Democrats demand EBT cards be usable for gun purchases

[Howey]

yeah, I don't think white trash trailer park welfare trash should be able to use their EBT cards to buy guns either.

Well, that leaves half of this forum gun-less.

 

[Capstone]

...I work to earn money and pay taxes. I don't mind that my taxes are used to provide the basic necesities for those unable to provide for themselves.

I do, however, mind when my hard earned tax dollars are expected to pay for something beyond those basic necessities.

Fair points, which I think appropriately justify restrictions on those "oranges" I mentioned early. Of course, those are vices; the capacity to defend one's home and family is a virtue, whether it's generally considered a "basic necessity" or not.

I think your view on the matter is very reasonable, though.

 

[Capstone]

Not to stir up the pot again, but my failure to address the following point has been bothering me:

...I agree that the poor have the same 2nd Amendment rights that everyone else does.

I simply insist that they buy their guns with their own money. I work to earn money and pay taxes. ...

The implication being that the able-bodied poor beneficiaries of the 'social safety net' don't "work to earn money"?

Because if that's what you're implying, it's simply not true.

There are stringent work requirements in place for able-bodied people to even qualify for these programs to begin with, and household incomes are carefully monitored by case-workers on a month-to-month basis in order to make benefit adjustments. Any loss of employment would thereby be discovered fairly quickly and the named beneficiary would be required to enroll in a hands-on work training program (this wouldn't just be a classroom full of lazy people sitting on their duffs) if they couldn't procure immediate employment elsewhere. In other words, the able-bodied working poor have to work in order to receive any benefits.

Now, I recognize the distinction on which your statement was based. There's clearly a difference between monies earned through employment and tax-payer funded benefits granted on the basis of employment, but "employment" would still be the key factor in both cases.

The stigma attached to using "the social safety hammock" (as certain pundits have called it) has become less and less credible as more hard-working (multiple job) families have qualified for and become virtually dependent on such benefits, while corporate greed and deregulation policies have laid waste to the 'middle class' working environment in this country over the past few decades.

As I've already conceded, certain restrictions are justified; but, above all else, such restrictions on tax-payer funded welfare programs (including loop-hole exemptions for corporations and the uber-wealthy, which effectively increase the tax-burden on what's left of the middle class) should apply first and foremost to 'corporate welfare'. Tongue in cheek, but true nonetheless.

And one more thing, Winterborn: cash assistance amounts are usually so negligible as to be prohibitive of purchasing large-ticket items anyway. So, pragmatically speaking, there's really no need to set a dangerous precedent against the purchasing power of law-abiding citizens, specifically for items the ownership of which is protected by The US Constitution.

There. I feel a little better now.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not to stir up the pot again, but my failure to address the following point has been bothering me:

...I agree that the poor have the same 2nd Amendment rights that everyone else does.

I simply insist that they buy their guns with their own money. I work to earn money and pay taxes. ...

The implication being that the able-bodied poor beneficiaries of the 'social safety net' don't "work to earn money"?

Because if that's what you're implying, it's simply not true.

There are stringent work requirements in place for able-bodied people to even qualify for these programs to begin with, and household incomes are carefully monitored by case-workers on a month-to-month basis in order to make benefit adjustments. Any loss of employment would thereby be discovered fairly quickly and the named beneficiary would be required to enroll in a hands-on work training program (this wouldn't just be a classroom full of lazy people sitting on their duffs) if they couldn't procure immediate employment elsewhere. In other words, the able-bodied working poor have to work in order to receive any benefits.

Now, I recognize the distinction on which your statement was based. There's clearly a difference between monies earned through employment and tax-payer funded benefits granted on the basis of employment, but "employment" would still be the key factor in both cases.

The stigma attached to using "the social safety hammock" (as certain pundits have called it) has become less and less credible as more hard-working (multiple job) families have qualified for and become virtually dependent on such benefits, while corporate greed and deregulation policies have laid waste to the 'middle class' working environment in this country over the past few decades.

As I've already conceded, certain restrictions are justified; but, above all else, such restrictions on tax-payer funded welfare programs (including loop-hole exemptions for corporations and the uber-wealthy, which effectively increase the tax-burden on what's left of the middle class) should apply first and foremost to 'corporate welfare'. Tongue in cheek, but true nonetheless.

And one more thing, Winterborn: cash assistance amounts are usually so negligible as to be prohibitive of purchasing large-ticket items anyway. So, pragmatically speaking, there's really no need to set a dangerous precedent against the purchasing power of law-abiding citizens, specifically for items the ownership of which is protected by The US Constitution.

There. I feel a little better now.

I am certainly not against anyone on public assistance saving their money for, and purchasing a gun. But it is not the EBT that is spent.

 

[Capstone]

I am certainly not against anyone on public assistance saving their money for, and purchasing a gun. But it is not the EBT that is spent.

Except for cases in which cash assistance had been granted in addition to food assistance and the cash had been accessed through either money-back transactions or ATM withdrawals in order to save it.