charged $2 and the next closest ATM charged $3.50.


Someone who spends that money on cigarettes or booze does so at the expense of someone who needs that money for basic necessities. That should bother you.
 
2014-01-16 07:40:18 AM  
Far be it from me to screw with the snark by being the voice of reason here, but some people in Colorado with EBT cards are not actually on government assistance at all.  IF you are collecting child support via your county enforcement office, it is my understanding that you have to option of having that cash on an EBT card if you are unbanked.  It is then accessible via ATM's, or can be used at the check out counter at a store, where you can also request cash, just like for any other debit card transaction.  (I do not know this is the case for sure, but it is what I was told when Colorado was trying (unsuccessfully) to obtain for me the 9 years of back child support that my ex-husband currently owes my son.)
 
2014-01-16 07:41:01 AM  

markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.

That's great (that she was privy to proper budgeting). If only we could teach kids these days to do the same, and as long as we are dreaming, the GOP too.

Hey! They're the Party of Fiscal Responsibility! Why do you hate fiscal responsibility?

My bad, you are right... it was totally Clinton and Obama's fault we went Trillions of dollars into debt between 2000 and 2008. How stupid of me. At least we can count on the GOP and their laser like ocus on creating new jobs.

They protected us from Saddam's WMDs and brought stability to the region, too. You're obviously a Marxist ingrate! Why don't you just go get gay-married someplace and leave the rest of us alone!

;-)


I WAS at Berkeley during the ramp up to the Iraq war. We were pretty gung-ho about it being a stupid idea even before the war started and we made sure our voices were heard, albeit ignored. We never protested Afghanistan though, that was righteous. Anyways, I guess you hit the nail on the head =P
 
2014-01-16 07:42:10 AM  
I would imagine there's also quite a few hookers taking EBT cards. Oh, but prostitution is illegal... my bad.
 
2014-01-16 07:42:25 AM  

GoldSpider: Goimir: 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.

Because someone on Unemployment should never drink or smoke. My god. If you want a revolution, target a bunch of working class people who have time on their hands. The movement to stop people from applying for unemployment in person was done to stop them from networking.

Also, when I was on unemployment, I often used the ATM at the corner bar. Why?

Because it was 3 miles closer to my house and the cheapest ATM in the county. They charged $2 and the next closest ATM charged $3.50.

Someone who spends that money on cigarettes or booze does so at the expense of someone who needs that money for basic necessities. That should bother you.


So are you saying that no recipient of any of the myriad  forms of "welfare" should have any discretionary income?
Or do you wish to redefine the word "discretionary?"
 
2014-01-16 07:42:50 AM  

jso2897: Everybody needs to have their existence acknowledged by their fellow human beings. If the only way you can do that is butt into conversations you can't comprehend and say something pointless and stupid, that's what you do.


I think I finally understand Kanye West...
 
2014-01-16 07:45:09 AM  

RobSeace: jso2897: Everybody needs to have their existence acknowledged by their fellow human beings. If the only way you can do that is butt into conversations you can't comprehend and say something pointless and stupid, that's what you do.

I think I finally understand Kanye West...


Hey, you didn't need to just trail off like that -- I was going to let you finish.
 
2014-01-16 07:47:17 AM  

jso2897: gfid: jso2897: 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 cost

citation needed.

Look, some states have sales taxes which exempt most "food".  Tax exempt food is well defined.  That banana you see in the store?  It's not taxed.  That Hershey bar is taxed.   It may not be a perfect system, but it is pretty good.  If we can do that then we can prevent tax dollars from going towards booze or pot or tobacco at the very least.

Citation? Dude - Im not teaching a seminar here - I'm just answering another person's musing with thoughts of my own.
I don't really know what you are on about. The fact is that some of the income that some people on "welfare" get is going to be spent at their own discretion. I happen to think that that is as it should be, but you're free to disagree. As i stated - i think your "concern" about wasting government money could be better applied elsewhere - but that's just my opinion too.
If you are looking for some big long stupid "Fark debate", you are going to need to have that with somebody else.


lol, ok.  So you just pulled something out of your ass and don't care to back it up;  At least you're honest about it.  Good for you.
 
2014-01-16 07:47:21 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: 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.

you can treat pot as medicine or recreational, but regardless of how it is treated, it should not be covered under the food portion of WIC period. If someone gets Cash assistance as well, then without a doctor's prescription, it should not be covered there either - it should be treated the same as alcohol and cigarettes (ie; not covered)... If a doctors prescription is involved, then it should be covered under the Cash side only (if applicable). I think that would be a fair balance... This way you are not covering it for recreational purposes, but are covering it for medicinal purposes only as it is truly effective for certain conditions.


WIC and SNAP are two different things moron. WIC is a voucher for specific, nutritionally sound foods (such as milk, cheese, peanut butter, baby formula) provided to pregnant women, infants and toddlers up to 5 years of age.  People well up into the middle class range qualify.  SNAP is what used to be called food stamps, and it can not be used for anything but food (and in many states there have been new restrictions put on it, such as in my state, where they have signs up in the stores reminding SNAP users that they can't buy energy drinks with it.)
 
2014-01-16 07:48:50 AM  

jso2897: gfid: jso2897: 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 cost

citation needed.

Look, some states have sales taxes which exempt most "food".  Tax exempt food is well defined.  That banana you see in the store?  It's not taxed.  That Hershey bar is taxed.   It may not be a perfect system, but it is pretty good.  If we can do that then we can prevent tax dollars from going towards booze or pot or tobacco at the very least.

Citation? Dude - Im not teaching a seminar here - I'm just answering another person's musing with thoughts of my own.
I don't really know what you are on about. The fact is that some of the income that some people on "welfare" get is going to be spent at their own discretion. I happen to think that that is as it should be, but you're free to disagree. As i stated - i think your "concern" about wasting government money could be better applied elsewhere - but that's just my opinion too.
If you are looking for some big long stupid "Fark debate", you are going to need to have that with somebody else.


I think it's also worth noting that by allowing one's discretionary funds to be spent at one's discretion you both: save a boat load on not trying to micro-manage the finances of tens of millions of folk AND you help these poor folks feel like their are being treated as adults I would find it insulting and discouraging to know there was some government stooge looking over my shoulder for every purchase I made. It would make it that much harder to try to get back on my feet.
 
2014-01-16 07:49:09 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.


That's not exactly true.  The purpose is to electronically transfer money without having to send a check.  People can get benefits from the government for many things other than food stamps.
 
2014-01-16 07:49:29 AM  
What is with all the people who freak out at the thought of people's benefits being used for something other than food and rent? How are people supposed to buy clothes or have emergency bus or cab fare or buy a book at a garage sale or snag a street vendor hot dog while hunting down job leads, etc...?

Yes, even poor people need cash sometimes. YOU go a couple months where the only thing you have to barter with is some bananas, a jar of peanut butter and a ten pound bag of rice.

Dickheads.
 
2014-01-16 07:51:09 AM  
Pfft.
Only stupid people pay taxes.
The smart ones are on either side of the spectrum.


/discuss
 
2014-01-16 07:51:53 AM  

here to help: What is with all the people who freak out at the thought of people's benefits being used for something other than food and rent? How are people supposed to buy clothes or have emergency bus or cab fare or buy a book at a garage sale or snag a street vendor hot dog while hunting down job leads, etc...?

Yes, even poor people need cash sometimes. YOU go a couple months where the only thing you have to barter with is some bananas, a jar of peanut butter and a ten pound bag of rice.

Dickheads.


I literally laughed out loud...woke my dog up, thanks a lot. :)
 
2014-01-16 07:52:57 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.


Thanks for showing everyone how much of an idiot you are.  EBT does not mean just food stamps.  That's why everyone gets pissed off at people when they say shiat like "I saw this person buying (insert outrage item here) with his food stamp card."  Guess what maybe it wasn't food stamps and it could have been a whole host of other things that come on that universal card.
 
2014-01-16 07:54:11 AM  

jso2897: GoldSpider: Goimir: 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.

Because someone on Unemployment should never drink or smoke. My god. If you want a revolution, target a bunch of working class people who have time on their hands. The movement to stop people from applying for unemployment in person was done to stop them from networking.

Also, when I was on unemployment, I often used the ATM at the corner bar. Why?

Because it was 3 miles closer to my house and the cheapest ATM in the county. They charged $2 and the next closest ATM charged $3.50.

Someone who spends that money on cigarettes or booze does so at the expense of someone who needs that money for basic necessities. That should bother you.

So are you saying that no recipient of any of the myriad  forms of "welfare" should have any discretionary income?
Or do you wish to redefine the word "discretionary?"


"Need" is kind of the opposite of "discretionary", wouldn't you say?

We as taxpayers should ensure that everyone's basic needs are met. Our ability to do that is hindered by people who waste those funds on other things.
 
2014-01-16 07:54:48 AM  

Resident Muslim: Pfft.
Only stupid people pay taxes.
The smart ones are on either side of the spectrum.


/discuss


Only assholes go far out of their way to avoid the taxes they owe. Taxes are important and are necessary to keep the government and the country running smoothly. Further, even Jesus commanded "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" So not only are they selfish assholes they are bad Christians.

What do you have to say to that? =P
 
2014-01-16 07:55:22 AM  

Teresaol31: People well up into the middle class range qualify


I'm not sure how true that is - define "middle class" for us first, but if what I consider middle class is receiving government assistance I see that as a problem.  That's when they have to realize that maybe they can't afford a boat or another child or that new car.  Live within your means.  That goes for Republicans too.
 
2014-01-16 07:55:25 AM  
in other words, just because you can, doesn't mean you should
 
2014-01-16 07:55:44 AM  
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you have concluded that not even one single nickel of "welfare money" (however you define that) shall be spent on recreational substances. OK.
Now - how many nickels are you willing to spend to keep how many nickels from getting spent that way?
Because money spent on administration also doesn't go to needy people, and also comes out of our pockets.
Governor Scott's litle "experiment" in Florida is one indication of where that kind of thing can end up - admittedly a worst case scenario.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-01-13/news/fl-editorial-drug-t es ting-gs-20140113_1_drug-testing-law-welfare-applicants-drug-testing

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for -w elfare-is-struck-down.html

What neither article mentions is that apparently Scoot has financial connections to the company that was making bank doing the tests.

Again, a worst case scenario - but it's what lies at the end of that road.
 
2014-01-16 07:56:21 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.

That's great (that she was privy to proper budgeting). If only we could teach kids these days to do the same, and as long as we are dreaming, the GOP too.

Hey! They're the Party of Fiscal Responsibility! Why do you hate fiscal responsibility?

My bad, you are right... it was totally Clinton and Obama's fault we went Trillions of dollars into debt between 2000 and 2008. How stupid of me. At least we can count on the GOP and their laser like ocus on creating new jobs.

They protected us from Saddam's WMDs and brought stability to the region, too. You're obviously a Marxist ingrate! Why don't you just go get gay-married someplace and leave the rest of us alone!

;-)

I WAS at Berkeley during the ramp up to the Iraq war. We were pretty gung-ho about it being a stupid idea even before the war started and we made sure our voices were heard, albeit ignored. We never protested Afghanistan though, that was righteous. Anyways, I guess you hit the nail on the head =P


Yeah, I travel a fair amount, and I had occasion to witness, on two different occasions, TWO huge anti-Iraq war protests - one in Washington, D.C. and one in Chicago. Oddly, neither of them made even the local news. Damn that liberal media. . . .

Still, Obama's the worst president in history. So remember to vote GOP, ya hear?
 
2014-01-16 07:58:24 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Is this some racist, blacks and drugs thing? I don't get it.


jso2897: Everybody needs to have their existence acknowledged by their fellow human beings. If the only way you can do that is butt into conversations you can't comprehend and say something pointless and stupid, that's what you do.


Maybe I'm being too generous, but I'm pretty sure it's a reference to Grandpa Simpson's line about entitlements.

Bart Simpson: Didn't you wonder why you were getting checks for doing absolutely nothing?
Grampa: I figured 'cause the Democrats were in power again.


That, or the time he rattled off the years he was on welfare based on who was president.
 
2014-01-16 07:59:09 AM  

GoldSpider: jso2897: GoldSpider: Goimir: 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.

Because someone on Unemployment should never drink or smoke. My god. If you want a revolution, target a bunch of working class people who have time on their hands. The movement to stop people from applying for unemployment in person was done to stop them from networking.

Also, when I was on unemployment, I often used the ATM at the corner bar. Why?

Because it was 3 miles closer to my house and the cheapest ATM in the county. They charged $2 and the next closest ATM charged $3.50.

Someone who spends that money on cigarettes or booze does so at the expense of someone who needs that money for basic necessities. That should bother you.

So are you saying that no recipient of any of the myriad  forms of "welfare" should have any discretionary income?
Or do you wish to redefine the word "discretionary?"

"Need" is kind of the opposite of "discretionary", wouldn't you say?

We as taxpayers should ensure that everyone's basic needs are met. Our ability to do that is hindered by people who waste those funds on other things.


So you are saying that no recipient of any form of welfare should receive any discretionary income? Or not?
Yes or no?
 
2014-01-16 08:04:54 AM  

jso2897: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you have concluded that not even one single nickel of "welfare money" (however you define that) shall be spent on recreational substances. OK.
Now - how many nickels are you willing to spend to keep how many nickels from getting spent that way?
Because money spent on administration also doesn't go to needy people, and also comes out of our pockets.
Governor Scott's litle "experiment" in Florida is one indication of where that kind of thing can end up - admittedly a worst case scenario.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-01-13/news/fl-editorial-drug-t es ting-gs-20140113_1_drug-testing-law-welfare-applicants-drug-testing

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for -w elfare-is-struck-down.html

What neither article mentions is that apparently Scoot has financial connections to the company that was making bank doing the tests.

Again, a worst case scenario - but it's what lies at the end of that road.


Meh - I don't really have a problem with drug testing people receiving public assistance.  There does seem to be some corruption in Florida, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.  I'm not on government assistance, but in times of financial difficulties I sometimes go without weed.  It's just turrible, let me tell you.  Actually, it's fine.  I don't spend money that I don't have on weed that I don't need and life goes on.

And I pay taxes too so fark you if you're going to take my tax money and spend it on weed when I go without any because I'm actually managing my money and not collecting welfare.
 
2014-01-16 08:05:18 AM  

markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well.  I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.

That's great (that she was privy to proper budgeting). If only we could teach kids these days to do the same, and as long as we are dreaming, the GOP too.

Hey! They're the Party of Fiscal Responsibility! Why do you hate fiscal responsibility?

My bad, you are right... it was totally Clinton and Obama's fault we went Trillions of dollars into debt between 2000 and 2008. How stupid of me. At least we can count on the GOP and their laser like ocus on creating new jobs.

They protected us from Saddam's WMDs and brought stability to the region, too. You're obviously a Marxist ingrate! Why don't you just go get gay-married someplace and leave the rest of us alone!

;-)

I WAS at Berkeley during the ramp up to the Iraq war. We were pretty gung-ho about it being a stupid idea even before the war started and we made sure our voices were heard, albeit ignored. We never protested Afghanistan though, that was righteous. Anyways, I guess you hit the nail on the head =P

Yeah, I travel a fair amount, and I had occasion to witness, on two different occasions, TWO huge anti-Iraq war protests - one in Washington, D.C. and one in Chicago. Oddly, neither of them made even the local news. Damn liberal media. . . .

Still, Obama's the worst president in history. So remember to vote GOP, ya hear?


I know, right!?! He's so black, and he tries to be so fair, and responsible fiscally and otherwise. But he's so black and the debt he ran up for the nation in the years prior to his election are the final black nail in his black coffin. I'll never vote for Barrack Obama for president again, ever. Then again, that debt isn't half as damning a 9-11. I cant believe Obama allowed the worst terrorist attack evar to occur on hi watch What an awful, horrible black, man.
 
2014-01-16 08:06:05 AM  

gfid: jso2897: gfid: jso2897: 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 cost

citation needed.

Look, some states have sales taxes which exempt most "food".  Tax exempt food is well defined.  That banana you see in the store?  It's not taxed.  That Hershey bar is taxed.   It may not be a perfect system, but it is pretty good.  If we can do that then we can prevent tax dollars from going towards booze or pot or tobacco at the very least.

Citation? Dude - Im not teaching a seminar here - I'm just answering another person's musing with thoughts of my own.
I don't really know what you are on about. The fact is that some of the income that some people on "welfare" get is going to be spent at their own discretion. I happen to think that that is as it should be, but you're free to disagree. As i stated - i think your "concern" about wasting government money could be better applied elsewhere - but that's just my opinion too.
If you are looking for some big long stupid "Fark debate", you are going to need to have that with somebody else.

lol, ok.  So you just pulled something out of your ass and don't care to back it up;  At least you're honest about it.  Good for you.


What do you think I pulled out of my ass? The opinion that micromanaging welfare expenditures is not cost-efficient?
For an opinion I just pulled out of my ass, it's a pretty widespread opinion.
Why would you think I just pulled it out of my ass?
You seem to be more interesting in quarreling than in learning anything, or arguing any opinion of your own.
 
2014-01-16 08:08:16 AM  
ErinPac

....
The casino one is the only one that really makes sense to me, and that's because if you have any sort of addiction going on, at least you have to leave the location before you continue, which might keep it a tad less impulsive.  Though, that would probably apply about as much to people not on any assistance.

Here in MA they are going through "EBT reform". The cards were being used to buy cigarettes, alcohol, tattoos, lottery tickets,  being used in strip joints and at the casino over the boarder.  Many were being issued to dead people, Tens of thousands of the cards would be unaccounted for.  Small neighborhood stores would buy the cards from some people for pennies n the dollar,  The system is a mess.

I think to use the card you need a photo ID and the card be only used for food, clothing and shelter.
 
2014-01-16 08:09:03 AM  

skozlaw: Uchiha_Cycliste: Is this some racist, blacks and drugs thing? I don't get it.

jso2897: Everybody needs to have their existence acknowledged by their fellow human beings. If the only way you can do that is butt into conversations you can't comprehend and say something pointless and stupid, that's what you do.

Maybe I'm being too generous, but I'm pretty sure it's a reference to Grandpa Simpson's line about entitlements.

Bart Simpson: Didn't you wonder why you were getting checks for doing absolutely nothing?
Grampa: I figured 'cause the Democrats were in power again.

That, or the time he rattled off the years he was on welfare based on who was president.


I would love to give him the benefit of the doubt but it felt and smelled like a lame, lazy troll to me. So I gotta treat it as such;
 
2014-01-16 08:10:38 AM  
They should put photos on the EBT cards so people can use them vote.
 
2014-01-16 08:10:46 AM  
Gotta try to sleep I'll dive back in, in a few hours.
 
2014-01-16 08:11:23 AM  

gfid: jso2897: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you have concluded that not even one single nickel of "welfare money" (however you define that) shall be spent on recreational substances. OK.
Now - how many nickels are you willing to spend to keep how many nickels from getting spent that way?
Because money spent on administration also doesn't go to needy people, and also comes out of our pockets.
Governor Scott's litle "experiment" in Florida is one indication of where that kind of thing can end up - admittedly a worst case scenario.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-01-13/news/fl-editorial-drug-t es ting-gs-20140113_1_drug-testing-law-welfare-applicants-drug-testing

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for -w elfare-is-struck-down.html

What neither article mentions is that apparently Scoot has financial connections to the company that was making bank doing the tests.

Again, a worst case scenario - but it's what lies at the end of that road.

Meh - I don't really have a problem with drug testing people receiving public assistance.  There does seem to be some corruption in Florida, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.  I'm not on government assistance, but in times of financial difficulties I sometimes go without weed.  It's just turrible, let me tell you.  Actually, it's fine.  I don't spend money that I don't have on weed that I don't need and life goes on.

And I pay taxes too so fark you if you're going to take my tax money and spend it on weed when I go without any because I'm actually managing my money and not collecting welfare.


Well, it already does pretty much boil down to a matter of opinion. The meager savings just aren't worth it to me, and I have no desire to inflict my idea of morality on somebody else just because I pay taxes or some shiat.

I won't say "f**k you"  - I have more class than that. But I respectfully disagree, and will vote accordingly - and if that angers you - too bad.
 
2014-01-16 08:13:07 AM  

Onkel Buck: They should put photos on the EBT cards so people can use them vote.


Heh! :D
Good idea, but I have the sneaking suspicion there woukdn't be much GOP support for that one - not gonna make it out of the House.
 
2014-01-16 08:17:09 AM  
How come so many people only get righteous about this shiat when it's some poor little asshole getting a nickel or a dime?
Aside from it's childish superfluousness, the most puzzling aspect of the "moral" argument, to me, is that.
I REALLY don't get it.
 
2014-01-16 08:17:45 AM  

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).
 
2014-01-16 08:17:50 AM  
People wouldn't be spending your "hard earned" tax dollars on weed if they could grow it themselves without facing prosecution.
 
2014-01-16 08:19:45 AM  

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.
 
2014-01-16 08:24:42 AM  

jso2897: How come so many people only get righteous about this shiat when it's some poor little asshole getting a nickel or a dime?
Aside from it's childish superfluousness, the most puzzling aspect of the "moral" argument, to me, is that.
I REALLY don't get it.


Because people need someone that they can feel superior over and blame for all of society's problems. Since it's no longer fashionable to blame the blacks (at least in most places) the poor get the spotlight all to themselves.

There are more drug addicts and thieves running around in suits in our office buildings and out glad handing to get your votes than there are on the dole. They are also more likely to do the sh*tty expensive drugs like coke.
 
2014-01-16 08:24:44 AM  

jso2897: Onkel Buck: They should put photos on the EBT cards so people can use them vote.

Heh! :D
Good idea, but I have the sneaking suspicion there woukdn't be much GOP support for that one - not gonna make it out of the House.


I dont see why not, they're the ones pushing for voter ID. I know in NC that you can get an ID for free if you need one but for some reason the dems in this state are mad about that one freebie. I dont know if its because they didnt think about it first or their suddenly concerned about the cost of a freebie. Im sure the vans they use to take people to the polls will now be used to take people to the DMV because if they want to  "vote the bums out" they're going to need an ID to do it!
 
2014-01-16 08:25:11 AM  

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".
 
2014-01-16 08:27:02 AM  

Onkel Buck: jso2897: Onkel Buck: They should put photos on the EBT cards so people can use them vote.

Heh! :D
Good idea, but I have the sneaking suspicion there woukdn't be much GOP support for that one - not gonna make it out of the House.

I dont see why not, they're the ones pushing for voter ID. I know in NC that you can get an ID for free if you need one but for some reason the dems in this state are mad about that one freebie. I dont know if its because they didnt think about it first or their suddenly concerned about the cost of a freebie. Im sure the vans they use to take people to the polls will now be used to take people to the DMV because if they want to  "vote the bums out" they're going to need an ID to do it!


Because it would amount to telling a bunch of poors to go out and vote.
 
2014-01-16 08:27:03 AM  

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.
 
2014-01-16 08:30:12 AM  

GoldSpider: 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.


That happens all the time internally amongst the community and outwardly on a more subtle level by way of pushing for addiction centers and youth programs.

If the poverty activists started preaching that sh*t the poor bashers would f*cking CLING to it as PROOF that there is an epidemic of drug abuse and that all poors be locked up or sent to workhouses. Unfortunately this is a very political issue when it shouldn't be and open discussion like that would only backfire. You can thank the right's militancy and propaganda for that.
 
2014-01-16 08:31:43 AM  

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.
 
2014-01-16 08:33:34 AM  

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.


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.
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.
 
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?
 
2014-01-16 12:11:46 PM  

TNel: 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?


The bong. Put it down.

Roads, cops, Medicaid, schools, jails, parks, etcetera.
 
2014-01-16 12:14:51 PM  

TNel: 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?


Now now. I'm one of the most rabidly anti neocon dudes around but it is a valid point. Taxes are supposed to go to services which are constantly getting cut. Granted due to deficits all services could be cut and current tax rates likely wouldn't cover the interest on the debts so one could argue that getting ANY services is a luxury that cannot be afforded but then society would collapse.

The issue is mismanagement and waste of which there is plenty. The conservatives could easily focus SOLELY on these issues and win elections (if they actually did something about it) but they truly have no interest in that. They are just as bad or worse than the evil "tax and spend" libruls they cry about when it comes to waste. At least with librul govs you may actually get some relevant services in return instead of it all just getting funneled into the pockets of corporations, more toys for the military and for profit prisons.

Still they are all scumbags and some real patriots with some brains, common and fiscal sense and compassion for others who cannot be bribed or coerced need to step up.

Sadly that never happens anymore and when it does they have their characters assassinated or outright ACTUALLY assassinated.

Sad world.
 
2014-01-16 12:22:31 PM  

Gulper Eel: TNel: 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?

The bong. Put it down.

Roads, cops, Medicaid, schools, jails, parks, etcetera.


You own those?!  shiat how much do I owe you for using them?  You don't own those items just like you don't own the cops and teachers that tax money pays.  Taxes entitles you to nothing.
 
2014-01-16 12:25:36 PM  

here to help: Now now. I'm one of the most rabidly anti neocon dudes around but it is a valid point.


No it's not.  He uses the public infastructure which taxes pay for.  The amount of money that he has paid in over all the years probably ends up "owning" 100 feet of highway.  So cool go take it and now you are 100% responsible for all maintaince on it.  Pot holes, snow, everything.
 
2014-01-16 01:12:02 PM  
TNel:

.....Taxes entitles you to nothing.

And here we have a core belief of the Democratic party.
 
2014-01-16 01:16:38 PM  

Danger Mouse: And here we have a core belief of the Democratic party.


Taxes don't entitle you to anything, but, ignoring the inarguable fact of semantics, the implied meaning you intended didn't make any sense either.

So you're not even the best kind of correct.
 
2014-01-16 03:21:52 PM  
Hey look, more losers arguing over the scraps left over from the wealthy elite.

Dance! Dance!
 
2014-01-16 08:20:50 PM  

fusillade762: scottydoesntknow: Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?

Only certain people can get cash with them (disabled and the elderly, iirc) and it's a separate balance from the food benefits.


Not true.
 
2014-01-16 09:24:42 PM  

floyddabarber: fusillade762: scottydoesntknow: Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?

Only certain people can get cash with them (disabled and the elderly, iirc) and it's a separate balance from the food benefits.

Not true.


You could provide a link instead of simply saying "NUH-UH".
 
2014-01-16 10:02:54 PM  

fusillade762: floyddabarber: fusillade762: scottydoesntknow: Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?

Only certain people can get cash with them (disabled and the elderly, iirc) and it's a separate balance from the food benefits.

Not true.

You could provide a link instead of simply saying "NUH-UH".


The fact is you can't get cash from food stamps.  You can't even buy hot food with them. If you can get cash from an ATM with your EBT card then you can use it on anything that you can buy with cash.

This was true before cannabis was legal in the states where it is legal.  You could buy black tar heroin if you wanted, it just so happens that 99.8% of people who have cash benefits use them on mundane legal things like soap.

This is a NON ISSUE and just more FUD propaganda being spread because 'omg legal weeds!' + 'damn poors takin our monies!'.


"Last-place Aversion": Evidence and Redistributive Implications
  http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234
 
2014-01-17 06:47:49 AM  

lewismarktwo: 99.8% of people who have cash benefits use them on mundane legal things


Citation needed.

The official number on food-stamp fraud is 1.3%...sort of. The USDA says the loss rate is 4% when you throw in government fark-ups and people lying on applications along with fraud-by-misuse. That's better than the ~10% Medicare/Medicaid fraud rate, but saying you're doing better than that is like saying your favorite ballclub is better than the Astros.
 
2014-01-17 10:11:09 AM  

Gulper Eel: The official number on food-stamp fraud is 1.3%...sort of. The USDA says the loss rate is 4% when you throw in government fark-ups and people lying on applications along with fraud-by-misuse. That's better than the ~10% Medicare/Medicaid fraud rate, but saying you're doing better than that is like saying your favorite ballclub is better than the Astros.


I'd probably stick with 99% of people - with that 1.3% coming from the 1 in 200 or so that actively committing fraud doing so in a big way.  IE rather than fraud the system for the 'average' case, fake a few identities and kids and 'go big'.  Same with IRS refund fraud - millions of dollars worth of refunds directed to the same mailbox.
 
Displayed 162 of 162 comments

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