Food Stamps OK For Porn, Tatoos, Jewelry

[NYcarbineer]

PoliticalChic is lying. It is not legal to buy jewelry etc. in Massachusetts with food stamps via an EBT card.

Conservatism has to be based on lies because the truth is the best argument against conservatism.

 

[Inthemiddle]

that BS claim that the Constitution has missing words.

Like I said, get back to me when you can represent what I've said with honesty, instead of twisting my words into something they are not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only thing you've nailed is that you are a resident of Bizarro World.

Not that this is something to be proud of.

Wrong again, Disreputable Joe, the Prevaricator!

I've got better abs.....

Somehow, I suspect what you have is a spare tire..

People who brag how good they look on the internet are kind of pathetic.

So....you never saw the thread I put up with pics of me climbing the rock wall?
I'll add this to the list of mistakes and misjudgments and fibs by Disreputable Joe, the Prevaricator.


I once tried to total 'em up.....

...but once it got up to Avagadro's Number I had to give up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

bottom line, FOOD STAMPS can not and have not ever been legal to use to buy porn or tatoos. The op headline is a LIE....just tell the truth, the op headline is a lie...say it, it's not hard to say...the op headline is a lie.

'member the time you disputed that State Senator Obama supported leaving babies, that were born alive as a result of a botched late-term abortion, to die?


Strike Two.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Back in the 40s (and right after WW-II) I can recall there was no such thing as "Welfare" in New York City. Instead there was a City agency called the Department of Home Relief which operated store-front Centers in certain low-income neighborhoods. My aunt worked for that agency as a "Home Economics (cooking) Instructor."

When someone walked into one of the Centers and applied for assistance an investigator was assigned to verify their need. Fraudulent applications were treated as attempted theft by fraud.

If rent or utility payment was due the investigator would pay with "emergency funds" directly to the landlord or provider.

Each Center was also a food bank where food parcels were given to people who needed them and those who didn't know how to cook inexpensive but healthy meals could attend cooking classes when my aunt came around to their Center. They also issued vouchers to be redeemed at local butchers to buy certain (non-luxury) meats only. The food parcels, meat and milk vouchers were issued in proportion to family size.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 caused a massive migration of indigent Blacks from the Southern states into New York and other Northern cities that migration overwhelmed the NYC Department of Home Relief which was replaced by the Welfare Department bureaucracy and the policy of mailing monthly welfare checks was commenced and subsidized by federal money.

That transition from relatively small, well-managed, local Home Relief services to a huge centralized bureaucracy is what led to development of what is known today as the "welfare culture" giving rise to massive housing projects -- which quickly became known as "ghettos." Eventually these ghettos expanded outward into entire neighborhoods or sections of neighborhoods.

Great post, Mikey.

Rep on the way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The administrative cost of the food stamp program is about 14% according to a Brookings institute study.

I don't think so.

{. Surprisingly little of the money being spent on federal and state social welfare programs actually reaches recipients. In 1965, 70 cents of every dollar spent by the government to fight poverty went directly to poor people. Today, 70 cents of every dollar goes, not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats and others who serve the poor.}

Replacing Welfare

 

[Care4all]

bottom line, FOOD STAMPS can not and have not ever been legal to use to buy porn or tatoos. The op headline is a LIE....just tell the truth, the op headline is a lie...say it, it's not hard to say...the op headline is a lie.

'member the time you disputed that State Senator Obama supported leaving babies, that were born alive as a result of a botched late-term abortion, to die?


Strike Two.

nope, you are wrong on that too PC...

so as you say...Strike Two!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong again, Disreputable Joe, the Prevaricator!

I've got better abs.....

Somehow, I suspect what you have is a spare tire..

People who brag how good they look on the internet are kind of pathetic.

So....you never saw the thread I put up with pics of me climbing the rock wall?
I'll add this to the list of mistakes and misjudgments and fibs by Disreputable Joe, the Prevaricator.


I once tried to total 'em up.....

...but once it got up to Avagadro's Number I had to give up.

I liked the picture you put up of your grandmother shooting a gun.

btw. Your thread is a lie. You can't buy non-food items with food stamps in Massachusetts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

bottom line, FOOD STAMPS can not and have not ever been legal to use to buy porn or tatoos. The op headline is a LIE....just tell the truth, the op headline is a lie...say it, it's not hard to say...the op headline is a lie.

'member the time you disputed that State Senator Obama supported leaving babies, that were born alive as a result of a botched late-term abortion, to die?


Strike Two.

nope, you are wrong on that too PC...

so as you say...Strike Two!

Horsefeathers.
It's beyond denial.
I'm guessing you are terribly embarrassed by this.
I would be, too.


"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."
Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS
Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL | Conservative News, Views & Books

 

[edthecynic]

'member the time you disputed that State Senator Obama supported leaving babies, that were born alive as a result of a botched late-term abortion, to die?


Strike Two.

nope, you are wrong on that too PC...

so as you say...Strike Two!

Horsefeathers.
It's beyond denial.
I'm guessing you are terribly embarrassed by this.
I would be, too.


"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."
Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS
Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL | Conservative News, Views & Books

As you well know, Obama pointed out that there already were laws that prevented babies born alive to be allowed to die and that real puropse the the Induced Infant Liability Act would make ALL abortions illegal.

All you have shown is CON$ervoFascists lie in packs.
Thank you.

 

[Borillar]

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.

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?

I (myself, wife, & 2 kids) recieved foodstamps briefly in the 80's when I was between jobs. I was very grateful for the assistance for the time I recieved it and got off the program as quickly as I could after getting another job. I got actual food stamps, not an EBT card, and they could only be used on food purchases. My wife and I bought no frills food and staples in order to stretch our food supply to last as long as possible. We clipped coupons and shopped sales.

Obviously times have changed since then, but there is no reason that EBT cards should not have the same restrictions as food stamps did. A food assistance program should only offer food assistance.

But this all makes me wonder if in fact, is misuse of the EBT cards as rampant as your OP suggests? Are families who are out of work and struggling to make ends meet actually using their EBT cards for porn, booze, gambling, etc? Or is this another right wing attempt to demonize the poor, and generate outrage at nonexistent problems so that the programs can be abolished to save the rich a buck or two?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

I (myself, wife, & 2 kids) recieved foodstamps briefly in the 80's when I was between jobs. I was very grateful for the assistance for the time I recieved it and got off the program as quickly as I could after getting another job. I got actual food stamps, not an EBT card, and they could only be used on food purchases. My wife and I bought no frills food and staples in order to stretch our food supply to last as long as possible. We clipped coupons and shopped sales.

Obviously times have changed since then, but there is no reason that EBT cards should not have the same restrictions as food stamps did. A food assistance program should only offer food assistance.

But this all makes me wonder if in fact, is misuse of the EBT cards as rampant as your OP suggests? Are families who are out of work and struggling to make ends meet actually using their EBT cards for porn, booze, gambling, etc? Or is this another right wing attempt to demonize the poor, and generate outrage at nonexistent problems so that the programs can be abolished to save the rich a buck or two?

For purposes of clarity, are you defining 'poor' by the arbitrary calculation put forth by the Liberal cottage industry known as 'the government'?

Or by the more stringent definition, i.e., no home, no food, no heat.

 

[g5000]

When someone walked into one of the Centers and applied for assistance an investigator was assigned to verify their need. Fraudulent applications were treated as attempted theft by fraud.

If rent or utility payment was due the investigator would pay with "emergency funds" directly to the landlord or provider.

This is very similar to the way I ran my operation.

During the Thanksgiving holiday, we also gave turkeys with all the fixings to the poorest families in our area.

At Christmas a lot of other organizations gave away food baskets, so we didn't bother. Instead, we had a Wish Tree similar to the ones you see in malls.

The parents of a family would fill out one card for the tree with their donation requests. They were almost invariably requests for coats and blankets. But, hey, PoliticalChickenshit says we don't have people without heat.

We would have each child fill out two cards. One card for clothing requests, and one card for gift requests (toys, etc).

Some things you never forget. One 15 year old girl put on her gift request just one item.

Shampoo.

No brand specificed. Just "bottle of shampoo".

So when dickheads come along who say, "We have no poor", I sometimes wish they were in a car with me at highway speed.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh pc you remind of a slightly less pyscho rhet....

Still plenty of pyscho though....

 

[g5000]

How about delivering food to those who need it, and doing a health and welfare inspection at the same time?

Inspections? that sounds expensive.

That's the way I ran my operation. Due diligence. If I can manage dozens of families this way, an army of government welfare workers can, too.

 

[g5000]

bottom line, FOOD STAMPS can not and have not ever been legal to use to buy porn or tatoos. The op headline is a LIE....just tell the truth, the op headline is a lie...say it, it's not hard to say...the op headline is a lie.

In PoliticalChickenshit's world, UnConservatives are incapable of lying. Only liberals lie.

My first post in this topic specified EBT cards. There are types of EBT cards which can be used "same as cash".

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I (myself, wife, & 2 kids) recieved foodstamps briefly in the 80's when I was between jobs. I was very grateful for the assistance for the time I recieved it and got off the program as quickly as I could after getting another job. I got actual food stamps, not an EBT card, and they could only be used on food purchases. My wife and I bought no frills food and staples in order to stretch our food supply to last as long as possible. We clipped coupons and shopped sales.

Obviously times have changed since then, but there is no reason that EBT cards should not have the same restrictions as food stamps did. A food assistance program should only offer food assistance.

But this all makes me wonder if in fact, is misuse of the EBT cards as rampant as your OP suggests? Are families who are out of work and struggling to make ends meet actually using their EBT cards for porn, booze, gambling, etc? Or is this another right wing attempt to demonize the poor, and generate outrage at nonexistent problems so that the programs can be abolished to save the rich a buck or two?

You can't use the food stamp allowance on an EBT card to buy non-food items. How many times do you people need to be told that before it will sink in?

At least give me an estimate so I can figure out how many more times I'll have to post it.

 

[g5000]

You can't use the food stamp allowance on an EBT card to buy non-food items.

But you can use the cash benefits of an EBT card to buy non-food items. Don't be a disingenous dick about it.

How many times do you people need to be told that before it will sink in?

Right back at you.

 

[g5000]

Recipients are able to use their EBT Access Card to obtain cash benefits through ATMs located throughout the state. In addition, recipients are able to make cash purchases and receive cash back through POS terminals at participating retailers.

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)

 

[Borillar]

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 (myself, wife, & 2 kids) recieved foodstamps briefly in the 80's when I was between jobs. I was very grateful for the assistance for the time I recieved it and got off the program as quickly as I could after getting another job. I got actual food stamps, not an EBT card, and they could only be used on food purchases. My wife and I bought no frills food and staples in order to stretch our food supply to last as long as possible. We clipped coupons and shopped sales.

Obviously times have changed since then, but there is no reason that EBT cards should not have the same restrictions as food stamps did. A food assistance program should only offer food assistance.

But this all makes me wonder if in fact, is misuse of the EBT cards as rampant as your OP suggests? Are families who are out of work and struggling to make ends meet actually using their EBT cards for porn, booze, gambling, etc? Or is this another right wing attempt to demonize the poor, and generate outrage at nonexistent problems so that the programs can be abolished to save the rich a buck or two?

For purposes of clarity, are you defining 'poor' by the arbitrary calculation put forth by the Liberal cottage industry known as 'the government'?

Or by the more stringent definition, i.e., no home, no food, no heat.

Does someone need to look like a refugee from Biafra for you to consider them poor?

I'm talking about ordinary families who may be down on their luck due to layoffs or other circumstances and may be near the end of their resources. They may still have a roof over their heads but may be in danger of losing that as well. They may still have a car, a refrigerator, a TV, etc. Should they have to pawn all their stuff first, before they get any assistance?