Kansas bill bans TANF recipients from spending at movies or pools

[OldGoat]

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?

You are trying too hard.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You are trying too hard.

You're not trying hard enough. Just knee-jerking (and then trolling).

Seriously, putting aside basic human decency, which you and Keith don't have, how can anyone who is concerned about gov't overreach support this kind of thing? And why doesn't this apply to everyone receiving gov't assistance?

 

[sickc0d3r]

Who cares where they spend their money? Money spent at a local business is not wasted, and nobody is saving their way out of the poorhouse on $400 a month. If they got a nice deal on beans and franks and have 20 extra bucks this month, let them see some titties if they want. Jeez.

 

[James Keith]

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.

Who's supposed to be the one consumed with anger here? Anyway, let's quote the law:

No TANF cash assistance shall be used to purchase alcohol,
cigarettes, tobacco products, lottery tickets, concert tickets, professional
or collegiate sporting event tickets or tickets for other entertainment
events intended for the general public or sexually oriented adult materials....
No TANF cash assistance shall be used in any retail liquor store, casino,
gaming establishment, jewelry store, tattoo parlor, massage parlor, body
piercing parlor, spa, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia
store, vapor cigarette store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond
company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme
park, dog or horse racing facility, parimutuel facility, or sexually oriented
business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented
entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed
state for entertainment, or in any business or retail establishment where
minors under age 18 are not permitted. TANF cash assistance transactions
for cash withdrawals from automated teller machines shall be limited to
$25, as adjusted by the consumer price index, per transaction and to
one transaction per day. No TANF cash assistance shall be used for
purchases at points of sale outside the state of Kansas.

And back to the hyperboles, so you do not deny that you embrace state communism? Because I thought you claimed to be a little more soft on that topic in the past.

 

[OldGoat]

You're not trying hard enough. Just knee-jerking (and then trolling).

Seriously, putting aside basic human decency, which you and Keith don't have, how can anyone who is concerned about gov't overreach support this kind of thing? And why doesn't this apply to everyone receiving gov't assistance?

Not all government assistance is equivalent. Duh. Plus freedom to be poor is not freedom from consequences.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Who's supposed to be the one consumed with anger here? Anyway, let's quote the law:

You're just angry all the time. I think that this particular bill is sickening.

And back to the hyperboles, so you do not deny that you embrace state communism? Because I thought you claimed to be a little more soft on that topic in the past.

Yeah, what the heck does that mean? Cash is cash. They're just saying that people who receive TANF benefits can't spend any money at those places (lingerie shops, too. WTF?). And communism is common ownership of all productive assets. I do not support that, and the gov't not telling poor people that they're not allowed to go to the movies isn't communism. It is tyranny, though.

Not all government assistance is equivalent. Duh. Plus freedom to be poor is not freedom from consequences.

What is the significant difference that makes this kind of oppression OK for some recipients of gov't assistance but not for others?

 

[kpt018]

What a bunch of hacks you guys are. So no one going to provide a serious response to this:

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?

If you don't or can't you should shut the fuck up about how the poor spend their money, because it's about hating the poor and sucking up to the rich and not about spending.

 

[workdiggitz]

good. i hope it passes. limit the hell out of the money. people will still find a way around it. but at least it will make the tax payers fell a little better about it.

 

[spamking]

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

No. Telling people they can't use Federal or State funded support for unsupported expenses is not tyranny.

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.

Freedom from gov't tyranny doesn't equal using gov't funds for your leisure . . . don't take the funds if you don't want to follow the spending guidelines.

 

[Literally Bricked]

OP must be posting this from the library crying since he can't go to stripclubs anymore. OP reeks of poverty.

 

[scrubido]

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.

A little self control goes a long way.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No. Telling people they can't use Federal or State funded support for unsupported expenses is not tyranny.

But, genius, everyone uses federal- or state-funded support in some way or another. Shit, aren't you a gov't employee? Why should you get to spend your gov't money on movies? Why should my tax dollars go to you enjoying yourself?

Freedom from gov't tyranny doesn't equal using gov't funds for your leisure . . . don't take the funds if you don't want to follow the spending guidelines.

Freedom from gov't tyranny is the gov't not telling you you can't go to the movies or generally forcing you to spend your money only on the necessities of animal existence.

 

[spamking]

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.

Paying for it with their "own money" doesn't jive with receiving TANF to me. If you can afford to take your family to a movie and spend upwards of $50 why do you need the financial support to actually feed your family?

If they have a job and want to spend that money on a movie fine . . . why should anyone be ok with EBT/TANF or any other gov't support being spent on something other than the program intends?

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?

It's because there is no need to defend those claims . . . if you can afford a mortgage and get an interest deduction how likely is it that you need to be on TANF?

I pay into social security . . . I can spend that (when/if I ever get it) however I want. That money is mine.

I'm quite surprised that you're equating this gov't support with mortgage and insurance subsidies . . .

What a bunch of hacks you guys are. So no one going to provide a serious response to this:

If you don't or can't you should shut the fuck up about how the poor spend their money, because it's about hating the poor and sucking up to the rich and not about spending.

For crying out loud . . . are you okay with Gov't waste? Do you get bent out of shape when the Feds or a State spends money on failed programs?

If this was about attacking the poor people would be pushing for abolishing the entire program due to abuse.

Buncha hacks . . . whatever.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Paying for it with their "own money" doesn't jive with receiving TANF to me.

They're not stealing it. When they receive their benefits, that is their money. The fact that you don't think they should have it doesn't make it not theirs.

If you can afford to take your family to a movie and spend upwards of $50 why do you need the financial support to actually feed your family?

It could be one person going and spending $7. But at any rate, people should be free to make their own choices. Maybe they skip a meal or three in order to show their son a good time on his birthday. WTF is wrong with that? If you think that TANF benefits are too generous generally, that's one thing (it would be a baffling position to me, but whatever), but to say that people shouldn't be allowed to decide how they spend their own money if they are poor is disgusting.

It's because there is no need to defend those claims . . . if you can afford a mortgage and get an interest deduction how likely is it that you need to be on TANF?

It has nothing to do with TANF. The point is that the gov't is subsidizing their lives so why not demand that they only spend their money to keep their animal needs met? If people aren't starving to death, they don't need that deduction, right?

I pay into social security . . . I can spend that (when/if I ever get it) however I want. That money is mine.

Why is that gov't benefit (which you don't come close to fully paying for, BTW) "yours" but TANF is not?

 

[spamking]

But, genius, everyone uses federal- or state-funded support in some way or another. Shit, aren't you a gov't employee? Why should you get to spend your gov't money on movies? Why should my tax dollars go to you enjoying yourself?

There's Jack . . . gotta throw in that little dig. :icon_cry2

Oh for Pete's sake . . . you're really going down this road? "Your" tax dollars go to fund government programs. Those programs are supported by employees (like me) who provide a service to a specific group of people who utilize the systems and services provided by the Agency I work for . . . I don't get some TANF debit card to by food and necessities because I meet some income requirements.

Freedom from gov't tyranny is the gov't not telling you you can't go to the movies or generally forcing you to spend your money only on the necessities of animal existence.

Gov't tyranny doesn't equal the gov't giving you money to supplement buying groceries and giving you guidelines on what you can spend the money on . . .

 

[OldGoat]

What a bunch of hacks you guys are. So no one going to provide a serious response to this:



If you don't or can't you should shut the fuck up about how the poor spend their money, because it's about hating the poor and sucking up to the rich and not about spending.

lol. You jumping on that ridiculous point of view? You know how it's different. Your political side has perfected the double standard.

But if you are truly too simple to understand the difference between earned and unearned money you are beyond professor OldGoat's help.

 

[James Keith]

You're just angry all the time. I think that this particular bill is sickening.



Yeah, what the heck does that mean? Cash is cash. They're just saying that people who receive TANF benefits can't spend any money at those places (lingerie shops, too. WTF?). And communism is common ownership of all productive assets. I do not support that, and the gov't not telling poor people that they're not allowed to go to the movies isn't communism. It is tyranny, though.

But you're calling other posters names, Jack, not the bill.

I'd say it means pretty much what it says and equivalently what we have told you. People on welfare can still earn income, not to mention receive gifts such as tickets to the movies.

And you just support govt ownership of all exchange of those assets right? Which is why you think a tax cut is the same as welfare. And because while you think private ownership is an indefensible use of force against poor people, you support it anyway.

 

[OldGoat]

They're not stealing it. When they receive their benefits, that is their money. The fact that you don't think they should have it doesn't make it not theirs.



It could be one person going and spending $7. But at any rate, people should be free to make their own choices. Maybe they skip a meal or three in order to show their son a good time on his birthday. WTF is wrong with that? If you think that TANF benefits are too generous generally, that's one thing (it would be a baffling position to me, but whatever), but to say that people shouldn't be allowed to decide how they spend their own money if they are poor is disgusting.



It has nothing to do with TANF. The point is that the gov't is subsidizing their lives so why not demand that they only spend their money to keep their animal needs met? If people aren't starving to death, they don't need that deduction, right?



Why is that gov't benefit (which you don't come close to fully paying for, BTW) "yours" but TANF is not?

It is conditionally their money.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There's Jack . . . gotta throw in that little dig. :icon_cry2

Actually, my point is that almost all of us--all over the income spectrum--receive gov't benefits and so singling out one particular form and saying that recipients essentially do not deserve to be treated as human beings is stupid. And you, as someone who owes your entire lifestyle to gov't checks, should understand that.

Oh for Pete's sake . . . you're really going down this road? "Your" tax dollars go to fund government programs.

Yes, and TANF, IMO, is one of the best of those programs. There is nothing I would rather see money that I pay go to than feeding hungry children (or, occasionally, allowing their parents to take them to a movie).

Gov't tyranny doesn't equal the gov't giving you money to supplement buying groceries and giving you guidelines on what you can spend the money on . . .

No, gov't tyranny equals the gov't telling you you are not allowed to go to a movie, buy lingerie, or go to a swimming pool, among other things.

I'd say it means pretty much what it says and equivalently what we have told you. People on welfare can still earn income, not to mention receive gifts such as tickets to the movies.

They can't spend the income they earn as they see fit.

And you just support govt ownership of all exchange of those assets right?

Um, no. ???

Which is why you think a tax cut is the same as welfare. And because while you think private ownership is an indefensible use of force against poor people, you support it anyway.

Private ownership is a defensible use of force against poor people so long as they are compensated for the negative effects of it. It is defensible because it leads to an overall increase in wealth, which benefits everyone more than common ownership would, as long as institutions are set up to distribute the additional wealth created somewhat equitably.

 

[spamking]

They're not stealing it. When they receive their benefits, that is their money. The fact that you don't think they should have it doesn't make it not theirs.

Where did I say they stole anything? Where did I say they shouldn't get the support needed for feeding their family?

It could be one person going and spending $7. But at any rate, people should be free to make their own choices. Maybe they skip a meal or three in order to show their son a good time on his birthday. WTF is wrong with that?

Are you kidding me? You would seriously skip up to three meals to take your kid to a movie?

If you think that TANF benefits are too generous generally, that's one thing (it would be a baffling position to me, but whatever), but to say that people shouldn't be allowed to decide how they spend their own money if they are poor is disgusting.

Again . . . read what I typed. I said if they had a job and spent that cash on movies and extras fine. But if they get government support for food and necessities spend the cash on that and that alone. Nothing disgusting about it. But your fake outrage at my position is amusing.

It has nothing to do with TANF. The point is that the gov't is subsidizing their lives so why not demand that they only spend their money to keep their animal needs met? If people aren't starving to death, they don't need that deduction, right?

Oh, so now it's all about any level of government support for anyone . . .

Why is that gov't benefit (which you don't come close to fully paying for, BTW) "yours" but TANF is not?

Come on Jack. I'm contributing to the fund each month. I have a piece of that amount. If we're going to start talking about all forms of gov't support and what folks pay into then maybe TANF should be based on what "you" contribute rather than income or dependents.

Hey. I'd be perfectly fine with that not being taken out of my check each month and being allowed to do what I want with it and using it when I wanted.