Discussion
  • Read More
    ToadYouOnceToadYouTwiceAshley Feinberg
    4/07/15 6:23pm

    I'm a bleeding heart progressive, but I kind of agree with a lot of these...

    Like, I think it's ok to spend the money on a movie ticket, swimming pool, or arcade, but I dunno about:

    • Theme parks
    • Jewelry stores
    • Spas/nail salons
    • Lingerie shops
    • Psychics or fortune telling businesses
    • Lottery tickets
    • Concert tickets
    • Sporting events


    To me, welfare assistance is supposed to help with the necessities (clothing, shelter, food, maybe even small change fun, or educational fun like museums), so I don't think it's cruel to ban the use of tax payer dollars on things that are A. downright frivolous and silly (lottery tickets and psychics) and B. Things that I can only afford if I work hard to put the money away and save (Theme parks, Jewelry, Spas, Concerts, etc.).

    I guess what I'm trying to say is: I'm all for folks on welfare assistance using that money toward necessities, so they can save the money they earn for the extras.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PootypootsToadYouOnceToadYouTwice
      4/07/15 6:57pm

      Well that's kind of obvious Dingle. No one is for people pissing away money that they should otherwise be putting to better uses when they have so little of it and it isn't earned to begin with.

      But that isn't the point of this legislation because generally when you have a very finite amount of money to budget out you don't blow it on theme park tickets. Hell most of the time you can even use that government assistance on anything but necessities as it is. It serves no other purpose than to further dehumanize the poorest of poor people.

      Its shitty legislation pushed by shitty legislators who are only trying to fulfill the interests of their shitty constituents. Kansas is a shitty place with shitty people.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BigPlopsToadYouOnceToadYouTwice
      4/07/15 6:58pm

      why should any of that be up to you?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Orlandu7Ashley Feinberg
    4/07/15 6:24pm

    Don't forget the part where that $497 monthly max for a family has to now be withdrawn at a maximum rate of $25 per day, meaning the family struggling to keep the lights on and feed their children now has to spend 20 days out of every 30 just trying to actually collect the handout before they can actually use it on anything. God forbid they actually have to take the bus or a cab to get to a store.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      whirlygirlyOrlandu7
      4/07/15 6:29pm

      And it'll cost them money to make those withdrawals too, 85 cents per transaction after the first one plus any additional ATM fees.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BrotherFromAnotherMotherOrlandu7
      4/07/15 6:29pm

      It's their own fault for being poor. They've got bootstraps.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    WIncredulous is with her!Ashley Feinberg
    4/07/15 8:13pm

    Okay. Seriously. I worked in Child Support Enforcement and Public Assistance. THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL HOW PEOPLE ARE SPENDING THESE FUNDS.

    There is no way to enforce this bullshit. You'd spend a thousand dollars to track one dollar.

    <sets self on fire and runs off cliff, screaming about idiot conservatives>

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      JackAstersonWIncredulous is with her!
      4/07/15 8:28pm

      This only really works with the cards.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      WIncredulous is with her!JackAsterson
      4/07/15 9:03pm

      I am unsure what you're trying to say. Even with EBT cards (for food stamps) I don't know that they record purchases, and if they do, who will be paid to review them? As a child support enforcement worker, you have no idea how many times I got calls related to "s/he is not spending that money for the kids!" It would cost millions to review these things, are your taxes going to pay for it? These are just blowhard politicians trying to placate their voter base, they no clue how these programs work.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    burnervonbehrnerAshley Feinberg
    4/07/15 6:16pm

    Welfare should be a temporary hand-up from those that earn the money to those that need help. It should NOT be a lifestyle choice for generations.

    That is morally and economically unsustainable.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ARP2burnervonbehrner
      4/07/15 6:22pm

      Damn right. Just so I know how many people to be angry at? What percentage of the population is on long term assistance, is not caring for a disabled relative, and is of working age?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Emerald D.V.burnervonbehrner
      4/07/15 6:24pm

      It should NOT be a lifestyle choice for generations.

      The program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. "Welfare" hasn't existed since Bill Clinton and the Republicans killed it in the 90s. These days, government welfare is only a lifestyle choice for corporations.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    McRosieAshley Feinberg
    4/07/15 6:17pm

    I wonder if the lawmakers who come up with this stuff understand that there's a finite amount of money each of these families gets. So if they spend their $300 or whatever on 100 ice cream cones, then they have to come up with the rent money somewhere else. And if they don't they'll be homeless and maybe hopefully die and reduce the surplus population, amirite?

    As opposed to, say, the Iraq war which was just a limitless ATM that never stopped being replenished. In its heyday we were blowing about 3 BILLION dollars a week on that particular clusterfuck. But definitely keep the poors out of swimming pools, that'll learn them some fiscal responsibility.

    The other awful part of this is the $25/day withdrawal limit, which means a much higher percentage of money going for ATM fees. Well played, Kansas.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      HoneybunchesofgoatsMcRosie
      4/07/15 6:26pm

      That $25 a day is outright sadistic. Fuck them.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      HillaryClinton'sSaggingBewbsMcRosie
      4/07/15 6:28pm

      The idea is that if you can afford 100 ice cream cones, you probably shouldn't be on welfare to begin with. It's not such a moral abomination that people be asked to earn the money they use on luxuries.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SoapBoxcarWillieAshley Feinberg
    4/07/15 6:29pm

    Knowing what's best for poor people, as all educated white liberals do, I agree that people on welfare shouldn't really be buying lottery tickets, psychic services and jewelry. However I don't think we need a law that actually prevents them from buying these things. I also don't understand how you teach responsibility by preventing people from doing anything wrong in the first place—it's like bowling with bumpers..

    Preventing people on welfare from going to pools is just mean—especially for the kids, who are innocent in all of this. Nail/hair salons, while they may sound like a luxury service, can also help people look presentable for a job interview which, as long as it isn't at McDonald's or WalMart, can get people off of welfare.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BasioranaSoapBoxcarWillie
      4/08/15 7:39am

      Yeah, like all men have someone who can cut and style their hair for them, and like no one discriminates against black women for having natural hair...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ljndawsonSoapBoxcarWillie
      4/08/15 8:56am

      Massively agreed with your last. When I was out of work, I got called on the carpet for a visit to a nail salon and an eBay purchase. When I explained that I was getting groomed for job interviews, and the eBay purchase was A USED SUIT for those interviews, I still got no love.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    destor23Ashley Feinberg
    4/07/15 7:32pm

    Hang on a second... This is unemployment insurance we're talking about. It's paid for, through your taxes, whenever you are working. Any citizen is entitled to it, plain and simple. You eventually pay for this by working.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      KelleysHerodestor23
      4/07/15 10:36pm

      Nope not true. Actual welfare. Loaded on a card. regularly used to buy gift cards which can be traded for dope or crack. It's a real thing.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      destor23KelleysHero
      4/07/15 10:55pm

      Yeah, but you get it when? If you're out of work? Or are their separate unemployment payments for that?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    chickaboomAshley Feinberg
    4/07/15 6:23pm

    how do they plan to tell if it's "a poor" using the pool Or watching a movie or getting a manicure? Judge them based on their clothes or how they speak or are they going to tattoo their welfare number on their arm.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      DashleyinCalichickaboom
      4/07/15 6:26pm

      I'm just speculating, but my guess is that it will involve a shortcut of some kind, like first enforcing the law among people with a darker skin tone, for instance.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Orlandu7chickaboom
      4/07/15 6:28pm

      Same way they judged whether a "poor" was using the pool or getting into a movie back in the 50s. If you catch my drift.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    NewYorkCynicAshley Feinberg
    4/07/15 6:22pm

    You expect me to be concerned about poor people not having access to pools when there are wealthy Californians who, even as we speak, are unable to water their lawns as frequently as they'd like to? I bet you believe the liberal lies that this is all about 'conserving water', don't you? Clearly all of that water saved will be shipped to other, less fortunate states, as a part of Obama's 'ObamaPool' plan to give every poor person in America a pool.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Open RhoadesNewYorkCynic
      4/07/15 6:27pm

      Yeah but an Obamapool would be a dough-boy, and nobody wants one of those.

      "Marco!" "Poor-O!" "47%er-out-of-water!"

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    facwAshley Feinberg
    4/07/15 6:14pm

    Well I'd agree that the poor shouldn't be spending money on pools, but only because the local government should be providing pools as public amenities as part of their public parks.

    Reply
    <