Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:50:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters  (Read 8292 times)
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2015, 01:02:30 PM »
« edited: April 07, 2015, 09:57:50 PM by True Federalist »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

THEY DO MATTER. But this in what I think is the real world. We see a woman pop out kids like a Pez dispenser KNOWING the more children she has, the more government money she gets. We see women shopping like they're Paris Hilton when they are on "assistance". It's like, "Oh yeah, you get our tax dollars instead of working, but you use it for shopping!"

Doesn't THAT matter to you?

(EDIT: If it weren't for the discussion this trollish post generated, I'd have deleted it.  Instead, I'll settle for an editorial modification. - True Federalist)
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2015, 01:13:50 PM »

Have you seen this yourself Naso? How many times?
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2015, 01:16:58 PM »

The root problem is the method of making transfer payments. People should be paid a living wage for working, not given a meager subsistence to stay out of the labor economy. Paternalistic liberalism is intolerable.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2015, 01:22:14 PM »
« Edited: April 07, 2015, 01:24:52 PM by sex-negative feminist prude »

Wouldn't a law such as this violate some of the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Doubtful. You can't take a law passed by a few idealistic bleeding hearts 50 years ago the basis for taking apart what the country always has been.

That's your opinion of the Civil Rights Act? Do you really want to go down that road, Naso?

You'd do well to remember that there was a time when the country had 'always been' one in which half the states were ruled by a worse-than-feudal landowning class that owned other human beings as chattel property, and a time when it had 'always been' one that habitually broke treaties to acquire more territory.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2015, 01:22:35 PM »

Yikes!  This is the downside of course of government assistance. The powers that be can abuse the system, and start to unduly interfere in one's private life. The amount of money here is pennies relatively speaking, so it does seem animated by spite. I have serious doubts frankly about the Constitutionality of such a provision. It is unduly intrusive into one's privacy.  It is one thing for money to have some strings attached, another to make those strings unduly coercive and intrusive. There is a body of SCOTUS case law on that when it comes with strings attached to federal money to the states, and that certainly should apply even more so to individuals.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2015, 01:23:15 PM »

You can't take a law passed by a few idealistic bleeding hearts 50 years ago the basis for taking apart what the country always has been.

It finally slips out....
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2015, 01:26:54 PM »

If this bill works it will be a boon to ATM service fees, since people will be going back every day.  But this bill looks so unworkable on the face of it, I suspect before long the government will just pretend it was never passed, like a far-right mirror image of Atlasia.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2015, 01:27:23 PM »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

THEY DO MATTER. But this is the real world. We see a woman pop out kids like a Pez dispenser KNOWING the more children she has, the more government money she gets. We see women shopping like they're Paris Hilton when they are on "assistance". It's like, "Oh yeah, you get our tax dollars instead of working, but you use it for shopping!"

Doesn't THAT matter to you?

It costs less to have no children than to have any. The benefits only make it cheaper but in the end you pay more than $0 out of pocket to have a child.

You also conveniently ignored my question about the $1000 vs the $300, but that's to be expected. Acknowledging it would force you to change your view.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2015, 01:32:34 PM »

I'm opposed to big government!!! Unless we can use the big government to micromanage the lives of the poor for no reason other than paternalism and spite, I guess.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2015, 01:33:01 PM »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

THEY DO MATTER. But this is the real world. We see a woman pop out kids like a Pez dispenser KNOWING the more children she has, the more government money she gets. We see women shopping like they're Paris Hilton when they are on "assistance". It's like, "Oh yeah, you get our tax dollars instead of working, but you use it for shopping!"

Doesn't THAT matter to you?

I can't believe you still try to act like you're not a complete sociopath.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2015, 01:34:02 PM »

That's your opinion of the Civil Rights Act? Do you really want to go down that road, Naso?

Mike has never pretended to be not a racist, so...
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2015, 01:34:33 PM »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

THEY DO MATTER. But this is the real world. We see a woman pop out kids like a Pez dispenser KNOWING the more children she has, the more government money she gets. We see women shopping like they're Paris Hilton when they are on "assistance". It's like, "Oh yeah, you get our tax dollars instead of working, but you use it for shopping!"

Doesn't THAT matter to you?

...

Are you a real human being?
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2015, 01:35:50 PM »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

THEY DO MATTER. But this is the real world. We see a woman pop out kids like a Pez dispenser KNOWING the more children she has, the more government money she gets. We see women shopping like they're Paris Hilton when they are on "assistance". It's like, "Oh yeah, you get our tax dollars instead of working, but you use it for shopping!"

Doesn't THAT matter to you?

It costs less to have no children than to have any. The benefits only make it cheaper but in the end you pay more than $0 out of pocket to have a child.

You also conveniently ignored my question about the $1000 vs the $300, but that's to be expected. Acknowledging it would force you to change your view.

Besides that, it's not actually easy taking care of kids. No matter what paternalistic conservatives would like to believe.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2015, 01:36:59 PM »

Wow...

This is incredible...

Just wow...
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2015, 01:37:20 PM »


I'm afraid that he most definitely is. And none of this is an act. None of it.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2015, 01:39:04 PM »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

THEY DO MATTER. But this is the real world. We see a woman pop out kids like a Pez dispenser KNOWING the more children she has, the more government money she gets. We see women shopping like they're Paris Hilton when they are on "assistance". It's like, "Oh yeah, you get our tax dollars instead of working, but you use it for shopping!"

Doesn't THAT matter to you?

...

Are you a real human being?

The jury is still out on that.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2015, 01:42:50 PM »

Mike is definitely real. We wouldn't have laws like the ones in Kansas if a good percentage of the population weren't fascists like him.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2015, 02:10:30 PM »
« Edited: April 07, 2015, 02:13:47 PM by shua »

If someone wants to spend their money at the race track, they'll still find a way to do it by buying some approved purchase and selling it for a cash or an unapproved product - just as some people do with food stamps.  Republicans of all people should recognize the principle that regulation creates black/grey markets. 

This bill also sets a lifetime limit on TANF at 36 months, which may be the bigger impact on recipients.

Reaganfan is right that there's nothing here that would go against the Civil Rights Act, even if he's wrong in this thread about everything else.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2015, 02:16:26 PM »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

What bank account freezing aspect? As someone else said, most government benefits these days are on their own EBT card, linked to that account.  Banning welfare benefits from being used at strip clubs or theme parks is as simple as blocking card use there.  Similarly, blocking the purchase of tobacco or whatever with welfare benefits can easily be done electronically.  Nothing is stopping a welfare recipient from using money in a personal bank account to go to a strip club or buy cigarettes, or auditing that personal account.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2015, 02:20:55 PM »
« Edited: April 07, 2015, 02:23:16 PM by shua »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

What bank account freezing aspect? As someone else said, most government benefits these days are on their own EBT card, linked to that account.  Banning welfare benefits from being used at strip clubs or theme parks is as simple as blocking card use there.  Similarly, blocking the purchase of tobacco or whatever with welfare benefits can easily be done electronically.  Nothing is stopping a welfare recipient from using money in a personal bank account to go to a strip club or buy cigarettes, or auditing that personal account.

That seems exactly to be what this law does.   This bill isn't directly about food stamps, it's about TANF, monetary assistance (it's just that usually these are the same people as qualify for food stamps) and it plans to monitor debit and credit purchases.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2015, 07:05:32 PM »

This is cruel.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2015, 07:15:54 PM »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

THEY DO MATTER. But this is the real world. We see a woman pop out kids like a Pez dispenser KNOWING the more children she has, the more government money she gets. We see women shopping like they're Paris Hilton when they are on "assistance". It's like, "Oh yeah, you get our tax dollars instead of working, but you use it for shopping!"

Doesn't THAT matter to you?

You're a fantastic example of the heartlessness of Reagan's brand of "conservatism."
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2015, 07:16:48 PM »

Pretty disgusting. 
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2015, 07:28:23 PM »

Now, people will likely sell access to their bank account for cold, hard cash due to these restrictions.

Unintended consequences, folks. Smiley
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2015, 08:54:40 PM »

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

THEY DO MATTER. But this is the real world. We see a woman pop out kids like a Pez dispenser KNOWING the more children she has, the more government money she gets. We see women shopping like they're Paris Hilton when they are on "assistance". It's like, "Oh yeah, you get our tax dollars instead of working, but you use it for shopping!"

Doesn't THAT matter to you?

It costs less to have no children than to have any. The benefits only make it cheaper but in the end you pay more than $0 out of pocket to have a child.

Besides that, it's not actually easy taking care of kids. No matter what paternalistic conservatives would like to believe.

Sadly I know of a case like what Naso seems to think is the usual standard of welfare recipients.  She also mooches off of friends and family and takes advantage of them by playing the "think of the children" card as much as possible.  That said, she's the exception, and not the rule, and I have no reason to think she'd have been any different in the absence of government benefits.

However, I don't think the answer to cases such as her is to take away benefits, but to take away the kids and put them in a good foster home.  Of course, states like Kansas typically give such short shrift to child welfare that having good foster homes available is extremely hit or miss.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.