Kansas bill bans TANF recipients from spending at movies or pools

[spamking]

Not if they use cash. Think about it. I know you can figure this one out.

I've already addressed this Jack. I've said several times if they use cash from their job I have no problem with it. I've also said if they save and have some left over from one month to the next I have no problem with it.

Why play dumb?

Maybe a rational explanation of the difference?

Nothing I've posted has sunk in why would you bother reading yet another post about it?

But I've already addressed my view of the differences as well . . .

 

[Anung Un Rama]

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



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.

The issue is TANF, and the restriction of these funds from paying for luxuries like tattoos, strip joints, and casinos. Conflating this to the support of oil subsidies is a straw man argument, unless you have data showing how many movies. Strip clubs, casinos, and tattoos this subsidies pay for.

 

[panamaican]

I'm good with it all around except for the cap on number of eligible months over a lifetime.

 

[dabausplaya]

Who is letting these "surplus workers" into the country anyway?

 

[klnOmega]

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.

Its government waste if the government is paying for people to visit movie theaters, yes.

Nearly every public library in the country offers a selection of movies to watch. We are already subsidizing their movies.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

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.

Well one could argue maybe it was their money...

Not everyone is on this for life. If I lost my job tomorrow and wanted to take my kids to the movies for their Birthday then that's my business. I have paid taxes for 25 years. Trust me... the day the government gives me a cheque after I lose my job, it was my money and that they were just holding on to it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The issue is TANF, and the restriction of these funds from paying for luxuries like tattoos, strip joints, and casinos. Conflating this to the support of oil subsidies is a straw man argument, unless you have data showing how many movies. Strip clubs, casinos, and tattoos this subsidies pay for.

At least try to understand what you're responding to before hitting post. The example of other gov't benefits that don't carry tyrannical restrictions is to illustrate a point. This is just about satisfying right-wingers' emotional need to hurt poor people.

I've already addressed this Jack. I've said several times if they use cash from their job I have no problem with it. I've also said if they save and have some left over from one month to the next I have no problem with it.

So you disagree with the law?

Who is letting these "surplus workers" into the country anyway?

 

[OldGoat]

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



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.

You know you are being nonsensical. And you know not all spending is equal. If you have $x and you spend it on food you have still spent $x. And that's better for society then spending that $x on tattoos and massages.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

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

Exactly. Classic angry Jack

 

[spamking]

But this law is changing the specific purpose of the benefits (or really narrowing the options). You agree without explaining why.

Which is it? Changing the purpose or providing guidance? How much more of an explanation do you want? You disagree with what I've posted so I haven't explained why?

Like bringing your kids to the movie. Yup, straight up abuse right there.

You're smarter than this . . . right? You understand exactly the point I was making.

Actually, anyone can qualify for TANF if they meet the requirements.

Yep. And I'd expect them to also follow guidelines for what those benefits are to be spent on . . . TEMPORARY assistance for needy families shouldn't be looked at as a long-term solution. So anticipating that you're only on it temporarily why shouldn't their be guidelines on what you can do with the benefits?

The same applies to tax deductions, you take them if you qualify. The only difference are the benefits and the qualifications.

Huh? That's basically what I think I've been saying is the reason why how those benefits are used can be looked upon differently.

Try again.

Sure. Like it'd do any good.

 

[OldGoat]

At least try to understand what you're responding to before hitting post. The example of other gov't benefits that don't carry tyrannical restrictions is to illustrate a point. This is just about satisfying right-wingers' emotional need to hurt poor people.



So you disagree with the law?

You think just because a thing is called a law it is identical to all other things called a law. This is why many debates go over your head.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I think the issue people have with this is that while the richest of Kansas are getting massive tax cuts on the backs of Kansas middle class and poor, we are now telling those people who are carrying the brunt of the tax breaks they can't even go to a movie with the money that is theirs to begin with.

Sounds kind of messed up.

i think things like saying "casino" and "strip clubs" is a way to make the poorer individuals of the state to come off as real scum, while the richest are the noble ones not stealing from the poor and middle class.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

At least try to understand what you're responding to before hitting post. The example of other gov't benefits that don't carry tyrannical restrictions is to illustrate a point. This is just about satisfying right-wingers' emotional need to hurt poor people.

Nice try Jack. You went full Florida in your first few posts and now your pretending that nobody else gets it.

This isn't an example of tyranny. Your hyperbole undermines any argument you might have here.

I do agree, seeing as this is ultimately circumventable, that is is probably just pandering to the base, but that doesn't make these restrictions tyrannical.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nice try Jack. You went full Florida in your first few posts and now your pretending that nobody else gets it.

No idea what you're trying to say.

This isn't an example of tyranny. Your hyperbole undermines any argument you might have here.

Of course it's an example of tyranny. It's the gov't telling certain people they can't go to a movie or go swimming. What's shocking to me is that the same people who think that every little thing the gov't does is tyranny are completely OK with this kind of thing. Really shows that all the talk about principle is just hot air for those people.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I think the issue people have with this is that while the richest of Kansas are getting massive tax cuts on the backs of Kansas middle class and poor, we are now telling those people who are carrying the brunt of the tax breaks they can't even go to a movie with the money that is theirs to begin with.

Sounds kind of messed up.

i think things like saying "casino" and "strip clubs" is a way to make the poorer individuals of the state to come off as real scum, while the richest are the noble ones not stealing from the poor and middle class.

Kansas is a shithole of right wing ideology and they are suffering for it. That doesn't mean it's reasonable for a parent to spend their TANF benefits at the casino, or on a tattoo while their kids are neglected. TANF isnt a bonus check, it's welfare for people who need a leg up. If people value a tattoo or a movie over putting food on the table or saving a little to move out of poverty then they obviously need some incentive.

 

[spamking]

I like how some in this thread are supporting this bill on the basis that it is cracking down on government waste.

Do you really?

Yet, under the new rule, based on the $25 dollar per day restriction, a three-person family receiving the maximum benefit would have to go to the ATM more than a dozen times to get the full monthly allowance. And each withdrawal after the first one whittles away at that cash benefit with its own 85 cent fee.

Local 7-11 stores here in OKC all have free ATMs. I'm sure other locations around the country do too.

So, basically, the right says we can't allow the poor to "waste" money meant for their life necessities at the pool, while also being cool with forcing the poor to waste a percentage of their monthly welfare check on withdrawal fees. To enrich a bank.

Yes, friends, this is the perfect twofer for the poor-hating, rich-fellating right wingers and libertarians we have all come to know and love.

Wow . . . So this is all about ATM fees now? Ha.

 

[spamking]

Of course it's an example of tyranny. It's the gov't telling certain people they can't go to a movie or go swimming.

Where does it say certain people can't go to a movie or swimming?

It says "you" can't use TANF funds for unnecessary expenses. It doesn't say if you are on TANF you can't go to a movie or swimming.

 

[OldGoat]

No idea what you're trying to say.



Of course it's an example of tyranny. It's the gov't telling certain people they can't go to a movie or go swimming. What's shocking to me is that the same people who think that every little thing the gov't does is tyranny are completely OK with this kind of thing. Really shows that all the talk about principle is just hot air for those people.

Tripling down of flawed reasoning makes you look bad.

 

[lfd0311]

I think the issue people have with this is that while the richest of Kansas are getting massive tax cuts on the backs of Kansas middle class and poor, we are now telling those people who are carrying the brunt of the tax breaks they can't even go to a movie with the money that is theirs to begin with.

Sounds kind of messed up.

i think things like saying "casino" and "strip clubs" is a way to make the poorer individuals of the state to come off as real scum, while the richest are the noble ones not stealing from the poor and middle class.

Stop trying to act like poor people are carrying the weight for the rest of the country.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

No idea what you're trying to say.



Of course it's an example of tyranny. It's the gov't telling certain people they can't go to a movie or go swimming.

No. It's really not. They can go swimming and they can go to the movies. This isn't nazi Germany or the Jim Crow south. These people are not barred from going to movies or swimming, they just cannot use their TANF card to pay for it, just as I cannot use my HSA card for comic books.

What is your take on a mother of 3 spending her family TANF benefits on the casino and tattoos?