Food Stamps OK For Porn, Tatoos, Jewelry

[Moonglow]

There is no true poverty in the United States of America.
That is, material poverty. But there is spiritual poverty, poverty of character.
And there is a virulent political philosophy that encourages taking, rather than earning....
...pleading and demanding based on envy.

Food stamps for those who need food, and cannot provide for themselves...an old and honorable heritage in America: "On January 6, 1657 twenty-eight “Scottish men” signed the Laws Rules and Order of the Poor Boxes Society” in Boston, New England and formed the Scots’ Charitable Society."
http://www.linknet1.com/scots-charitable/menu1/index1.html



But what the Left has made common is a blemish on the nation and the people...

1."Mass Gov. Deval Patrick Vetoes Ban On Using Welfare EBT Cards To Purchase Porn, Tattoos, Manicures Because It Would “Humiliate Poor People”…No surprise he’s a close friend of Barack Obama (Axelrod ran his first campaign for Mass governor).

2. Patrick vetoed the reforms Sunday while signing the state’s $32.5 billion budget.

3. According to the Boston Herald, which first reported the veto, the governor berated the legislature’s stab at banning the purchase of specific items like manicures, tattoos, guns, porn, body piercings, jewelry, and bail by saying the move was “political grandstanding” at a time when such reforms are already on track elsewhere.


4. “I’m not going to do anything that makes vulnerable people beg for their benefits.This notion of humiliating poor people has got to be separated from how we make a program, and frankly separated and disposed of, from how we make a program work and work well,” Patrick said,...



5. Patrick allowed bans on the use of EBT cards in establishments known for the sale of seemingly controversial items — such as tattoo parlors, gun shops, casinos, cruise ships, and adult entertainment facilities —- to stand."
Exposing Liberal Lies: Deval Patrick OKs Porn, Tatoos, Jewelry with Food Stamps




We live in a time when the welfare industry needs to convinced well-meaning folks that there is a 'need.'
Rather it is a 'want.'


Consider the above when you vote.

Ban On Using Welfare EBT Cards

EBT cards contain food monies and cash benefits if you qualify. The items to be purchased with EBT cards are seperated into food and non-food items.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again with the illogic.

Again with the facts. You rape the language to pursue your partisan agenda. Expect to be called on it.

We are able to feed our poor, India isn't.

The less fortunate in America live lives that Henry the VIII would have envied. The fact is, our poor are well nourished, have better accommodations than 90% of the world, and have no real fear of mortal danger (save from each other.)

What you portray is a lie, and you know it. But you have a political agenda, so you don't care.

A dumbshit like you does not see any homeless poor for two reasons.

Wait a minute, there can't be any homeless, Barack Obama is god and made all the homeless homely (homed?) I mean, that's what you lefties and your media keep claiming. You'll sure not see any ABC investigations of "The homelessness crises" while Dear Leader is in office, not like they were running in October of 2004...

One, you never really looked. Two, many of our poor are fed and sheltered and clothed by our government and our private charities. If our government did not, then you would not be able to avoid seeing them.

Yo, sparky. If they are fed and sheltered, then they are not in poverty.

Words have meanings - even though you have an agenda.

We are fortunate to be a wealthy enough country that we can afford to do this.

The difference is one of political will. What separates us for Guatemala is the political and economic structure we had before Obama. If we let you of the left continue to run things, then we will have poverty here, too. And yes, you'll blame the Republicans.

But we still aren't catching them all. There are many falling through the cracks. Which is exactly why I started my charity.

I wish a couple of dumbshits like you and PoliticalChickenshit had come to me and said, "We have no real poverty."

Why? You're not smart enough to comprehend the meaning of the words.

Then I would have taken you on some of my deliveries. And after we dropped off some food to a family of three I know who are living in the back of a broken down pickup truck and wearing five coats apiece to keep out the cold, I would have tossed your asses out of the car once I got up to highway speed.

You lack the wits to recognize the difference between "needy" and "poverty." I'd like to take you to Mexico City and show you what poverty actually looks like.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Poor is a relative term, dumbfuck. Compared to Bill Gates, I'm poor.

We have no real poverty. Real poverty is life threatening. Real poverty is the slums of Calcutta or the back alleys of Mexico City, or most of Guatemala. No one in the USA faces death due to the inability to get a meal.

Apparently the conservatives in Calcutta have had better luck blocking social programs for the poor.

For your edification:

"For three decades after its independence in 1947, India strove for self-sufficiency instead of the gains of international trade, and gave the state an ever-increasing role in controlling the means of production, says Aiyar:

These policies yielded economic growth of 3.5 percent per year, which was half that of export-oriented Asian countries, and yielded slow progress in social indicators, too.
Growth per capita in India was even slower, at 1.49 percent per year.
It accelerated after reforms started tentatively in 1981, and shot up to 6.78 percent per year after reforms deepened in the current decade.


What would the impact on social indicators have been had India commenced economic reform one decade earlier, and enjoyed correspondingly faster economic growth and improvements in human development indicators?

In "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform In India," Aiyar seeks to estimate the number of "missing children," "missing literates" and "missing non-poor" resulting from delayed reform, slower economic growth, and hence, slower improvement of social indicators.
He finds that with earlier reform:
14.5 million more children would have survived.
261 million more Indians would have become literate.
109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy, says Aiyar. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither."
Source: Swaminathan Aiyar, "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform in India," Cato Institute, October 21, 2009.

Sheer nonsense. The Cato institute is almost as stupid and dishonest as you are.

 

[High_Gravity]

Again with the illogic.

Again with the facts. You rape the language to pursue your partisan agenda. Expect to be called on it.

We are able to feed our poor, India isn't.

The less fortunate in America live lives that Henry the VIII would have envied. The fact is, our poor are well nourished, have better accommodations than 90% of the world, and have no real fear of mortal danger (save from each other.)

What you portray is a lie, and you know it. But you have a political agenda, so you don't care.



Wait a minute, there can't be any homeless, Barack Obama is god and made all the homeless homely (homed?) I mean, that's what you lefties and your media keep claiming. You'll sure not see any ABC investigations of "The homelessness crises" while Dear Leader is in office, not like they were running in October of 2004...



Yo, sparky. If they are fed and sheltered, then they are not in poverty.

Words have meanings - even though you have an agenda.



The difference is one of political will. What separates us for Guatemala is the political and economic structure we had before Obama. If we let you of the left continue to run things, then we will have poverty here, too. And yes, you'll blame the Republicans.

But we still aren't catching them all. There are many falling through the cracks. Which is exactly why I started my charity.

I wish a couple of dumbshits like you and PoliticalChickenshit had come to me and said, "We have no real poverty."

Why? You're not smart enough to comprehend the meaning of the words.

Then I would have taken you on some of my deliveries. And after we dropped off some food to a family of three I know who are living in the back of a broken down pickup truck and wearing five coats apiece to keep out the cold, I would have tossed your asses out of the car once I got up to highway speed.

You lack the wits to recognize the difference between "needy" and "poverty." I'd like to take you to Mexico City and show you what poverty actually looks like.

Mexico city is too nice, try Darfur, Zimbabwe, Somalia or the Congo.

 

[Moonglow]

But repubs and conservatives alike support the program. When one party of the other has been in control of executive or legislative branches, neither has voted to stop the program.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? And what is the socialist program in India that feeds the poor?

I believe that the great idol of the left, Josef Stalin, coined the term "useless eaters."

Socialism rarely helps anyone but the 1% ruling caste. It's kind of the point of socialism.

 

[Moonglow]

Again with the illogic.

Again with the facts. You rape the language to pursue your partisan agenda. Expect to be called on it.

We are able to feed our poor, India isn't.

The less fortunate in America live lives that Henry the VIII would have envied. The fact is, our poor are well nourished, have better accommodations than 90% of the world, and have no real fear of mortal danger (save from each other.)

What you portray is a lie, and you know it. But you have a political agenda, so you don't care.



Wait a minute, there can't be any homeless, Barack Obama is god and made all the homeless homely (homed?) I mean, that's what you lefties and your media keep claiming. You'll sure not see any ABC investigations of "The homelessness crises" while Dear Leader is in office, not like they were running in October of 2004...



Yo, sparky. If they are fed and sheltered, then they are not in poverty.

Words have meanings - even though you have an agenda.



The difference is one of political will. What separates us for Guatemala is the political and economic structure we had before Obama. If we let you of the left continue to run things, then we will have poverty here, too. And yes, you'll blame the Republicans.

But we still aren't catching them all. There are many falling through the cracks. Which is exactly why I started my charity.

I wish a couple of dumbshits like you and PoliticalChickenshit had come to me and said, "We have no real poverty."

Why? You're not smart enough to comprehend the meaning of the words.

Then I would have taken you on some of my deliveries. And after we dropped off some food to a family of three I know who are living in the back of a broken down pickup truck and wearing five coats apiece to keep out the cold, I would have tossed your asses out of the car once I got up to highway speed.

You lack the wits to recognize the difference between "needy" and "poverty." I'd like to take you to Mexico City and show you what poverty actually looks like.

homelessness~not a word

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sheer nonsense. The Cato institute is almost as stupid and dishonest as you are.

Is this an example of you "defeating PC in debate?"

ROFL.

 

[Moonglow]

Really? And what is the socialist program in India that feeds the poor?

I believe that the great idol of the left, Josef Stalin, coined the term "useless eaters."

Socialism rarely helps anyone but the 1% ruling caste. It's kind of the point of socialism.

the communist in Russia liked him, but you see no liberals carrying posters of him.
Just like I am sure you don't carry around anything like that.
Stalin and Moa etc., are never quoted or followed by libs.
Anymore lies?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mexico city is too nice, try Darfur, Zimbabwe, Somalia or the Congo.

No doubt, but I haven't been to those. I have been to MC. There are beautiful parts of MC, but there are slums that chill the blood. Mexico is an extremely racist country, with the Indians occupying the lowest rung on the ladder. Dead bodies from starvation are not unusual in the Azteca slums.

I was at Weinerschnitzle the other night. Bought a 10 pack of Chili Dogs (my weakness!) There was a woman sitting at a bench who kept looking at me. I finally walked over and she said she was hungry. So I gave he a couple of my hot dogs.

The point is, none of us want anyone to go hungry, not in this nation. Pretty much anyone I know would have done exactly what I did - despite the portrayal of G5000 of evil Republicans spitting on the poor. But there is a world of difference in American poor, and the real poverty that so much of the world suffers. This doesn't mean we shouldn't help people, quite the opposite - but the portrayal of poverty in this nation is false.

 

[Uncensored2008]

the communist in Russia liked him, but you see no liberals carrying posters of him.

I see them wearing Che teeshirts and with Che posters. Gueverra who was a Stalinist to the bone..

Just like I am sure you don't carry around anything like that.
Stalin and Moa etc., are never quoted or followed by libs.
Anymore lies?

Mao particularly, is a huge influence on Barack Obama and his mentors, Bill Ayers, Malcolm X, etc.

What are you talking about? Leftist Academia worships Mao.

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently the conservatives in Calcutta have had better luck blocking social programs for the poor.

For your edification:

"For three decades after its independence in 1947, India strove for self-sufficiency instead of the gains of international trade, and gave the state an ever-increasing role in controlling the means of production, says Aiyar:

These policies yielded economic growth of 3.5 percent per year, which was half that of export-oriented Asian countries, and yielded slow progress in social indicators, too.
Growth per capita in India was even slower, at 1.49 percent per year.
It accelerated after reforms started tentatively in 1981, and shot up to 6.78 percent per year after reforms deepened in the current decade.


What would the impact on social indicators have been had India commenced economic reform one decade earlier, and enjoyed correspondingly faster economic growth and improvements in human development indicators?

In "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform In India," Aiyar seeks to estimate the number of "missing children," "missing literates" and "missing non-poor" resulting from delayed reform, slower economic growth, and hence, slower improvement of social indicators.
He finds that with earlier reform:
14.5 million more children would have survived.
261 million more Indians would have become literate.
109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy, says Aiyar. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither."
Source: Swaminathan Aiyar, "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform in India," Cato Institute, October 21, 2009.

Sheer nonsense. The Cato institute is almost as stupid and dishonest as you are.

Apparently PompousCheek agrees with you about Cato, because she seems to have rejected the Cato argument that after spending 9 trillion on the War On Poverty, poverty has increased!!!

 

[koshergrl]

I actually agree within reason

I don't want to start a Twinkee Police or play the "poor people should eat gruel" game

I support sane restrictions on what food stamps can buy. Basically, grocery store only

Private charity is private charity. They can do what they want. I don't want government sponsorship. It opens up too many opportunities for less than honest charities

well, way back when you could ONLY buy specific items with foodstamps...I ate gov. cheese, literally and drank powered milk it sucked but was better than going hungry.


I am not sure if they even do that anymore but the foodstamp prgm. , I understood when I was growing up, was to buttress basic nutrition via making staples available; milk cheese bread , freeing up what monies you had for other things, like meat, etc....you could not though buy steak and certain high cuts of meat etc...no liquor, ciggs etc. with foostamps, ever....my mother was embarrassed just using them and would wait till there was no line in the market if she could.....those days are long fucking gone apparently.

Please educate yourself on the simple things. Yes, they still limit your purchasing with food stamps despite the bullshit the OP is trying to say. It is also much harder to purchase other items with food stamps as modern cash registers do all the limitations. The modern inventory systems of places that can allow you to use an EBT card define the products in the store that can be purchased by the EBT card, and it simply will not allow a clerk to ring up a non-food product for purchase with food benefits. They are also no longer really tradeable for money as you do not get "stamps" you might be able to swap for cash. Simply you have a debit card, and you cannot sell parts of that to get money for smokes or alcohol like they used to.

It is also good to note the present food stamp system gives you less than 7 dollars a day to eat with, and that is if you are getting the best and full benefits. If you want to eat all month you really have to buy non-brand name and bulk food options. Even the idea some states wish to pass that would allow people to buy prepared foods like fast food items is really stupid as you could barely afford one meal at McDonalds a day.

They are tradable for money if you find people who have cash to pay less value for foodstamps than they would pay for cash...like my example, where the Thai grocer would purchase food stamps from people for about 3/4 value, then use them to stock his store.

 

[paulitician]

What's next for the Massholes? Voting for a fake Indian? Stay tuned.

 

[High_Gravity]

Mexico city is too nice, try Darfur, Zimbabwe, Somalia or the Congo.

No doubt, but I haven't been to those. I have been to MC. There are beautiful parts of MC, but there are slums that chill the blood. Mexico is an extremely racist country, with the Indians occupying the lowest rung on the ladder. Dead bodies from starvation are not unusual in the Azteca slums.

I was at Weinerschnitzle the other night. Bought a 10 pack of Chili Dogs (my weakness!) There was a woman sitting at a bench who kept looking at me. I finally walked over and she said she was hungry. So I gave he a couple of my hot dogs.

The point is, none of us want anyone to go hungry, not in this nation. Pretty much anyone I know would have done exactly what I did - despite the portrayal of G5000 of evil Republicans spitting on the poor. But there is a world of difference in American poor, and the real poverty that so much of the world suffers. This doesn't mean we shouldn't help people, quite the opposite - but the portrayal of poverty in this nation is false.

Oh I agree completely, being poor in America is something completely different than being poor in most other countries across the globe. I love Weinershcnitzlye by the way, haven't been to one since I left Cali back in 06.

 

[High_Gravity]

What's next for the Massholes? Voting for a fake Indian? Stay tuned.

Fake Indian?

 

[paulitician]

What's next for the Massholes? Voting for a fake Indian? Stay tuned.

Fake Indian?

Elizabeth Warren.

 

[High_Gravity]

What's next for the Massholes? Voting for a fake Indian? Stay tuned.

Fake Indian?

Elizabeth Warren.

Ah, ok.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There is no true poverty in the United States of America.
That is, material poverty. But there is spiritual poverty, poverty of character.
And there is a virulent political philosophy that encourages taking, rather than earning....
...pleading and demanding based on envy.

Food stamps for those who need food, and cannot provide for themselves...an old and honorable heritage in America: "On January 6, 1657 twenty-eight “Scottish men” signed the Laws Rules and Order of the Poor Boxes Society” in Boston, New England and formed the Scots’ Charitable Society."
http://www.linknet1.com/scots-charitable/menu1/index1.html



But what the Left has made common is a blemish on the nation and the people...

1."Mass Gov. Deval Patrick Vetoes Ban On Using Welfare EBT Cards To Purchase Porn, Tattoos, Manicures Because It Would “Humiliate Poor People”…No surprise he’s a close friend of Barack Obama (Axelrod ran his first campaign for Mass governor).

2. Patrick vetoed the reforms Sunday while signing the state’s $32.5 billion budget.

3. According to the Boston Herald, which first reported the veto, the governor berated the legislature’s stab at banning the purchase of specific items like manicures, tattoos, guns, porn, body piercings, jewelry, and bail by saying the move was “political grandstanding” at a time when such reforms are already on track elsewhere.


4. “I’m not going to do anything that makes vulnerable people beg for their benefits.This notion of humiliating poor people has got to be separated from how we make a program, and frankly separated and disposed of, from how we make a program work and work well,” Patrick said,...



5. Patrick allowed bans on the use of EBT cards in establishments known for the sale of seemingly controversial items — such as tattoo parlors, gun shops, casinos, cruise ships, and adult entertainment facilities —- to stand."
Exposing Liberal Lies: Deval Patrick OKs Porn, Tatoos, Jewelry with Food Stamps




We live in a time when the welfare industry needs to convinced well-meaning folks that there is a 'need.'
Rather it is a 'want.'


Consider the above when you vote.

I'm sure the lefties will all be on board now, trying to convince us that this is the "general welfare" addressed by the Framers of the Constitution...

 

[gallantwarrior]

That is interesting

What do you think we should do about it?

1. I have often felt that food stamps should be reserved for purchases labeled as nutritious, but 'no-frills.'
No reason for those accepting 'Food Stamps' to eat better than those paying for the benefit.

2.Further, there should be government-sponsored church and other food kitchens available to any with a food stamp card.....no 'doggie bags.'

They are called 'Food Stamps" for a reason.


Wadda you think?

They really don;t eat beeter. Quicker maybe, lots of processed foods etc.

Staples. Make beneficiaries fo the plan take a basic cooking.Nutrition class and stop paying for any heavily processed foods.

Staples, Rice, Beans, lean meats and fish, veggies and fruit, Milk, flour sugar butter cheese. Forget that Freshetta pizza and those chips and that Soda etc.

Though it is my understanding that only a small amount of the overall EBT or Food Stamp monies can be used for anything other than food . . .unless there is a scam involved which sadly seems rife in the system.

My 2 cents.

It shouldn't be too difficult to program using today's technology. First, scan their card, or whatever tender entitles them to "food stamp" assistance. Then, only specific authorized items will be scanned and deducted from their food stamp allocation. Any extras will be charged the going rate and the recipient will have to cough up the cash to cover those extras, or go home without them.