Law Kansas: Welfare Money Is Not For Tattoo, Psychic, Casino, Lottery, Alcohol, Lingeries

[VulcanNervPinch]

Liberal
No problem with the actual direct impact of the law.

However,

It sends the message that the poor spending their welfare money on concerts, tattoos, psychics, and lingerie instead of necessities is an actual problem to begin with, thus perpetuating the great American culture of shitting on the poor and everyone being "one big break" away from being the next Steve Jobs.

Basically, it's meaningless platitudes to misdirect everyone from the fact that Kansas is turning into a raging dumpster fire.

this is entirely correct.

Kansas' Republican government is furiously cranking out inexpensive treats for simpletons, to distract them from the fact that they've driven the car through the guardrail and it's flipping its way down the side of the cliff.

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?p=104858671#post104858671

 

[RedRocket44]

i hate this - makes USA look like a farking nanny state - and we already have enuff of those. Does it stop them buying guns? that would be going too far.

So you think someone receiving social assistance should be able to allocate that money to buying guns, or any of the things on that list?

The whole idea is that the money meant to be used on the essentials...the bare necessities to get by. Housing, food and utilities. If they are working but still qualify for social assistance due to low wage / low hours or whatever, they can use the money they earned for whatever they want, but the money received from the government should be used for a very short and specefic list of things.

I get why it can be offensive (suggesting all people receiving assistance are using their money irresponsibly), and I get by putting these measures in place it suggests it's a widespread problem (I don't know if it really is or not). All it's doing though is trying to make the money go to what it's intended for.

I normally consider myself pretty liberal, but living in Ontario, in a province saddled with billions of debt, ridiculously high energy rates, increasing taxes, etc... I wouldn't mind seeing restrictions like these here in Ontario. As far as I know here, people still get a check or deposit into their bank every month and just spend that money like they earned it.

 

[Falsedawn]

It sends that message because that's exactly what a lot of poor people spend their money on. They spend it on stupid nonsense and not on stuff they need, because those needs will be met by the government

Source?

 

[spamking]

We already discussed this a week or so ago . . .

 

[Frank23]

Hard Times.

 

[Mainez]

The money the state paid congress for those votes, the writing of that bill, etc. Probably exceeds the amount of welfare spent on that stuff. Seems to be a theater move.

 

[drstrangelov]

So you think someone receiving social assistance should be able to allocate that money to buying guns, or any of the things on that list?

The whole idea is that the money meant to be used on the essentials...the bare necessities to get by. Housing, food and utilities. If they are working but still qualify for social assistance due to low wage / low hours or whatever, they can use the money they earned for whatever they want, but the money received from the government should be used for a very short and specefic list of things.

I get why it can be offensive (suggesting all people receiving assistance are using their money irresponsibly), and I get by putting these measures in place it suggests it's a widespread problem (I don't know if it really is or not). All it's doing though is trying to make the money go to what it's intended for.

I normally consider myself pretty liberal, but living in Ontario, in a province saddled with billions of debt, ridiculously high energy rates, increasing taxes, etc... I wouldn't mind seeing restrictions like these here in Ontario. As far as I know here, people still get a check or deposit into their bank every month and just spend that money like they earned it.

These restrictions wouldn't do anything to address the problems you've noted. That's the problem here, the response to some general governmental problems is to lash out at the poor over largely imagined behavior unrelated to any real problem facing your community. If your state/province implemented these welfare restrictions, the only change would be that you would have a more complex (meaning more expensive) administrative process for your welfare program.

 

[Mainez]

These restrictions wouldn't do anything to address the problems you've noted. That's the problem here, the response to some general governmental problems is to lash out at the poor over largely imagined behavior. You do this, the only change is that you have a more complex (meaning more expensive) administrative process for your welfare program.

People cling so tightly to the myth of the welfare queen.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It sends that message because that's exactly what a lot of poor people spend their money on. They spend it on stupid nonsense and not on stuff they need, because those needs will be met by the government

Yeah, but aren't you worried that this is going to hurt Kansas' booming cruise ship industry (that mostly caters to the very poor)?

We already discussed this a week or so ago . . .

Yep. It's still disgusting.

 

[Madmick]

Clicked on the thread wanting to be outraged, but when I saw the list of prohibitions, I wasn't. The lingerie one is silly, because people need underwear, and lingerie isn't necessarily even expensive (though usually it is), but otherwise, most of them had me nodding my head. If this is such an unbearable outrage, after all, perhaps we should simply curtail welfare allotments altogether. Problem solved.

 

[spamking]

Yep. It's still disgusting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Legislators passed a law that has no positive impact on anyone. It's purely about hurting poor people. I guess people who like that are getting a rush.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

another day another issue with welfare, nothing new here.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

The money the state paid congress for those votes, the writing of that bill, etc. Probably exceeds the amount of welfare spent on that stuff. Seems to be a theater move.

This.

Out of all the problems Kansas has that they pay their Congressmen handsome salaries to address the biggest thing on the agenda is poor women buying underwear and going to psychics apparently.

 

[DeepCover]

Should welfare recipients be spending their unearned money on any items on that list? No.

Nothing to see here...

 

[Islam Imamate]

Some of this is obviously very petty; one of the banned expenditures is the public pool. That is just being mean because they can. Other than that, I find it almost impossible to argue for tattoos, casinos, liquor,

If this weren't Kansas, a right wing policy Petri dish, this wouldn't even be make a blip on the national radar.


I agree 100% with sodapop re: white collar crimes. Has Dodd-Frank even been fully implemented or are lobbyists still peeling it apart like an onion?

The pool thing seems a bit much. How expensive can that be? And if its not full it could be a source of exercise, something most Americans need.

Other than that one and maybe one or two other ones I don't think the law itself is egregiously bad.

i hate this - makes USA look like a farking nanny state - and we already have enuff of those. Does it stop them buying guns? that would be going too far.

How is it indicative of a nanny state if the state restricts the benefits its distributing so that it actually serves its intended purpose?

Just like the drug test on welfare recipients in Florida turned up that 98% of them were clean.

Let's be honest here though, you can beat tests fairly easily depending on the test and certain hard drugs aren't in your system for more than a few days.

You can be hard working, paying taxes and still require welfare assistance though.

Its pretty crazy that this even needs to be posted, I think it says something about the national dialogue surrounding welfare that it has to be said.

 

[InvestigatorIL]

I kind of agree and Im a liberal. Government assistance should be for necessities only.

 

[Mainez]

I kind of agree and Im a liberal. Government assistance should be for necessities only.

Well, ALL liberals would agree with that statement because it's our tax money too, and we'd agree to an extent with the things outlined in the bill though some are petty. The problem is that there really isn't any substantial evidence that welfare money is going to psychics, yet conservatives will claim this bill as a victory over the entitlement mindset they incorrectly claim the poor have. In reality, this bill is bullshit and accomplished nothing but forced tax payers in Kansas (who have bigger problems) to pay for that circus.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well, ALL liberals would agree with that statement because it's our tax money too, and we'd agree to an extent with the things outlined in the bill though some are petty.

I'm a liberal, and I don't agree at all. TANF is a cash benefit so there's no way to distinguish between what cash goes to what bill, and the idea that people who get that particular gov't benefit (note that there are no similar requirements for beneficiaries of the mortgage interest deductions, energy subsidies, military benefits, etc.) are not allowed to participate fully in their communities is sickening to me. The law is purely about spiting people that Kansas Republicans see as inferior.

 

[45ACP]

Weird guns are not on the list.
I guess even poor people have the right to protect all the crap they don't have.:icon_chee

Poor people don't deserve the ability to defend their families?

Think about where poor people typically live. Crime in general is much more common in poor areas.

As for this law, while it makes sense at face value, and people on govt assistance obviously shouldn't be buying things like tattoos and cruises(lol) I'd have to see some evidence that welfare money is actually being spent on these things often enough for it to be a problem.