• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House bans welfare recipients' money from strip clubs, liquor stores

Gary said:
Don't you conservatives ever have anything better to do than pandering to the stupidity of your base?

In 2010, the United States spent $19.9 billion on TANF and $2.0 billion on social service block grants. That means they spent $21.9 billion in a $3.6 Trillion federal budget on welfare. Here's a 2010 link for all the programs, except Food Stamps (SNAP) that are called welfare, so post the figures and prove what is spent on welfare is such a big deal:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

Here's a link for what is spent on SNAP:

SNAP Monthly Data

If you consider unemployment welfare, get it from the BLS! Post the maximum amounts someone can make for any welfare program and how much they can receive!

Do you really think those strip clubs are losing sleep over that bill? In the South, you can buy beer and wine in nearly any store, but in the North, you have to go to a liquor store to buy it. Since the South has more people receiving those social programs, how is that going to work out? How are you going to know the person is getting their money from the government and how could you know someone buying something in a liquor store is using their own money and buying it for themselves?

This is just meaningless gotcha legislation by a majority party in Congress, with nothing better to do as it's people suffer, because of their own stupid legislation in the past.

Take heed America and vote every Republican out of office!
Click to expand...

Your numbers are misleading. Yes, "welfare" is a small portion of the federal budget. Entitlements over all, however? MASSIVE expenditure:

12fig03.jpg

Any cost cutting/fraud reduction measures or checks on the system should be praise. And your silly little comment about voting Republicans out? This vote passed with two thirds majority in the house. That means the dems were in on it to. Why to make this some sort of idiotic partisan nonsense when it wasn't.
 
Gary said:
Don't you conservatives ever have anything better to do than pandering to the stupidity of your base?
Click to expand...

Air America, MediaMatters, DailyKos, Puffington...
 
Call me crazy, but for some reason I seriously doubt that people on welfare would have the time to go to strip clubs or liquor stores. In addition to this, what strip club or liquor store do you know is going to accept a welfare card? Or for that matter, what person on welfare would go to a strip club?
 
tessaesque said:
I think there's something inherently wrong with my boyfriend and I going to the grocery store and buying store-brand food, discounted meats (beef and chicken only, usually), and the cheapest toilet paper available and then standing in line behind a woman with two carts overflowing with brisket, name brand cereal, name brand ice cream, fresh lobster, etc and then paying with a food stamp card.

I have absolutely no problem with providing food assistance to families living near poverty. Hell, I was on food stamps and WIC when I was a child (or rather, my mom had benefits and I lived with her...but whatever). But I have a serious issue with my having to pinch pennies and sacrifice on food because I work hard to pay bills and go to school while food stamp recipients eat the best cuts of meat and better tasting cereal. A WIC program would be better anyway, since most children in or near poverty are nutrition deficient due to poor eating habits. A program that requires the purchase of specific food items and limits access to junk and "empty" foods would serve the kids much better than a program that lets an obese woman and her 5 obese children waddle into 7-11 at 9pm on a school night to load up on candy bars, ice cream, and soda....which is something I saw happen quite often during my short tenure at 7-11.
Click to expand...


I only disagree with you in the sense that I think that people go too far when they immediately assume that just because they saw poor people do something a couple times, they assume all poor people are like that. However, I am 100% on your side when arguing that poor people should buy healthy foods, especially for the children.
 
tessaesque said:
Your numbers are misleading. Yes, "welfare" is a small portion of the federal budget. Entitlements over all, however? MASSIVE expenditure:

View attachment 67121992

Any cost cutting/fraud reduction measures or checks on the system should be praise. And your silly little comment about voting Republicans out? This vote passed with two thirds majority in the house. That means the dems were in on it to. Why to make this some sort of idiotic partisan nonsense when it wasn't.
Click to expand...

How is legislation about strip clubs going to cut costs? Why didn't you address the point I made that in the conservative South, you don't go into a liquor store to buy beer and wine? Does the legislation stop the purchase of beer and wine in a grocery store?

If dumbasses didn't approve of our present health care system that allows leeches to suck the blood money out of it, those entitlements, like Medicare wouldn't be very large, because the price of health care wouldn't be twice what it should be.

Why are they called entitlements? Didn't people have payroll taxes taken out of their paychecks to fund those entitlements? Why is it that Republicans are always trying to get their greedy hands on every dime they can steal? They do it with union pensions and funds put away for health care by borrowing the money and then going bankrupt. It's always something to live up to the Republican motto: If you can't steal, lie.

The economy and jobs creation suck and all those Republican idiots can think of is cut spending. They need to get buried with the Whig party, where they came from.
 
tessaesque said:
Your numbers are misleading. Yes, "welfare" is a small portion of the federal budget. Entitlements over all, however? MASSIVE expenditure:

View attachment 67121992

Any cost cutting/fraud reduction measures or checks on the system should be praise. And your silly little comment about voting Republicans out? This vote passed with two thirds majority in the house. That means the dems were in on it to. Why to make this some sort of idiotic partisan nonsense when it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Why not say that Welfare is a small part of the budget, but Welfare and military spending? MASSIVE!! Welfare is not the same thing as Social Security and Medicare.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Call me crazy, but for some reason I seriously doubt that people on welfare would have the time to go to strip clubs or liquor stores. In addition to this, what strip club or liquor store do you know is going to accept a welfare card? Or for that matter, what person on welfare would go to a strip club?
Click to expand...


haha. You really don't know, do you? Turn the 'noble savage' dial down a notch.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Why not say that Welfare is a small part of the budget, but Welfare and military spending? MASSIVE!! Welfare is not the same thing as Social Security and Medicare.
Click to expand...


Did I say "welfare is a large part of the budget"? No. I said "entitlements over all". And social security and medicare most certainly qualify as entitlements.
 
tessaesque said:
Did I say "welfare is a large part of the budget"? No. I said "entitlements over all". And social security and medicare most certainly qualify as entitlements.
Click to expand...

Yes, but many people look at welfare and entitlements as the same thing which they are not. When I explained to my uncle (a die-hard Republican) this, he was suprised when I showed him. He is still against welfare for different reasons, but not as upset at the cost of it as he was before.

My comment isn't meant to mean Republicans are all ignorant or anything. Both sides have their ignorant followers that follow blindly and only listen to sound bytes and pretty graphs without knowing the meaning behind them.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Did I say "welfare is a large part of the budget"? No. I said "entitlements over all". And social security and medicare most certainly qualify as entitlements.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true, but the thread is about Welfare -- not entitlements generally, or military spending.
 
ecofarm said:
haha. You really don't know, do you? Turn the 'noble savage' dial down a notch.
Click to expand...

Please explain how was I said relates in any way, shape, or form to the concept of the "noble savage."
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, but many people look at welfare and entitlements as the same thing which they are not. When I explained to my uncle (a die-hard Republican) this, he was suprised when I showed him. He is still against welfare for different reasons, but not as upset at the cost of it as he was before.
Click to expand...

Well, they're the same in that they're both entitlements. They just focus on different demographics. Truthfully, the fact that we spend so much on entitlements doesn't necessarily bother me. What bothers me is how much of that money goes towards overhead, operations, and funding for convoluted processes. I'm also bothered by a system that doesn't really solve the problems that welfare/food stamps/medicaid/section-8 are designed to "solve". Instead of simply paying for everything, short or long term, in order to "lift people up" we should be investing that money in activities that will encourag their success later. Funding for high-demand career field training (which would work for the under-educated or those who were laid off from fields with low demand), funding specifically for costs related to job searches, help with relocation to areas with lower unemployment rates...I'd MUCH prefer that to a system that says, "You have two (or five, or indefinite) years on the dole, then you're done". I don't like this idea of sustaining people. We need to be encouraging growth.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, that's true, but the thread is about Welfare -- not entitlements generally, or military spending.
Click to expand...

It's all government spending, and it all needs to be monitored for fraud or misappropriation.
 
tessaesque said:
It's all government spending, and it all needs to be monitored for fraud or misappropriation.
Click to expand...

Of course it does -- like any public or private spending.
 
AdamT said:
Of course it does -- like any public or private spending.
Click to expand...

I would say that government spending should be placed at a higher priority than say...my personal spending.
 
TheNextEra said:
People get layed off due to jobs going overseas, injury, etc. or they are not trained or it takes a period of time to get another job.

If you are talking about those types of people where they have 3 generations on welfare that's a different story and I would agree with you.

Just because an unfortunate thing happens to someone, doesn't necessary reflect bad on someone to get help from the government.
Click to expand...

That's why your "Lean" says Slightly Liberal and mine says Very Conservative, Era. I've been laid off twice in my life without ever taking a dime of the benefits I was entitled to. Neither do I intend to take any SS or Medicare benefits when I reach that age.
 
TheNextEra said:
People get layed off due to jobs going overseas, injury, etc. or they are not trained or it takes a period of time to get another job.

If you are talking about those types of people where they have 3 generations on welfare that's a different story and I would agree with you.

Just because an unfortunate thing happens to someone, doesn't necessary reflect bad on someone to get help from the government.
Click to expand...

I'm completely fine with a hand up for those who suffer unfortunate circumstances, but currently, the system tolerates all kinds of idiocy.
I mean, we're getting into the tax season.
There is a whole parasitic tax prep business model, that thrives off low income people and their tax refunds.

Those popular tax prep businesses, they nearly completely derive their income from doing taxes for people who get EITC.
 
Tigger said:
That's why your "Lean" says Slightly Liberal and mine says Very Conservative, Era. I've been laid off twice in my life without ever taking a dime of the benefits I was entitled to. Neither do I intend to take any SS or Medicare benefits when I reach that age.
Click to expand...

While I commend you on your situation in dealing with your being layed off, to think your situation applies to everyone else is simply not true. Not everyone is in the same situation in the same way.

Being very conservative has nothing to do with taking welfare. For instance I knew a single mother who was just divorced due to the husband cheating on her. She had to raise two children on her own. She needed 18 months on welfare to get re-trained and day care assistance so she could get re-trained. She is very conservative in her beliefs, but her children come first. Today she is a successful and productive member of society without welfare.

I really feel bad for you that you go through life with such bitterness, hatred, and utter contempt for people. For me it would be a shallow, meaningless existance. My hope is that you change to realize life is not this way but I am not holding my breath. Instead I will enjoy my life with my wife and daughter every chance I get.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm completely fine with a hand up for those who suffer unfortunate circumstances, but currently, the system tolerates all kinds of idiocy.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. I am all for meaningful methods of welfare reform.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I mean, we're getting into the tax season.
There is a whole parasitic tax prep business model, that thrives off low income people and their tax refunds.

Those popular tax prep businesses, they nearly completely derive their income from doing taxes for people who get EITC.
Click to expand...


Again, no disagreement there. A lot of work needs to be done, but it seems that both sides cannot come to an agreement on how to do it.
 
Just dropping by to clear up some misconceptions in this thread about food-stamps and welfare: === All states now use something that looks like a debit card for food stamps - this was implemented at the federal level to cut costs. The limits on what people can buy with the cards are the same as they were for the paper stamps. Certain high dollar foods (like caviar) are not allowed nor are prepared foods allowed (exceptions for some grocery store deli-type food because some elderly and disabled receipts cannot prepare the food - things like pre-roasted chicken, fried chicken, roasted meats, cooked veggies and pasta/potato salad). FS cards cannot be used at restaurants. They cannot be used to buy personal toiletries , cleaning supplies, any alcoholic beverage or any tobacco product. == All states also use a something like a debit card for granting welfare benefits - also implemented at the federal level to save on administrative costs. The use of the cards has not been restricted to specific items - so they work at liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs. They can be used at banks to withdraw cash (so the House law will do little to change how welfare recipients use their benefits) . == Some states have opted to put both welfare and FS benefits on a single card to save money. When this is done, only the amount of the welfare benefit can be used on non-food items or withdrawn as cash. Once that dollar amount is used, the card will only work for food purchases.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
While I commend you on your situation in dealing with your being layed off, to think your situation applies to everyone else is simply not true. Not everyone is in the same situation in the same way.
Click to expand...

It's about Principles, not situations, Era. The second time (Jan of 2001), I spent three weeks eating little more than sandwiches and water until I got the new job. It's not like I'm making the sort of money to have tens of thousands of dollars put away for that "rainy day".

TheNextEra said:
Being very conservative has nothing to do with taking welfare. For instance I knew a single mother who was just divorced due to the husband cheating on her. She had to raise two children on her own. She needed 18 months on welfare to get re-trained and day care assistance so she could get re-trained. She is very conservative in her beliefs, but her children come first. Today she is a successful and productive member of society without welfare.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily call her "very Conservative" by my definition, but that's a topic for a different time and place.

TheNextEra said:
I really feel bad for you that you go through life with such bitterness, hatred, and utter contempt for people. For me it would be a shallow, meaningless existance. My hope is that you change to realize life is not this way but I am not holding my breath. Instead I will enjoy my life with my wife and daughter every chance I get.
Click to expand...

Don't waste a single second feeling bad or even thinking about me, Era; because trust me I'm not wasting a single second of my time worrying about you (or pretty much anyone else). Definitely don't hold your breath. Wouldn't want you to leave those two ladies without their husband/dad if you did that.
 
Tigger said:
Don't waste a single second feeling bad or even thinking about me, Era; because trust me I'm not wasting a single second of my time worrying about you (or pretty much anyone else).
Click to expand...

Funny, then, that you invest the time in reading posts written about people you don't think about, and then invest even more time responding to those people.
 
AdamT said:
Really? I've lived in big cities all my life and I've never seen it. Not once. Maybe it's a rural phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Maybe you were never in a position to witness it.

I've worked in grocery stores for about 6 years off and on, throughout my life.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So a person on foodstamps doesn't deserve crawfish? You have no idea what this persons normal spending habits are and yet you condemn em for buying what might have been a "splurge" the same as yours.

I absolutely hate this mentality that if someone is on foodstamps/welfare then they shouldn't be allowed ANYTHING but the most basics of basics.
Click to expand...

The idea behind foodstamps is that it is helping hands so that you do not starve to death.Not so you can have lobster,filet minion, t-bone steaks, craw-fish, expensive name brand foods, candies, cookies, soda, energy drinks and other wasteful or luxury foods. Those on tax payer aid should not be as much of a burden to tax payers. By making food stamp recipients stick to the basics you avoid them claiming their kids are starving,they need more food stamps this month than the previous month.
 
jamesrage said:
The idea behind foodstamps is that it is helping hands so that you do not starve to death.Not so you can have lobster,filet minion, t-bone steaks, craw-fish, expensive name brand foods, candies, cookies, soda, energy drinks and other wasteful or luxury foods. Those on tax payer aid should not be as much of a burden to tax payers. By making food stamp recipients stick to the basics you avoid them claiming their kids are starving,they need more food stamps this month than the previous month.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with going to a WIC type system where only certain brands or items are allowed. The problem is we can't get anyone to get focused on that Dem or Rep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom