Kansas bill bans TANF recipients from spending at movies or pools

Wait you support welfare being used at casinos, cruise ships, and massage parlors and you have the nerve to call someone else stupid? Lol.
 
I would have more of an issue with banning them from pools.

Dont think their $450 a month maximum is gonna be buying a whole lot of cruises. Might as well ban them from Lambos too. It is political grandstanding.
 
7437 said:
I would have more of an issue with banning them from pools.

Dont think their $450 a month maximum is gonna be buying a whole lot of cruises. Might as well ban them from Lambos too. It is political grandstanding.
Click to expand...

Its more them using ATM's in bars strip clubs and casinos.
 
Can't say I disagree really. I don't think government assistance should be paying for luxuries and certainly shouldn't be be used at casino's or nudie bars. Provide necessities to survive, but get off your ass and work if you want luxuries.
 
7437 said:
Pretty much what is says in the title. Also, strip clubs, tattoo parlors, massages, cigarettes, cruise ships and casinos.

They also cannot get more than $25 from an ATM at a time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...going-swimming-on-governments-dime/?tid=sm_fb

Seems like Brownback and Kansas are just trying to come across as stupid at this point.
Click to expand...


How is banning TANF at any of those locations you mentioned stupid?

That isn't what the financial support is intended for . . . .
 
Yea I don't really have a problem with them being able to spend that at the pool or the movies, that seems a bit harsh....but no way should they be able to use it at a bar, a strip club, etc. A tattoo parlour, lmao gimme a break, how about you get a job if you wanna get some new ink.
 
sangreporsangre said:
Yea I don't really have a problem with them being able to spend that at the pool or the movies, that seems a bit harsh....but no way should they be able to use it at a bar, a strip club, etc. A tattoo parlour, lmao gimme a break.
Click to expand...


Should be allowed for the bare necessities only . . . like WIC vouchers. If it isn't on the voucher you pay for it.
 
Do the massages include a happy ending or is the massage just for therapeutic purposes?
 
I agree w/ it except for swimming pools. That can be used for cheap physical therapy (less pressure on joints for fat, injured and old people) and general exercise - which will save taxpayers by getting the needy healthier. In addition, it can promote family outings, encouraging closer families might help stem some of these ancillary problems. For all of that and it's relatively cheap.
 
Isn't this pretty much unenforceable unless business owners... like strip club owners lol... will call the cops on customers at the expense of their own profits? If the TANF recipients can take cash out from the ATM what prevents them from spending it wherever, or are they required to keep and show receipts of every single purchase they make?
 
spamking said:
Should be allowed for the bare necessities only . . . like WIC vouchers. If it isn't on the voucher you pay for it.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I personally wouldn't have a problem with it being able to be used at something like a pool or the movies, something that you can send the kids to. Like, you're so broke and your life is shit but if there's a little dough left on it after buying food and stuff and you can take the kids to the movies or send them to the pool in the summer, go for it. Not a neccessity, but it's nothing extravagant and if it's a cheap way to keep the kids happy and out of trouble, well why not. But it's pretty crazy if you could use this at places like strip clubs before this.
 
Pools in my opinion are a little excessive, but strip clubs and the like are fine with me. I don't want welfare going to this, only the bare minimums like food,etc.
 
Sickening. It looks like heads on a pike time in Kansas.

Where's Inga to argue that this isn't indicative of hatred of the poor?
 
Last edited:
how are you gonna enforce that exactly?
 
KOQ24 said:
how are you gonna enforce that exactly?
Click to expand...

Probably cut off their assistance. So let their children starve to punish them for going to a movie or swimming. Sounds fair. Jesus would be proud.
 
Stars and garters this is idiocy. Not the basic idea behind this, that I agree with, I've seen plenty families of 4+ living on one minimum pay check but burning money on tats and cigs, people like that clearly need someone to set limits for them - what sounds insane to me is sitting down with a cool head to make a list of things to ban and than going from massages, tats and cigs to cruises? Sure, include gold grillz while you're at it.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Probably cut off their assistance. So let their children starve to punish them for going to a movie or swimming. Sounds fair. Jesus would be proud.
Click to expand...

Oh good grief Jack . . .

Government waste is ok as long as it's the "poor" who are doing the wasting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,313
Messages
58,274,972
Members
175,989
Latest member
gorakk

Share this page

Back
Top