Food Stamps OK For Porn, Tatoos, Jewelry

[gallantwarrior]

Sounds like a good system but could we do this for literally millions of people across the country?

Yes, I think we could. The beauty of it was that it was self sustaining. The beneficiaries were also the workers. There was almost no labor cost to running the system. The Mormons were known for there "Deseret Industries" which produced most of the food involved, and even canned their own goods.

The only thing that would stop states from doing the same are the greedy public employee unions.

I like it, its similar to the food pantry system we had when I was in the Military.

Was this system for the poor?

That, and the fact that government agencies find the idea of making recipients of government handouts work for them so totally abhorrent.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And, with the right Justices on the Court, the bogus idea of 'separation' will be put to rest.

Yep! The concept of the "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. That was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. That letter has been used in a series of SCOTUS rulings to restrict religious freedom starting in 1947.

Oh, both of you just be quiet with this "no separation" bullshit. You're wrong, the concept IS INDEED in the constitution, it's just the words that are missing. Honest adults with only slightly lower than average-range IQs have the reading comprehension skills to detect that concept in the first amendment. Dishonest trolls like you two, do not.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Public education provided to those who can't afford it is welfare too. If conservatives ruled, and the public eduation system disappeared, and the only people who got educated were those who could pay for it,

how would that make this country better?

Well, it would largely eliminate the ability of the masses to question or object to the will of the ruling elite of wealthy families. That's a good thing, right?

 

[Inthemiddle]

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

And you are one of them.

You remind me of the morons on Stormfront who believe all black people are muggers, and then provide a link to a story about a black mugger to prove it.

So you found a college student gaming the system. That proves nothing.

You say private charities can handle the poor. I find that a typical response from people who have never actually done anything for others. It just demonstrates you think "other people" should handle a problem you have never actually investigated or done anything about yourself. People like you maybe drop a couple bucks in a can or a basket and console yourself you are part of the solution.

You aren't. You bring absolutely NOTHING to the table on the issue of poverty except your fevered erroneous fantasies.

You have these purely imaginary beliefs based on no facts whatsoever.

Let me tell you something. I AM one of those charities, dumbass. And my donor base are fundamenalist white Christians who vote the straight GOP ticket. So unlike you, I don't stereotype people based on just one idiot. If I did, I'd think all "conservatives" were clueless fucks like you.

But since I am a born and bred Conservative myself and I live among some of the most conservative people in the country, I know better.

I defy you to go out into the countryside to a private charity and start ranting about there being no real poor in America, and about how the poor eat caviar and drink wine and live high on the hog.

I defy you to do that.

They will look at you like the little bug you are.

You are beyond ignorant. You are willfully stupid.

 

[Inthemiddle]

nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion

Except that "irreligion" is just as much a valid "sect" as any religion.

From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist

That alone makes the quote meaningless enough. Rehnquist was an unqualified hack who should never have been on the court in the first place, and who particularly was hostile toward the first amendment.

dissent

Shows even more how it's meaningless.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Part of the problem is alot of states are broke, you have to hire employees to verify these applications for food stamps and people are getting laid off left and right. States don't have the resources to verify the info anymore.

It goes far deeper than that, Grav.....

a.….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix, http://
Casey B. Mulligan: The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program - NYTimes.com

b. …the stimulus bill included a provision that created a new “emergency fund” to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government
footing 80 percent of the cost for the new “clients.” Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New
Welfare Spending,” Heritage Foundation, http://
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/02/
s t imulus -bi l l - abol i she s -we l f a r e - r e form- andadds-new-welfare-spending.


This administration WANTS more recipients. This is part of the wealth redistribution plan.

Well I remember when I separated from the Military in California, I had to go on unemployment for 6 months and since I separated from the Military in California I went on their unemployment rolls. I had to send in a copy of my discharge papers and ID to get started but than every 2 weeks I just had to fill out a paper verifying I had been looking for work and than submit it in the mail to get a check, that was it, nobody was verifying whether or not I was really looking for work because the state was too broke and they don't have anyone to sit there and call up every place I applied at to verify it. There are not enough folks employed to verify these things anymore.

Up here, you don't even have to submit anything in the mail. You call the number and punch '1' for yes and '2' for no to verify you've been looking for work.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Private charities and individuals providing charity have grown soft since the government has taken over. We need to revive them. There is alot of work to do. But it can and will be done.

The best system I've ever seen is the Mormon system.

This was many years ago, but my first wife's sister was Mormon. She split with her husband and had no income, with a passel of kids (she was MORMON!) So what the Mormons did for her was to give her groceries. I mean, she got a form that listed all sorts of food, from ground beef to cheese to canned goods. Then once a week (or month, I don't really recall) the food would be delivered. Obviously, this wasn't junk food, it was simple and nutritious. But it was also plenty. The Bishop paid her rent and utilities, directly to the landlord and utility companies. She was required to go work at the food distribution center once a week, where they trained her to have a job, and eventually they helped her get a regular job.

It worked and wasted zero resources. From that time on, I said "that is the way welfare should work."

Honestly, it's not really much different than the way welfare works now. Section 8 housing is paid directly to landlords. Energy assistance is paid directly to the utility companies. The only difference is that food stamps don't include food being delivered to your door, and there's no job training involved. Personally, I firmly support tying welfare with some kind of job training/education. But that's going to require MORE tax money be spent.

 

[Inthemiddle]

An article in the New York Times of Sept. 25 by Mark Bittman showed that you can cook a meal for four at half the cost of a meal from a burger restaurant.

Horse shit! A quarter pounder value meal at McDonalds costs about $6. You really mean to tell me that you believe it's feasible to make an entire meal for four people on a $3 budget? What are you feeding them, lentils and rice?

 

[koshergrl]

Lentils and rice is a complete protein, and as such is perfectly acceptable.

I fed my family of 3 a roast dinner last night for about $10...and that also provided us lunch today. So two meals for about $11 (I'll add on a dollar for bread/mustard) for 3 people. Three meals if we had had fried mashed potatoes for breakfast....

I can take a $10 package of pork chops or chicken and feed my family dinner for a week on it.

We had spaghetti dinner a couple of nights ago. $4 for italian sausage, $.95 for sauce, $1 for bread, we'll say $.50 for cheese. $6.45 for a family of 3 for one night...

Except we had enough for 2 more meals. So less than $3 per meal. Even with milk to drink.

 

[LilOlLady]

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.

Fool, you cannot purchase non-food items with food stamps.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Lentils and rice is a complete protein, and as such is perfectly acceptable.

It's not a complete meal. It has minimal overall sustanence power, especially if you're going to do it on a regular basis.

And does a quarter pounder meal feed 4 people?

Straw man/red herring. I'll point you back to PC's comment so you can see for yourself that it was blatantly false.

I fed my family of 3 a roast dinner last night for about $10...and that also provided us lunch today. So two meals for about $11 (I'll add on a dollar for bread/mustard) for 3 people. Three meals if we had had fried mashed potatoes for breakfast....

I can take a $10 package of pork chops or chicken and feed my family dinner for a week on it.

We had spaghetti dinner a couple of nights ago. $4 for italian sausage, $.95 for sauce, $1 for bread, we'll say $.50 for cheese. $6.45 for a family of 3 for one night...

Except we had enough for 2 more meals. So less than $3 per meal. Even with milk to drink.

None of your examples accomplish, or even come close to, PC's claimed ability of feeding 4 people on a budget of $3 per meal. Your pork chop comment is dubious, and the restof your examples are pretty much consistent with the normal range of $2-$3 per person, per meal, for dinner meals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

yep, he was right and this is nothing but faux outrage, partisan hot air...as expected at this point, from PC and her ops as of late.

One of the defining characteristics of the Left is the pretended- or actual- inability to connect the dots based on real world experience, if it infracts their political philosophy.

I'm surprised and disappointed in you, Care, if you have fallen into that mode.

What an utterly meaningless post. Effective for "atta-girls" from your fellow right wing cronies. But entirely meaningless otherwise.

What an interesting and insightful post, InTheMuzzle.....

....now I'll go back to flipping quarters.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

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.

The whole reason for switching benefit payments to the EBT card system is so that the recipients of public assistance will not experience the shame and embarrassment associated with having to accept said aid. Too bad. If people had the moral fiber to feel shame, we might not be having discussions like this. My parents qualified for some types of assistance, with eight children and my father in the military. But rather than accept other peoples' money, my Dad worked two, sometimes three jobs when he wasn't overseas. My parents would have been horribly ashamed to have taken public aid.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Your third posting so far, and you do indeed seem as though you know information from an "insider's" point of view. Been there, done that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And, with the right Justices on the Court, the bogus idea of 'separation' will be put to rest.

Yep! The concept of the "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. That was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. That letter has been used in a series of SCOTUS rulings to restrict religious freedom starting in 1947.

Oh, both of you just be quiet with this "no separation" bullshit. You're wrong, the concept IS INDEED in the constitution, it's just the words that are missing. Honest adults with only slightly lower than average-range IQs have the reading comprehension skills to detect that concept in the first amendment. Dishonest trolls like you two, do not.

1. "IS INDEED in the constitution, it's just the words that are missing."
Only in your imagination.

Of course you can't provide same, as you are the typical propagandized moron to whom research is as much a custom as wearing a cross is to a vampire.

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.


2. As the Constitution refers to religion via both its non-establishment by the government, and to its free exercise, the latter alone is the refutation of theme of your comment. And this, in the very words of the document!


3. With the landmark decision of Everson v. Board of Education, Jefferson was subtly and erroneously attributed with the remark ‘high and impregnable’ wall. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black: The ‘high and impregnable’ wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Justice Hugo Black built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. The full quote by Justice Hugo Black is, ‘The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.’


a. “[Black's] affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable "confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces.... Black's association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism," especially his support for separation of church and state.

"Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve ‘the sacred constitutional rights' of ‘free public schools' and ‘separation of church and state.'" Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, "Black's distaste for Catholicism did not diminish."
Hamburger, ‘Separation of Church and State’, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463


I am certain that even reading the above is beyond you, and doubly certain that, should your read same, absorbing the information will prove less than possible.

 

[gallantwarrior]

1) Should not have to even stipulate this.. and it shows the pitiful state our country is because it has to be stipulated
2) But we should not have welfare anyway...

No, we shouldn't.

Every American should have a renumerative job. FDR called for it in his "Second Bill of Rights" in 1945, and it was a great idea.

But our system is based on playing everyone off against each other by keeping just enough people unemployed that the rest of us accept less when times are tough.

I'd have no problem replacing welfare with workfare. I think it would be a great idea.

But the people who scream loudest about "them welfare people" would have the biggest problem with it.

I have long been a proponent for "workfare". I'm not sure who you think would scream the loudest about it, but opponents to "workfare" liken it to slavery. Personally, I consider the enslaved to be those whose earnings are taken to pay for those who don't earn them. Requiring people to perform some work to receive compensation might just attach a more concrete value to what they receive.

 

[gallantwarrior]

They're drug dealers, Buford. Drug dealers don't report their income. They're also criminals, so its hardly surprising they commit crimes, is it? Should we punish the law abiding citizens in genuine need of public assistance because drug dealers exist?

They are not all drug dealers and I would bet an extremely small portion of them were. Most drug dealers have not the time nor the inclination to collect government benefits. What they are is irresponsible. They are on EBT precisely because they have chosen to buy the frivolous things instead of what matter.

EBT should be run just like WIC. No money you are going to get healthy foods. Vegetables, dairy meat ect. Nothing premade, all food., just a simple list of foods that you can get. No substitutions. If you want government assistance then

EBT food benefits, which is the only thing most qualify for, is restrictive in that manner. It is not as restrictive as WIC in what you can buy, but it is restricted o edible items. There is cash benefits on welfare, but those are harder to get appoved for, and i think you need dependents. I assume that disability would go over EBT, but i am not sure, so that may be where cash benefits are. Unemployment may also use the EBT system now, but I am not sure. i know they have moved to an electronic debit card also for their cash benefits.

I agree with you that those people made poor choices and played too much and now we pay while they still ride around in their luxury rides. that also does anger me, but I know 2 things. the first is that the people who are using EBT out of a legitimate needs and are the type you want to help out because they are actively trying to get on their feet again are not people who openly admit to being on welfare. Shocantell and her 50 kids get on the news because they are loud, stupid, and the news often wants you to be angry with people on welfare. Most people on WIC and food assistance are decent people, and some are even employed at a hard job for minimum wage. The second part of this is that food assistance causes consumption. That creates jobs. So in the end it stimulates the economy, even with the scammers, and iot helps people who really need it while creating demand to create jobs. The welfare system can be made better, but we need it and it does make a difference.

I can stimulate the economy spending my own money, thank you. I don't need the government confiscating my earnings so some loser can stimulate the economy. Let 'em stimulate with their own money. Thanks.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Please don't resort to gibberish.

Son, your abject lack of reading comprehension doesn't make the words "gibberish."

You're now saying that the American system of government assistance to the poor isn't actually socialism, since we know it actually helps the poor.

America helps our poor in hundreds of ways. We have government assistance, which are routinely the least effective means. We have churches and private charities, which are highly effective.

You look at what America does to help our needy and compare that to ANY socialist country and it becomes real clear who actually cares. And it ain't you guys. You care about using the poor as pawns to gain power.

After all, PoliticalChic says we don't have any poor people in the US.

Poor is a relative term. It has no meaning outside of context. We have no poverty in the U.S. Poverty has meaning, the real risk of death from starvation and/or exposure. And what she says is true, there is no poverty in the USA.

Is she full of shit, or is she admitting that the War on Poverty has been a remarkable triumph, contrary to the fictitious propaganda of the mainstream right?

The "war on poverty" is and was a scam, a means of the left to gain power. It has done very little to help needy people. Safety net programs existed long before Johnson started buying off poverty pimps and expanding government.

Tell me this, out of each dollar spent on social welfare in this country, how much goes into the hand of the person intended to be helped?

$.90?
$.75?
$.50?
$.25?
$.10?
<$.10?

If you knew that it was less than ten cents from every dollar, would you call that "success?"

Fact is, the REAL welfare recipients are the public employees sucking more than ninety cents out of every dollar, not the food stamp or AFDC recipient.

I think you're full of shit. Got some documentation to support this?

 

[koshergrl]

Yep! The concept of the "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. That was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. That letter has been used in a series of SCOTUS rulings to restrict religious freedom starting in 1947.

Oh, both of you just be quiet with this "no separation" bullshit. You're wrong, the concept IS INDEED in the constitution, it's just the words that are missing. Honest adults with only slightly lower than average-range IQs have the reading comprehension skills to detect that concept in the first amendment. Dishonest trolls like you two, do not.

1. "IS INDEED in the constitution, it's just the words that are missing."
Only in your imagination.

Of course you can't provide same, as you are the typical propagandized moron to whom research is as much a custom as wearing a cross is to a vampire.

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.


2. As the Constitution refers to religion via both its non-establishment by the government, and to its free exercise, the latter alone is the refutation of theme of your comment. And this, in the very words of the document!


3. With the landmark decision of Everson v. Board of Education, Jefferson was subtly and erroneously attributed with the remark ‘high and impregnable’ wall. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black: The ‘high and impregnable’ wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Justice Hugo Black built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. The full quote by Justice Hugo Black is, ‘The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.’


a. “[Black's] affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable "confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces.... Black's association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism," especially his support for separation of church and state.

"Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve ‘the sacred constitutional rights' of ‘free public schools' and ‘separation of church and state.'" Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, "Black's distaste for Catholicism did not diminish."
Hamburger, ‘Separation of Church and State’, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463


I am certain that even reading the above is beyond you, and doubly certain that, should your read same, absorbing the information will prove less than possible.

It's in the constitution...it's just INVISIBLE!

You have to have a super spy eyeglass to see it!

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's in the constitution...it's just INVISIBLE!

You have to have a super spy eyeglass to see it!

It's not invisible. All you need is to have some basic common sense and a 5th grade reading level.