Louisiana Bans Use of Welfare Benefits for Tatts, etc.

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

Yet all I see are posts here railing against the 1% or anyone that is doing well in life.
If you succeed you are part of the matrix type comments.

People do bad things everywhere.

reply to post by opethPA

Being poor does not mean you are more noble then someone who is rich.

Why are you bringing up nobility? What does that have to do with anything?

Yet all I see are posts here railing against the 1% or anyone that is doing well in life.

All you see are people wailing about the one percent of wealthy? Do you even know which thread you are posting in?

If you succeed you are part of the matrix type comments.

If by successful, you mean filthy rich by way of screwing over the little guy then I suppose you're right.

reply to post by Snarl


I suppose next they can move into cutting pensions. Then possibly bloated school systems that pay coaches millions and other teachers crap; or hmm, building apartment buildings for teachers they #ing import instead of hiring locally. Lets see… oh yea, cut those funds they give to corporations and businesses to "bring them into the state." Lets not forget cameras. red light cameras. traffic cams of all sort. bye bye, wave bye to cams everybody.

how else can the states and by default the taxpayer save money… hmm hell lets not stop there. cut government pay all around. set the property tax to 0 thats right! big fat zero. No more taxpayer funded swat teams either.

How much freedom do you guys want… I # freedom all day long. all day. every day.

Cancerwarrior
Why are you bringing up nobility? What does that have to do with anything?

Nobel in the sense that their isn't one class that is any more likely or less likely to commit crime or exploit a system .

All you see are people wailing about the one percent of wealthy? Do you even know which thread you are posting in?

Yes a thread in which you said all you see are posts against the lower class.

reply to post by Snarl


Great another bandwagon for the ACLU to jump on. Though this sounds good in principle. it will be hotly contested in court.

As it has in other states that have attempted to lop off some of the gimme fingers of the 20 fingered monster welfare has bloated into. In trying to make drug testing a condition of recipients.

I personally know of one family in my area, that have been on government assistance for at least 20 years, have 4 children, and the mother spent $1,200.00 on a prom dress for her daughter. Yes, they drive nice cars, and never seem to lack for anything in surplus creature comforts.

It's a way of life with some people. They work under the table, and only counter cash paychecks at the bank if they can't get paid in cash.

The don't know how to NOT play the system, and raise their children to do the same as they have done their whole lives.

I don't know how to get to the root of the problem, it's grown so deep in multi-generational families.

I still don't know if states running deeper in the red, are capable of growing new teeth in making laws to make welfare recipients play by the rules. When the recipients don't see the money they get as having been taken from someone else to give to them.

I think they will have to scrap the old rule book, and write a whole new one.

Des

Funny how someone getting by on welfare isn't allowed to buy a tattoo or some nice underwear for a present. So they're only allowed to survive, not live.

When are all the bankers and stuff going to be prevented from spending their billions of taxpayers money on crystal, coke and prossies?

Hardly seems fair to exempt them. ..

reply to post by Destinyone

Hi Des. Thanks for your comments!!

I think they will have to scrap the old rule book, and write a whole new one.

There'll be a national discussion before it ever comes to this. I'd bet only one team would show up for a debate, and when it got down to voting they'd wind up with pretty much the same thing we've got now. Seems like everybody's winning except the taxpayer ... but ending Welfare certainly isn't going to lower my tax rate, will it? LOL

My problem with this law is that I doubt people are getting tattoos and shopping at Victoria's secret and swiping their welfare card.

I imagine the day the money is posted to the card, they hit an ATM and withdraw all available funds. Now it is cash money and they can pretty much do anything they want with it.

If they spend it on a tattoo then they obviously don't need it.

So in reality it is just another BS law made to look like the Gov't is doing something but is really just a waste of time.

A law that could work would be more along the lines of people on probation, allowing access to their home at any time. I bet more than half the people on full welfare benefits scam the system one way or another.

Welfare benefits is a voluntary program, you don't have them forced onto you. One condition of full benefits, housing, food, medical and spending cash should be access to your home at any time.

Why do the welfare recipients need cash anyhow? diapers dish and laundry soap, those kind of things.
So why do we as taxpayers allow these things to be purchased at retail prices.? Why can't the Gov't use our money to buy, lets say 1 billion diapers at IDK 5 cents each and give them away. Wal-mart seems to have that down pretty good.

You could have distribution centers, the money we save could pay to ship diapers and household goods.
Having to go to a distribution center may take too much of their time and be a hassle? well going to work everyday to pay for their free stuff takes up quite a bit of my time as well.

So in closing just want to say this is just another waste of taxpayer money trying to make the elected look like they are doing something

Snarl
reply to post by Destinyone

 

Hi Des.

Thanks for your comments!!

I think they will have to scrap the old rule book, and write a whole new one.

There'll be a national discussion before it ever comes to this. I'd bet only one team would show up for a debate, and when it got down to voting they'd wind up with pretty much the same thing we've got now. Seems like everybody's winning except the taxpayer ... but ending Welfare certainly isn't going to lower my tax rate, will it? LOL

psssht Id cut the big fat welfare check these politicians get from lobbyists. wave bye bye to campaign funding. bye bye! /wave do it on your own folks! Just takes a little 'hard work and motivation" some of that "grass roots inspiration."

Im tyrannical aint I

no more plane trips on the public dole.

How far do we take this? I got all day.
No more tasers, sell all these squad cars and tactical units
10 bullet minimum.
pay for your own gas.
what else.
are you a judge? buy your own gown… yea pay for your own paper, staplers, laptops, cell phones… what else..

Nephalim

Snarl
reply to post by Destinyone

 

Hi Des.

Thanks for your comments!!

I think they will have to scrap the old rule book, and write a whole new one.

There'll be a national discussion before it ever comes to this. I'd bet only one team would show up for a debate, and when it got down to voting they'd wind up with pretty much the same thing we've got now. Seems like everybody's winning except the taxpayer ... but ending Welfare certainly isn't going to lower my tax rate, will it? LOL

psssht Id cut the big fat welfare check these politicians get from lobbyists. wave bye bye to campaign funding. bye bye! /wave do it on your own folks! Just takes a little 'hard work and motivation" some of that "grass roots inspiration."

Im tyrannical aint I

ROFL ... laughing so hard I can't think of how to respond to that. I'm off to bed. You're in charge!!

Out of interest - what sort of unemployment benefit or income support do you get in the States? Does it vary from State to State, and is it means tested?

In the UK, the flat 'Job Seeker's Allowance' for adults over 25 is £72.40 per week ($119). Of course, you can apply for other things such as housing benefit towards your rent and suchlike. All Brits get benefit payments for their children (on a sliding scale)

When I was made redundant a few years back, the £72.40 (slightly less then) was all I was entitled to as my live-in partner earned just £15,000 pre-tax ($24.752) which put our combined income over the threshold for receiving other assistance such as housing etc.

It was better than nothing, but £18,764.80 (approx $30,952) was not a lot for two people to live on in a major city - and that figure doesn't include the income tax she had to pay on around £6/7,000 of her wage. In the UK, no-one pays tax on the first £9,000 (I think that's about to rise actually) of earnings to protect low earners - no idea if this is similar in America.

Anyhow, there was certainly not much money left for tats.

reply to post by KingIcarus


Unemployment varies by state. and also varies by the amount of money you earned. In Michigan I receive the max of $362 a week for 20 weeks.

I think Massachusetts is tops at just over 500 a week.

The last time I was unemployed I filed online for food stamps and got $13 a month. Better than nothing I guess.

KingIcarus
Out of interest - what sort of unemployment benefit or income support do you get in the States? Does it vary from State to State, and is it means tested?

In the UK, the flat 'Job Seeker's Allowance' for adults over 25 is £72.40 per week ($119). Of course, you can apply for other things such as housing benefit towards your rent and suchlike. All Brits get benefit payments for their children (on a sliding scale)

When I was made redundant a few years back, the £72.40 (slightly less then) was all I was entitled to as my live-in partner earned just £15,000 pre-tax ($24.752) which put our combined income over the threshold for receiving other assistance such as housing etc.

It was better than nothing, but £18,764.80 (approx $30,952) was not a lot for two people to live on in a major city - and that figure doesn't include the income tax she had to pay on around £6/7,000 of her wage. In the UK, no-one pays tax on the first £9,000 (I think that's about to rise actually) of earnings to protect low earners - no idea if this is similar in America.

Anyhow, there was certainly not much money left for tats.

edit on 23-3-2014 by KingIcarus because: to add $ values for people's ease...

So, you have 1471 a month to live on after tax...not bad..better than welfare isnt it..are you paying mortgage or rent ??

Here in Spain if you have that much left every month you live like a king..

SprocketUK
Funny how someone getting by on welfare isn't allowed to buy a tattoo or some nice underwear for a present. So they're only allowed to survive, not live.

When are all the bankers and stuff going to be prevented from spending their billions of taxpayers money on crystal, coke and prossies?

Hardly seems fair to exempt them. ..

Just because something else is also wrong, doesn't make stealing on a small scale wrong either. If you are using someone else's money you should not be allowed to buy a tattoo with it. The very fact that you can't see that is the problem. The reason I have money (to some degree) is because I don't buy smokes, tattoos, liquor, twinkies, premium cable etc. These are all "Luxuries". Why should I give my money to help those in need and they get these "luxuries" when I go without. You do not need a smart phone to live comfortably. If a tattoo and lacy underwear is some requirement for a happy life, then you are clearly missing the boat. Taking someone else's hard-EARNED money and shamelessly spending it on tattoos and cigarettes IS WRONG.

When I was broke, I ate cold baked beans out of the can. I cooked potatoes. I didn't have TV. I didn't get those things because I couldn't AFFORD it. The little guy stealing IS what is wrong with the world. Changing the leaders, bankers etc. isn't going to fix anything. The little guy across the board needs to change and the whole picture will change since the little guy becomes the big guy. Why do you think those corporate thieves think it is ok? It is because they are raised in a society where it is encouraged from birth to get money by any means necessary. Think about it. Stealing is stealing regardless of amount. The fact that you don't see that is the very problem.

This "law" will not stop any corruption unless it also includes a provision that says being poor = being criminal and provides for monitoring those on welfare as such, with scheduled meetings with a welfare parole officer for body checks or ankle bracelets. Can't you see what a slippery slope this is?

We try to provide for the basic needs for the poor (food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare), and that's great. It gives people a way to survive. This is a good first step. But we need more than first steps.

Is there abuse? Sure. We all know that some families on welfare have been there for generations and really know how to work the system. But some really need it. But laws like this don't really look at the root causes of either situation or do anything real and lasting to address them.

And laws like this do nothing in the way of support and encouragement in the ways that really motivate people to improve and contribute and thrive. Instead they just belittle, ostracize, and judge them, paint their letter P with an even brighter shade of red, or give some people who think they're better the ammunition to.

Think that's going to solve anything?

And laws like these coupled with the other stringent guidelines that the moment a person makes a move to get beyond what they need to merely survive, what they need to survive is yanked away from them, and the spiral starts all over again. We punish people for trying to move out of poverty instead of encouraging them to do so. It's almost as if we want them there.

We need second and third steps to address some things too.

Humans, rich or poor, but especially the poor, need more to help them feel worthy and hopeful for the future. And at times they need relief from...well...poverty. Maybe that's not tattoos or manicures or lobsters, but it's something they're not getting. Not from the government or your tax dollars (heaven forbid) or anywhere.

So what is the effect of this type of legislation in particular really? It makes a grand statement, gives all of you something to rah-rah about and fodder to judge your fellow human beings with, but also again ignores the real issues of causes of poverty and the real hurdles poor people face.

Maybe we need to try some innovative things to get beyond all this. Like a year guaranteed with no punishment should you find and keep work at anytime during that year or go to school during that year or volunteer during that year.

But very few seem willing to try anything positive and prefer to focus so on the negative, the constraining, and the dangerous "laws." And that makes me both angry and sad.

andy1972
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)

as much as i HATE wal-mart after working there for far too long, i have to say you are wrong on this issue. trust me wal-mart has LOTS of faults but not this particular one.

i was out visiting relatives. one is on the EBT card as they have mental handicaps that make it so they can't work. we were at a wal-mart and they were picking up stuff. one was a tiny trial size bottle of wine. they wanted this because we were trying to teach them to cook non prepared foods, and one recipe we had called for wine. another item was an "energy drink". as well as other food stuffs. we went through the self checkout, and when she put in her card, it took money for everything else and left a balance owing for those two items. i ended up paying for them myself. so it seems clear that wal-mart already has things in place on their cash register systems to not accept the card for any "extras". i had always wondered about that but now know they can't use it for other stuff.

now before people go nuts telling me that is not so, that they have seen with their own eyes people buying non necessities with those cards, i will explain why. there was something similar to this discussion awhile back so i got a hold of my relatives to ask since they know how it works, because what i saw differed from what other people had seen. what seems to confuse people is that they DO see people using EBT cards on other stuff, but the problem is that welfare and food stamps are not the only things the card is used for (it should be, but you know cuts and saving money and all that). they were saying stuff like social security, unemployment money and other stuff use the same cards. so perhaps the logical first step in dealing with the problem is to issue different cards for different things, that way people will not get confused when the see what they consider a "welfare card" being used to buy other things. other states could be different, but i wouldn't bet the farm on it.

so perhaps buying "fancy underwear" on the EBT card is not the problem it is being made out to be. why shouldn't someone on social security or unemployment type things, NOT be able to buy fancy underwear (shudder at the thought of a retiree in it), beer, tattoos, jewelry or anything else they want? that is THEIR MONEY, not a "handout"?

Halfswede

SprocketUK
Funny how someone getting by on welfare isn't allowed to buy a tattoo or some nice underwear for a present. So they're only allowed to survive, not live.

When are all the bankers and stuff going to be prevented from spending their billions of taxpayers money on crystal, coke and prossies?

Hardly seems fair to exempt them. ..

Just because something else is also wrong, doesn't make stealing on a small scale wrong either. If you are using someone else's money you should not be allowed to buy a tattoo with it. The very fact that you can't see that is the problem. The reason I have money (to some degree) is because I don't buy smokes, tattoos, liquor, twinkies, premium cable etc. These are all "Luxuries". Why should I give my money to help those in need and they get these "luxuries" when I go without. You do not need a smart phone to live comfortably. If a tattoo and lacy underwear is some requirement for a happy life, then you are clearly missing the boat. Taking someone else's hard-EARNED money and shamelessly spending it on tattoos and cigarettes IS WRONG.

When I was broke, I ate cold baked beans out of the can. I cooked potatoes. I didn't have TV. I didn't get those things because I couldn't AFFORD it. The little guy stealing IS what is wrong with the world. Changing the leaders, bankers etc. isn't going to fix anything. The little guy across the board needs to change and the whole picture will change since the little guy becomes the big guy. Why do you think those corporate thieves think it is ok? It is because they are raised in a society where it is encouraged from birth to get money by any means necessary. Think about it. Stealing is stealing regardless of amount. The fact that you don't see that is the very problem.

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

First, getting welfare isn't stealing, nor is spending it on something that someone else doesn't like stealing.
I bet loads of vegetarians would like to stop welfare being used for meat for example, or campaigners against third world exploitation would like a ban on cheap, imported clothing.


My problem with always going after the folks on the dole is that it saves a fraction of what going after the big boys and girls will.
People only ever want to dictate to the little man though, don't they?

Maybe cos they're so brainwashed they still think that one day, if they play by the rules, keep their noses clean and don't rock the boat, they'll have a place at the top table too.

Like that's ever gonna happen.

generik

andy1972
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)

as much as i HATE wal-mart after working there for far too long, i have to say you are wrong on this issue. trust me wal-mart has LOTS of faults but not this particular one.

i was out visiting relatives. one is on the EBT card as they have mental handicaps that make it so they can't work. we were at a wal-mart and they were picking up stuff. one was a tiny trial size bottle of wine. they wanted this because we were trying to teach them to cook non prepared foods, and one recipe we had called for wine. another item was an "energy drink". as well as other food stuffs. we went through the self checkout, and when she put in her card, it took money for everything else and left a balance owing for those two items. i ended up paying for them myself. so it seems clear that wal-mart already has things in place on their cash register systems to not accept the card for any "extras". i had always wondered about that but now know they can't use it for other stuff.

now before people go nuts telling me that is not so, that they have seen with their own eyes people buying non necessities with those cards, i will explain why. there was something similar to this discussion awhile back so i got a hold of my relatives to ask since they know how it works, because what i saw differed from what other people had seen. what seems to confuse people is that they DO see people using EBT cards on other stuff, but the problem is that welfare and food stamps are not the only things the card is used for (it should be, but you know cuts and saving money and all that). they were saying stuff like social security, unemployment money and other stuff use the same cards. so perhaps the logical first step in dealing with the problem is to issue different cards for different things, that way people will not get confused when the see what they consider a "welfare card" being used to buy other things. other states could be different, but i wouldn't bet the farm on it.

so perhaps buying "fancy underwear" on the EBT card is not the problem it is being made out to be. why shouldn't someone on social security or unemployment type things, NOT be able to buy fancy underwear (shudder at the thought of a retiree in it), beer, tattoos, jewelry or anything else they want? that is THEIR MONEY, not a "handout"?

Please note, i wasn't criticising Wal Mart..i don't even know what it's like...only what you see on the movies, not to mention on Youtube

SprocketUK


First, getting welfare isn't stealing, nor is spending it on something that someone else doesn't like stealing.
I bet loads of vegetarians would like to stop welfare being used for meat for example, or campaigners against third world exploitation would like a ban on cheap, imported clothing.


My problem with always going after the folks on the dole is that it saves a fraction of what going after the big boys and girls will.
People only ever want to dictate to the little man though, don't they?

Maybe cos they're so brainwashed they still think that one day, if they play by the rules, keep their noses clean and don't rock the boat, they'll have a place at the top table too.

Like that's ever gonna happen.

If you don't think spending welfare on tattoos is stealing, then big corps getting an unnecessary bonus or having an unnecessary lavish party on the shareholders dime shouldn't be a problem. You can't have it both ways. It is the exact same moral compass, just a matter of scale. Welfare is not there to provide a lifestyle the same as that of a middle income person who is working for it. Otherwise, nobody would work. It is designed to give them necessities like food, shelter, utilities. It is not a matter of whether I "like" tattoos. They are UNNECESSARY. Earn you own money if you want one. Again, the fact that you can't even see this shows how bad the problem is.

If my buddy loaned me $100 and I spent that on a dinner out and a movie, I would feel like a total &*ck. Do you know why I would feel that way? It feels wrong because it IS. When you are so soaked in a broken moral code, you can't even see right from wrong. That IS THE problem with society at ALL levels.

reply to post by Snarl

but ending Welfare certainly isn't going to lower my tax rate, will it? LOL

Ding Ding Ding!!

You hit on the one KEY thing that makes many of the arguments in this thread irrelevant! No matter where cuts are made to the working class or poor will it reduce our bloated government agencies? Will it reduce out deficit? Do people actually think the "Carbon Tax" is actually designed to actually save our planet?

This whole mad experiment is nothing more than social engineering following the path of Cloward and Piven. Class warfare is a well manipulated strategy to keep those whom created our problems hidden in the shadows while we push the blame on each other. The question is, "What will we do when all of us are getting government handouts OR no handouts at all?"......