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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are there no bank secrecy laws?

25 dollars from an ATM?

Welfare benefits these days aren't generally done via a check or a bank deposit but rather through an EBT card which has the funds come directly from the state.  What strikes me as odd is the $25 ATM limit.  Many ATMs only give out money in multiples of $20, so this would effectively be a $20 limit.

[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?

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.

[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.