Kansas bill bans TANF recipients from spending at movies or pools

[kpt018]

Umm, I said cut out luxuries. Food, ac, and heat are neccesities, so I wouldn't supporting banning that from assistance.

Congrats on your moronic post.

Going to the pool or a movie is a luxury? You have to be fucking kidding me. I know I make really good money, but I grew up pretty poor and went to the movies.

You're such a clown it's ridiculous. These programs are designed to prevent exactly what you're claiming it's trying to do. Do you have zero logical reasoning skills whatsoever? This money is FOR food and it's FOR keeping your heat and electricity. It's not for tattoos and other luxuries. Why is that so hard to understand?

Ok dummy, it should be obvious but you're a bit slow.

The current program does not dictate how the money is spent. That is why the Kansas is trying to change the law. You're wrong, the program is not designed the way you think it is.

You agree with Kansas. Fine. But what is your reasoning? Can you honestly explain the benefit of the law?

 

[OldGoat]

Yeah, poor people have it too good. It's just easy. If we let them starve or shut their heat off in the winter that will teach em!

Oh noes!!!! The poor can't use publicly supplied money for a hooker! I guess we all want the poor to starve to death then. You and your buddy jack are writing almost a parody of left wing nuttery. Perhaps you all are right wing satirists posting as you do to discredit the left?😳

 

[scrubido]

I thought it was pretty clear. Programs like this are to provide money for you to survive, not to go out and have a good f**king time at tax payers expense.

Nah bro thats literally the only thing they can do to spend quality time with the family.

 

[kpt018]

Oh noes!!!! The poor can't use publicly supplied money for a hooker! I guess we all want the poor to starve to death then. You and your buddy jack are writing almost a parody of left wing nuttery. Perhaps you all are right wing satirists posting as you do to discredit the left?😳

Can people use their salary for a hooker?

Obviously the worst parts are preventing them from going to the movies or the pool. No one supports use of money on illegal shit. My guess is that stuff was thrown in to make it seem legit to uncritical idiots like yourself.

 

[OldGoat]

You're such a clown it's ridiculous. These programs are designed to prevent exactly what you're claiming it's trying to do. Do you have zero logical reasoning skills whatsoever? This money is FOR food and it's FOR keeping your heat and electricity. It's not for tattoos and other luxuries. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because according to kpt and jack denying public assistance for grillz and spinners is right wing racist white southern libertarian tyranny.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, poor people have it too good. It's just easy. If we let them starve or shut their heat off in the winter that will teach em!

What's really crazy about that is that the economy is still operating below capacity. It's not like we have a shortage of workers and we want to encourage people to take the excess jobs.

Going to the pool or a movie is a luxury? You have to be fucking kidding me. I know I make really good money, but I grew up pretty poor and went to the movies.

I grew up poor and my parents would save up all year so we could take a nice vacation for the summer (generally either we'd all go to a foreign country or the kids might go to stay with wealthy relatives if it was a really hard year). They had to sacrifice a lot, but they felt it was important to expose us to more of the world. People should be able to make those kinds of decisions (look at the example I gave earlier of parents skipping some meals so they can afford to take their kids to the movies).

 

[OldGoat]

Can people use their salary for a hooker?

Obviously the worst parts are preventing them from going to the movies or the pool. No one supports use of money on illegal shit. My guess is that stuff was thrown in to make it seem legit to uncritical idiots like yourself.

Yes people who earn money can use it to go to a hooker. They earned the money. But if your mama says here's $20 go buy your kids some food and you use it for a hooker she has every right to give you consequences.

 

[lfd0311]

You either lack intellectual honesty or the capacity to understand that your views aren't consistent, but are based solely on a disdain for the poor.

I am simply being consistent. I don't think the government should tell anyone how to spend their money, even if they took a tax deduction for mortgage interest, own a business that relies on government contracts, etc.. I don't share the hatred of the poor that you guys do. If you thought it through you would find that's what it boils down to.

None of you guys can even explain the benefit of the law.

LOL, oh really? You're being consistent? So a program designed to provide money for people to buy food and other essential needs says that that money is not to be used to for luxuries like tattoos and going to the movies, and your response is " If we let them starve or shut their heat off in the winter that will teach em", and that is in some way consistent?

I don't think the government should tell anyone how to spend their money

Yet more delusional nonsense. It isn't "their money", it's the government's money, given to these people for certain things, and you bet your behind that the government has absolutely every right to tell those people what they can and can't spend that money on.

 

[LilMountain]

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.

It's called the library

 

[livingdeadmoose]

Going to the pool or a movie is a luxury? You have to be fucking kidding me. I know I make really good money, but I grew up pretty poor and went to the movies.

Yes it is. If it isn't a neccesity, it's a luxury. I've gone through tough times as well and I sacriced plenty of luxuries until I made better money. I didn't feel entitled to them at the tax payers expense. And I don't give a fuck what you payed for when you were poor as long as it was with your money.

 

[OldGoat]

What's really crazy about that is that the economy is still operating below capacity. It's not like we have a shortage of workers and we want to encourage people to take the excess jobs.

You and your people don't want to use the surplus workers to work. That's a huge part of the problem.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Ridiculous? Why aren't you guys clamoring about oil or food subsidies? Why aren't you bitching about the mortgage interest deduction? You know why? Because it's not about spending with you guys, it's about disdain for the poor.

We are pointing out your double standard, nice try.

Well, this thread isn't about oil subsidies, etc. create a thread about that and see who complains, otherwise stay on topic.

You guys are trying way to hard here. I agree that putting the pool in there is petty as hell - and that Kansas is a example of what happens when right wing economic policy is adopted (it's a mess). But to get as angry as you and Jack are over restricting TANF from paying for tattoos, casinos, liquor, etc is ridiclous. Not as ridiculous as comparing TANF to wages for a govt salary or social security, but ridiculous just the same.

 

[lfd0311]

Ok dummy, it should be obvious but you're a bit slow.

The current program does not dictate how the money is spent. That is why the Kansas is trying to change the law. You're wrong, the program is not designed the way you think it is.

You agree with Kansas. Fine. But what is your reasoning? Can you honestly explain the benefit of the law?

LOL, I know exactly what it's for. That's the purpose of the money, and that's why they are trying to change it. Why is that so hard to understand? Welfare isn't for luxuries, it's for you to be able to survive. Are you really complaining about not being able to withdraw more than 25 bucks once a day from an ATM? Are you seriously that dense as to why they would put a restriction like this in place? Have you never lived around poor people? Did you not see how horribly the food stamp program was so thoroughly exploited that it had to be changed? For real?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You and your people don't want to use the surplus workers to work. That's a huge part of the problem.

I want to use surplus workers to work. To do that, we need to create more jobs--that is, spend more money.

Well, this thread isn't about oil subsidies, etc. create a thread about that and see who complains, otherwise stay on topic.

It is on topic. The issue is that this is just cruel and tyrannical, and done for no benefit but to make right-wingers who hate poor people feel better. The different treatment of people who receive different types of gov't benefits illustrates the point.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

It's called the library

This and free parks as well. With parks you get hiking trails, sand volleyball, a place for kids to go play in, places to go fishing, grills for cookouts, you get a lot of free shit with public parks. Where I live there is tons of free stuff, including free museums. I'm not even poor and I take advantage of this.

 

[OldGoat]

Well, this thread isn't about oil subsidies, etc. create a thread about that and see who complains, otherwise stay on topic.

You guys are trying way to hard here. I agree that putting the pool in there is petty as hell - and that Kansas is a example of what happens when right wing economic policy is adopted (it's a mess). But to get as angry as you and Jack are over restricting TANF from paying for tattoos, casinos, liquor, etc is ridiclous. Not as ridiculous as comparing TANF to wages for a govt salary or social security, but ridiculous just the same.

All money is government's money.
All laws and regulations are strictly identical.

 

[afrdzak]

The money shouldn't be used for tattoos, strip clubs, casinos.

But to not be used on movies and swimming pools is ridiculous.

Regardless, it's unenforceable as long as it's cash. You can use an ATM and then go to the strip club. No one would be the wiser. This law is all bark with no bite.

 

[klnOmega]

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.

Surely you aren't so deluded that you think taxpayers should be funding tattoos, strip club visits, and casino gambling for welfare recipients.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

No issue with Movies or Pools. I mean how often can they afford to do that anyways. And it keeps the kids out of trouble and builds family bonds. Take that away and you may as well just shove them in the gangs yourself.

Also "lingerie shop" seemed weird.... poor people don't deserve underwear? Yes you can get undies at walmart, but some of those places have deals too on normal granny panties....

 

[The ScorpioN]

The money shouldn't be used for tattoos, strip clubs, casinos.

But to not be used on movies and swimming pools is ridiculous.

Regardless, it's unenforceable as long as it's cash. You can use an ATM and then go to the strip club. No one would be the wiser. This law is all bark with no bite.

I don't understand why some posters talk about the movie tester as a necessity? Wouldn't a concert, a play, ballet, etc be in the same category?

It isn't in the least bit essential, it's a luxury.