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
    More: Spiffy, EBT, lists of places, Colorado, welfare programs  
•       •       •

4000 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2014 at 5:20 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-16 07:18:15 AM  
5 votes:

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 07:24:01 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:12:02 PM  
1 vote:

.....Taxes entitles you to nothing.

And here we have a core belief of the Democratic party.
2014-01-16 11:10:26 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:37:22 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:03:11 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:00:35 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:22:25 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:19:19 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:15:05 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:54:52 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:17:50 AM  
1 vote:
People wouldn't be spending your "hard earned" tax dollars on weed if they could grow it themselves without facing prosecution.
2014-01-16 07:52:57 AM  
1 vote:

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 07:49:29 AM  
1 vote:
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.

2014-01-16 06:58:34 AM  
1 vote:

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 06:24:18 AM  
1 vote:
<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 06:23:03 AM  
1 vote:

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 02:43:23 AM  
1 vote:

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.
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.