Louisiana Bans Use of Welfare Benefits for Tatts, etc.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Fox Source

Louisiana welfare recipients will be prohibited from spending the federal assistance at lingerie shops, tattoo parlors, nail salons and jewelry stores, under new limits enacted by state social services officials.

The Department of Children and Family Services announced the emergency regulations late Thursday. They cover the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program — commonly known as welfare benefits — and the Kinship Care Subsidy Program.

So ... now. After how many years? They finally figured out the difference between right and wrong? They're finally going to protect the taxpayer ... or their hands have finally reached the very bottoms of our pockets?


Violators of the new regulations will stop receiving welfare benefits for a year for a first offense, two years for a second offense and permanently for a third offense, according to the social services department.

The department also said it is seeking to enact the restrictions in law and allow the state to fine retailers who don't follow the guidelines. Rep. Chris Broadwater, R-Hammond, will sponsor the bill for consideration in the current legislative session.

Hey ... wait a sec Faux ... is this a done deal or is it a bill to be submitted for consideration?? LOL See the last line of the article where the Brown Shirt aspect is introduced. What the heck is going on here?



+5 more 
posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 


Spending welfare money on tatt's...............Those people need sterilization, not money.

We need to find a way to keep these people from breeding.
edit on Sun Mar 23 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   


So ... now. After how many years? They finally figured out the difference between right and wrong? They're finally going to protect the taxpayer ... or their hands have finally reached the very bottoms of our pockets?


Yep, people buying lingerie with their welfare is what's wrong with this country alright.

And so is poor people buying lobster with their food stamps. I saw something about it on Fox news. That's the whole reason America is doomed........

The taxpayers get shafted and are broke all the time because of poor people, its not because of rich people at all.
edit on 23-3-2014 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Peacetime
 


Stop linking increased benefits to more mouths. That might do something about it. Right now, you can get a "raise" for popping out another kid.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Cancerwarrior



So ... now. After how many years? They finally figured out the difference between right and wrong? They're finally going to protect the taxpayer ... or their hands have finally reached the very bottoms of our pockets?


Yep, people buying lingerie with their welfare is what's wrong with this country alright.

And so it poor people buying lobster with their food stamps. I saw something about it on Fox news. That's the whole reason America is doomed........


It's not the whole reason, but it's a start.

If you're running a budget that's in the red at every level, why are you letting that money bleed off into things that are unnecessary?

Poverty shouldn't be comfortable. If it were less comfortable, people might be more motivated to get out of it. But let them waste that money on tattoos, booze, cigarettes and gambling, and not only do they then not have what they need to live on so they complain they don't have enough (even though they do), but they have the little luxuries that make their existence just enough to keep them from getting inspired to try independence.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 


That these new restrictions were found necessary is enough to make me headdesk repeatedly out of sheer exasperation and disgust. I've heard that cooking wine is a favorite in my area, where homeless welfare recipients are concerned. They haven't done anything about that, and yet they changed regulations for this...that's how bad its gotten, huh? What a shame.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Hell whats wrong with an O.G.O.B. (Original Good Ole Boy) having some propaganda done at the tax payers expense..

edit on AM7Sun20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Cancerwarrior
And so is poor people buying lobster with their food stamps. I saw something about it on Fox news.

Oh yeah!! I remember that guy. I thought he took those interviews solely for the purpose of getting his band national attention.
Wasn't he the one driving around in an Escalade on top of everything else?



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 





It's not the whole reason, but it's a start.


Is the bottom really the best place to start? Should'nt you start at the top?




If you're running a budget that's in the red at every level, why are you letting that money bleed off into things that are unnecessary?


And therein lies the spin to all of this like it always is. All you ever get to see is the people doing dumb things like buying a weed pipe and getting a tattoo with their welfare (If these people even exist anyways, I'm sure Fox would not make anything up.) I wonder why they never show any of the people that are struggling and use their little welfare to feed their kids and pay bills? Or why they never do stories on the people that actually use it responsibly?

Because they don't want you to see or think about that end of the spectrum.

Just to add, my little sister works at the local tattoo/weedpipe/XXX store, which is right in central LA. She has been there for over 10 years. We actually talked about this the other day because it came up in a conversation but not once has she ever seen anyone come in and try to use a snap card or a welfare card to buy things with. in fact, she says most people just pay with cash because they are scared of leaving a papertrail if they buy a bong or a glass rose or something to smoke stuff out of. Or maybe they don't want their significant other to look at the bank statement and see they purchased a blowup doll and a crackpipe.

But still, you'd think she would have at least encountered it if it was such a rampant problem that they needed to pass a law to curb it.

But hey, another article from Fox news about how poor people are ruining everything is cool, can't get enough of those.


edit on 23-3-2014 by Cancerwarrior because: added more.
edit on 23-3-2014 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
This should be nation wide, not just LA.

However, should loss of benefits be 1 year? I mean let's face it, you take the benefits away completely and
most of these people are not going to do anything to better themselves, they're not going to go to work.
Will they turn to crime?

What is a good answer, how do we fix this, I dunno....



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Cancerwarrior
Is the bottom really the best place to start? Should'nt you start at the top?


Sure, if people there are taking advantage of the system .
It should be done wherever someone is exploiting.
Why is it any more acceptable for someone at the bottom to exploit than someone at the top?


Cancerwarrior
I wonder why they never show any of the people that are struggling and use their little welfare to feed their kids and pay bills? Or why they never do stories on the people that actually use it responsibly?


It's no different to me than the people here or in the media that constantly only show the bad things police do.
No one wants to read about someone that is doing their job or using a system correctly because their is no scandal to it.
edit on 2014pAmerica/Chicago3109pam by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by opethPA
 





Sure, if people there are taking advantage of the system .
It should be done wherever someone is exploiting.
Why is it any more acceptable for someone at the bottom to exploit than someone at the top?


I did not say it was more acceptable. I said corruption at the bottom is not nearly as rampant as what they want you to think.

Now corruption at the top? Those stories are swept under the rug all the time.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
 


I agree with you 100% it is the top we should start from but in the mean time i don't see nothing wrong with a law such as above existing. Nothing.

Like your sister said it probably doesn't happen often but nail, tattoo parlors etc. are def. last places someone on welfare should visit so now they know.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


However, should loss of benefits be 1 year?

That one I can't understand. If folks can survive a year without benefits, did they ever really need them?

I don't see any 'teeth' to this measure ... yet. It looks more like a disincentive for other folks to not hop on the bandwagon.

Yeah ... welfare use is out of control, but it seems to me that the whole country is out of control. Not to go OT in this thread, but when was the last time Congress had an approval rating of over 50%



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


some will turn to crime and some will follow the rules. the key is to try and get a larger percentage of the population to spend that money as it is meant to be spent, on food, clothing and shelter.

Post Katrina, the government handed out $2k to victims. While much of the money was withdrawn in cash, a portion of the debit card holding population spent it on guns, bling, porn, bail, strippers, travel etc. There needs to be a better system of providing for those in need. If you give them the three essentials, rather than the ability to pay for the three essentials, you might find less people in line for their handouts.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Cancerwarrior
I did not say it was more acceptable. I said corruption at the bottom is not nearly as rampant as what they want you to think.
Now corruption at the top? Those stories are swept under the rug all the time.


Corruption is there at every level of class.

Being poor does not mean you are more noble then someone who is rich.
Being rich does not mean you are more noble then someone who is poor.
Being middle class does not mean you better than both the other classes.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Maybe the US government should do a deal with WAl MART, so they can only use the cards on BASICS there...12 WORST SUPERMARKETS IN THE USA
edit on AM7Sun20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Exitt
 


Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the law either. As somebody that has worked all of his life and now can't because of a disability.

But its sheer insanity to me that number of threads I see on here denouncing people in poverty as all lazy bums who just sit around looking at their brand new iphones and ipads wearing lingerie and talking on an obamaphone and eating shrimp and lobster with their little welfare and snap checks.

I see more and more of these threads, and I don't think its because more and more people are buying things other than food/bills with their foodstamps/welfare. I think its because there is a blatant smear campaign that's been well underway for a while now to get the average middle class person to blame the poor folks for the reason their wealth is being eroded away slowly but surely.

Meanwhile, the rich people keep laughing at us all the way to the bank.


Seems to me like they are doing an excellent job.

edit on 23-3-2014 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 


A China-Mart monopoly? no. Any store that sells basic needs.

I don't understand how welfare recipients were ever allowed to spend their money on tat's or girls gone wild videos. Those funds should be monitored closely to make sure that it is being used correctly. That assistance is for basic living needs. I think it would be ok for tobacco but no alcohol or other non-basic living things.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 

Might be better to exclude Walmart from the list too. If benefits were kept exclusively in the community (a mom and pop type operation), the beneficiaries may be more highly regarded by the community as a whole. Line the pockets of a corporation and the money goes elsewhere.

I don't think welfare goes far enough ... but some serious thought on the subject is a start.

Star for your thoughts!





new topics




 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join