Kansas bill bans TANF recipients from spending at movies or pools

[Jack V Savage]

Oh good grief Jack . . .

Government waste is ok as long as it's the "poor" who are doing the wasting?

It's gov't waste if a poor person watches a movie? WTF? This is pure tyranny, and it's spiteful on top of that. And what's the justification? They don't get a lot of money from market transactions so they must be terrible people.

 

[ShoelessRye]

I'd enforce it by going after businesses. Which businesses don't offer debit these days anyways? Should be little need for folks on assistance to need to make cash transactions. So make the cards unable to get out cash at all - all the persons transactions would then be traceable via the usage of their card. Also the card could be programmed not to work at certain locations ie massages, casinos, bars, on cigs etc.

Pools is excessive - if we're talking local swimming pools - not those high end waterpark types. I could go either way on movie theater if it's a rare treat rather than a regular expense.

 

[spamking]

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.

Listen, I'm not against a family taking their kids to a movie every now and then, but let's be reasonable. If you can barely afford to feed your family shouldn't the things proposed by this bill be the last thing on your mind?

 

[spamking]

It's gov't waste if a poor person watches a movie? WTF? This is pure tyranny, and it's spiteful on top of that. And what's the justification? They don't get a lot of money from market transactions so they must be terrible people.

You're given money for a specific purpose. You decide not to use it for that purpose but instead go watch a movie. It ultimately costs your family a meal.

Yes it's a waste. Don't WTF me . . . I'm perfectly fine supporting those in need with money to buy food, NOT pay for their movie.

 

[spamking]

I wouldn't want a "massage" from a $25 lady.

True . . . :icon_chee

 

[Jack V Savage]

Listen, I'm not against a family taking their kids to a movie every now and then, but let's be reasonable. If you can barely afford to feed your family shouldn't the things proposed by this bill be the last thing on your mind?

Not necessarily. They can use some fun or escapism once in a while. This is just ridiculously, needlessly cruel.

You're given money for a specific purpose. You decide not to use it for that purpose but instead go watch a movie. It ultimately costs your family a meal.

Yes it's a waste. Don't WTF me . . . I'm perfectly fine supporting those in need with money to buy food, NOT pay for their movie.

It's not dedicated funds. You're saying that if they receive cash benefits, it's waste if they do anything that isn't essential for survival in an animalistic sense. Let's apply that same bullshit to anyone who benefits from the mortgage interest deduction or the carried interest loophole. Oh, no, we can't do that because then you hurt real people.

 

[James Keith]

It's gov't waste if a poor person watches a movie? WTF? This is pure tyranny, and it's spiteful on top of that.

funny how you belittle the exact same activity as being simultaneously irrelevant and yet also an example of PURE TYRANNY.

 

[spamking]

Not necessarily. They can use some fun or escapism once in a while. This is just ridiculously, needlessly cruel.

So you're barely scraping by and need all you can to buy groceries and you're going to go spend $7-$10/head to go watch a movie? Once and a while is perfectly fine. I don't have a problem with that if there is extra. Might be a good way for them to try and save some cash to help pay for that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

funny how you belittle the exact same activity as being simultaneously irrelevant and yet also an example of PURE TYRANNY.

Huh? Telling people they can't watch a movie if they receive a particular gov't benefit is tyranny.

So you're barely scraping by and need all you can to buy groceries and you're going to go spend $7-$10/head to go watch a movie? Once and a while is perfectly fine. I don't have a problem with that if there is extra. Might be a good way for them to try and save some cash to help pay for that.

Once in a while is not perfectly fine if the oppressive Kansas gov't gets its way.

This is another thing (like the Ferguson PD apologetics) that shows that Republicans are straight-up lying when they talk about supporting freedom from gov't tyranny.

 

[OldGoat]

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.

If you are cool with the poors going to the strip club after getting a new tattoo all on the taxpayer dime just say so.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you are cool with the poors going to the strip club after getting a new tattoo all on the taxpayer dime just say so.

I am (I think individuals are the best judges of how to spend their own money). But that's not the most egregious thing here. Swimming pools? Movies? WTF? It's incredible that this shit can happen in America.

 

[OldGoat]

Not necessarily. They can use some fun or escapism once in a while. This is just ridiculously, needlessly cruel.



It's not dedicated funds. You're saying that if they receive cash benefits, it's waste if they do anything that isn't essential for survival in an animalistic sense. Let's apply that same bullshit to anyone who benefits from the mortgage interest deduction or the carried interest loophole. Oh, no, we can't do that because then you hurt real people.

Those not the poors are paying their own bills. If mommy government is paying your bills you follow her rules.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Those not the poors are paying their own bills. If mommy government is paying your bills you follow her rules.

Again, would you apply that to all forms of gov't assistance? Social Security? Mortgage interest deductions? Oil subsidies? Tax credits? Protection of property claims? Sam Brownback gets a check from the gov't that far exceeds anything poor people get. He shouldn't be allowed to spend money on anything but food, right?

 

[BigMuffler]

I'd enforce it by going after businesses. Which businesses don't offer debit these days anyways? Should be little need for folks on assistance to need to make cash transactions. So make the cards unable to get out cash at all - all the persons transactions would then be traceable via the usage of their card. Also the card could be programmed not to work at certain locations ie massages, casinos, bars, on cigs etc.

This might work but if they are still able to get money out of ATMs as it says, it seems basically unenforceable.

Also they could probably still get around it by buying stuff for friends in exchange for cash.

 

[RumDiaries]

Yeah the pool thing is a little messed up. As long as it's not a fancy waterpark all the time, I think the benefit out weighs the neg. Same with a movie every now and then, everyone needs a life, and it isn't just the card holder that it affects. The question is where to draw the line. OR they could just stay at home(which some will regardless), and fuck more.

 

[OldGoat]

We could save a lot of money by putting the poors in a zoo and charging admission to see them. Who wouldn't want to go on a safari to rural Appalachia or urban Detroit to see the poors living wild in their natural habitat?

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Huh? Telling people they can't watch a movie if they receive a particular gov't benefit is tyranny.

Half the shit you post is absolutely ridiculous.

They aren't saying they can't go to the movies you dolt. They can't use their government assistance money that is meant for food and basic necessities on going to the movies.

Let's say this family of 4 went to the movies. They all got drinks and shared a large bag of popcorn. Let's call that $50-60. Do I think that 2 hours should be paid for by tax payers. Hell no, that $50 could buy 15 lbs of chicken, big bag of rice, potatoes, vegetables, etc.

Tyranny... gtfo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Half the shit you post is absolutely ridiculous.

They aren't saying they can't go to the movies you dolt. They can't use their government assistance money that is meant for food and basic necessities on going to the movies.

They are saying they can't go the movies, you dolt.

Let's say this family of 4 went to the movies. They all got drinks and shared a large bag of popcorn. Let's call that $50-60. Do I think that 2 hours should be paid for by tax payers. Hell no, that $50 could buy 15 lbs of chicken, big bag of rice, potatoes, vegetables, etc.

Tyranny... gtfo.

It's not tyranny that the gov't is telling certain people that they're not allowed to go to movies or swimming pools? WTF would you consider tyranny then? Gov't paying for poor people's health insurance, right?

 

[James Keith]

Huh? Telling people they can't watch a movie if they receive a particular gov't benefit is tyranny.

*pure tyranny to be specific.

Of course they can watch movies all they want, just not (directly) pay for it with other people's money.

The alternative would be PURE COMMUNISM.

 

[Jack V Savage]

*pure tyranny to be specific.

Of course they can watch movies all they want, just not (directly) pay for it with other people's money.

The alternative would be PURE COMMUNISM.

They aren't paying for it with other people's money, dipshit. They're paying for it with their own money. Or they are willing to, but the gov't will not allow it.

No one is addressing the issue of why this shouldn't apply to people who have property defended by the gov't, people who get the mortgage interest deduction, Social Security recipients, people who get subsidized insurance through their employer, gov't employees, or investors in companies that receive special tax breaks or subsidies. Just an emotional aversion to the poor, right?