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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I'm fairly conservative when it comes to the Civil Rights Act, but I consider this post of yours to be dumb and intolerant.  It was a shame the CRA was needed, and even more of a shame it is still needed.  I hope that someday it will no longer be needed, but that day ain't here yet, nor do I think it likely to arrive in my lifetime, tho maybe in another fifty years if we're fortunate.

As for the original question, per se it wouldn't, as the poor aren't a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.  There would have to be a finding that poverty was being used as a mechanism to selectively discriminate against a protected class before it could be considered a violation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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."

It may be Reagan's brand these days, but this isn't an example of Reagan's actual conservatism.

[pbrower2a]

Little so compels thrift than does poverty.

The Koch syndicate reigns supreme in Kansas, a state that seems no longer to have much to  commend itself. After all, West Virginia is much more scenic and winters are much milder in Mississippi.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A great point made by barfbag/Derek of all people (broken clocks and all that) is that food stamps are actually some of the most efficient government spending, the money is immediately put back in the economy and grocery stores and the agricultural sector are important economic bedrocks. Cutting and restricting food stamps hurts a lot more people than just the recipients, and what's being done here isn't even going to save the state money. So yes, it is very much like drug testing welfare recipients, in addition to being insulting and dehumanizing it doesn't save the state any money or accomplish anything productive.

Also Naso's posts are having me thanking God krazen isn't around now, I can only imagine how nausea-inducing his posts would be.

[pbrower2a]

I'm surprised that some Republican-dominated state legislatures have not decided to use relief of any kind as a bar to voting. Of course it would be discriminatory, and the US Supreme Court would likely knock it down. 

[Indy Texas]

[Ebsy]

They obviously have their priorities straight. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Cannibalize the poor.  Eat them.  Or at least starve them and give their food to those who 'earned' it.  The point is the harvest is being reaped.  The poor cattle are the harvest.  And poor cattle certainly can't have steak or entertainment!  Only corn and shame.

Sam Brownback is the epitome of evil.  Rick Santorum would be worse but for his honesty keeping him out of office. 

[Ebsy]

The fact that Christians allow this scrub to get away with calling himself a Christian reflects pretty badly on the whole Christian Right thing.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The fact that Christians allow this scrub to get away with calling himself a Christian reflects pretty badly on the whole Christian Right thing.

Anyone can tell a follower of Christ vs a self professed Christian, who worships his suffering and gains power from it.  They are raping Jesus and taking it out on us by instituting shame, guilt, and more and more and more and more rules to follow. 

Remember we can only follow rules because perfection is not possible.  The more rules you follow, the closer to perfection you'll never be.

A true Scotsman...erm..Christian doesnt have a name or a message...but leaves good fruits wherever he goes.  And he does it without even trying because he channels the love of God to his fellow wretches that pours through him just because he asked for it.

Hokey or idealistic... Its just an observation.

[pbrower2a]

If any Christians most needed to re-read the Sermon on the Mount -- it is American Christians.

It would expose almost everything wrong with American economics.

[Reaganfan]

Wow...forgot about this thread, didn't realize I hit such a nerve.

My point is simple. We need welfare. We need entitlements. But it has to be reformed so people can not abuse the system.

A mom buying food using Government assistance until she gets on her feet is okay. A mom abusing the system isn't. It's quite simple.

[pbrower2a]

Honest pay for honest work is far better than welfare. When the former is unavailable, then welfare can be the difference between having a chance to get back on one's feet or end up dead or peonized.

The draconian law shows what is worst in America -- callow treatment of those that the American economy leaves behind. Poor people are not at fault for a plight made theirs in legislatures and corporate boardrooms.

An economic Apartheid will do great harm to children.   

[King]

My point is simple. We need welfare. We need entitlements. But it has to be reformed so people can not abuse the system.

My point is simple: protections against abuse cost more than abuse. Just accept the abuse and move on.

[Indy Texas]

Wow...forgot about this thread, didn't realize I hit such a nerve.

My point is simple. We need welfare. We need entitlements. But it has to be reformed so people can not abuse the system.

A mom buying food using Government assistance until she gets on her feet is okay. A mom abusing the system isn't. It's quite simple.

When is she "on her feet," Naso? When she gets an $8/hr job, she's still not going to have enough money to live independent of government assistance.

Your entire party seems woefully ignorant of the fact that you can go to work 40 hours a week and still be unable to afford food, shelter and healthcare without public aid.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

My point is simple. We need welfare. We need entitlements. But it has to be reformed so people can not abuse the system.

My point is simple: protections against abuse cost more than abuse. Just accept the abuse and move on.

You do need some protections against abuse simply to discourage it. Basic cross checks of tax returns should catch most cheats, though.

[King]

My point is simple. We need welfare. We need entitlements. But it has to be reformed so people can not abuse the system.

My point is simple: protections against abuse cost more than abuse. Just accept the abuse and move on.

You do need some protections against abuse simply to discourage it. Basic cross checks of tax returns should catch most cheats, though.

Yes. This is why I support distributing welfare benefits through the IRS/Treasury tax returns in form of a negative income tax. It would eliminate most "fraud" without any need for ridiculously intrusive laws and all the bureaucrats that come with it.

All we should care about is if if they really need it financially, which the IRS can determine. If they spend it on lobster tails or movie tickets, as people like Reaganfan and at FOX shake in their boots over, the problem solves itself because they'll run out of money. Expensive purchases don't need to be banned because they're impossible to budget, and if a person can budget it and not run out of benefits, power to them.

Otherwise, fraud prevention welfare reform is pure welfare for lawyers and bean counters. Nothing more.

[Simfan34]

I agree with everything in your post, King, except there's an element of moral hazard that comes in if children or other dependents are involved.

[Penelope]

It's this kind of unnecessary spitefulness that needs to be purged from the Republican Party. Forget the morality of welfare and mooching and all the talking points. This plan (and other similar welfare reform proposal popping up in GOP states) simply make no sense from a fiscal conservative/small government stand point. The bureaucracy required to enforce this kind of intrusion and restriction on recipients will likely cost significantly more than if they just gave these people thousands of dollars in straight up cash.  It's pure slashing of the nose to spite the face.

It's almost as if the party at large has no special commitment to small government principles beyond the fact that people respond well to the rhetoric of small government conservatives.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I agree with everything in your post, King, except there's an element of moral hazard that comes in if children or other dependents are involved.

Yeah, if you are giving money to an addict or a compulsive gambler, you are contributing to a problem.  That doesn't mean "solutions" like this do any good or aren't worse than the problem.

[Simfan34]

I agree with everything in your post, King, except there's an element of moral hazard that comes in if children or other dependents are involved.

Yeah, if you are giving money to an addict or a compulsive gambler, you are contributing to a problem.  That doesn't mean "solutions" like this do any good or aren't worse than the problem.

Yeah, I'm under no pretense that this law is in any way intended to help welfare recipients.

[King]

I agree with everything in your post, King, except there's an element of moral hazard that comes in if children or other dependents are involved.

Yeah, if you are giving money to an addict or a compulsive gambler, you are contributing to a problem.  That doesn't mean "solutions" like this do any good or aren't worse than the problem.

Well, a workable system of the negative income tax, as I see it, is that in order to receive it, there has to be some employer doing this for you--similar to FICA only instead of withholding money, the employer is adding money to your check that the government reimburses to them. It's purely a supplemental income program not to replace SSI disability or TANF. So in that sense, a drug addict would not be able to receive welfare benefits if they can't at least hold a part time job to produce tax forms.

I understand concerns, but to me stopping addiction is not a supplement income problem. It's very War on Drugs to think cutting drug addicts from money stops the problem. There should be a drug rehab program in this country, but tying it to benefits won't solve anything.

[pbrower2a]

I agree with everything in your post, King, except there's an element of moral hazard that comes in if children or other dependents are involved.

Yeah, if you are giving money to an addict or a compulsive gambler, you are contributing to a problem.  That doesn't mean "solutions" like this do any good or aren't worse than the problem.

Limits on welfare benefits themselves force some rational thrift even if people are stuck on welfare. Choices can include denying oneself expensive tiers of cable television, cooking from scratch instead of buying processed foods, being a late adapter of technology and fads, not buying on impulse, avoiding junk foods (especially alcohol!), and not smoking... Healthy habits may require some discipline and imagination, but they are inexpensive.

I almost think that the welfare system encourages people to gorge on questionable foods and get fat on them, to get crippled from obesity so that one can never get a job, and die young. Maybe the poor need to go to the swimming pool! Maybe poor people would be better off with tablets instead of televisions... of course with Wi-Fi in housing projects.  But even those tablets cost something. But just think of what is accessible on those tablets. The Great Books!

I may have little sympathy for malingerers who do nothing to improve their lives (indeed I know some such people!) -- but don't punish their children! What signal does that give, except that America is hostile to people on the outside looking in to sybaritic excess of a Master Class that shows no empathy to any but themselves? There will always be some radical or extremist cause looking for the opportunity to exploit legitimate resentments of the disadvantaged and the guilty feelings of somewhat-privileged people with conscience. 

 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think that if a parent requires the government to hold their hand and tell them they should be buying food and clothes for their kids instead of lingerie and tattoos; their is clearly some ... deeper issue at hand, that won't be solved by such top-down paternalistic solutions.

There is a shocking lack of faith in poor people's ability to look after their own children among some conservatives.

[Simfan34]

I think that if a parent requires the government to hold their hand and tell them they should be buying food and clothes for their kids instead of lingerie and tattoos; their is clearly some ... deeper issue at hand, that won't be solved by such top-down paternalistic solutions.

There is a shocking lack of faith in poor people's ability to look after their own children among some conservatives.

I'm not sure some good old-fashioned paternalism would be necessarily be a bad thing. Certainly, the large amount of, for lack of a better term, ill-educated and socially dysfunctional minority youth whose life prospects are bound to be almost irreparably constrained, probably indicates that the parents are at least in need of some assistance in the task of raising their children properly.

The negative income tax would do much to help but there are broader values and social forces at work, and the question of whether a social, and not just an economic, policy intervention is called for is one that I think needs asking.