EBT card accepted at Lingerie store
- Thread starter egofed
- Start date
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
I see ego is losing sleep over the "undesirables" again.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
Isn't it more shocking that the poor can buy SEAFOOD and PEANUT BUTTER with SNAP Benefits?
" A spokesperson for the Department of Children and Family Services said the EBT card, or the Louisiana Purchase card, is not just for food stamps. There are also cash benefits available for other family needs. The only things the cash benefits do not cover are alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, casinos and adult entertainment.
Although this case skirts the line, state officials stated there's no violation of the law with the store accepting the card for lingerie and other adult items. They added because the cash benefits are part of a federal program, Louisiana does not dictate how families spend the money of those cards, which could be less than $200 a month or up to $400 a month.
"It's still the taxpayers dollars that are being used in a store like that and that really upsets me," the unidentified woman said."
So you are fine with this expenditure of tax payer money?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I am because Republicans got the win-win here with people who don't pay attention:
a) expand EBT to be used in all kinds of circumstances, expanding revenue for their corporate friends
b) generate outrage at EBT programs in the public. Poor shaming leads to better GOP outcomes in November.
c) all this serves as a convenient distraction to the fact that the oligarchs are trying to avoid being targets of an oppressed and financially servile populace.
Herp-derp, y'all. Get mad at the person buying Burger King with their Access Card, then vote Republican to stop welfare fraud, neglecting that they sought those expansions in the first place.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
I can't believe how gullible some people are. I guess a juicy headline is better than facts.
"I reached out to the owner of Kiss My Lingerie earlier today to ask whether people were actually using EBT cards at her store and, if so, approximately how many. She just wrote me back, and here's her response: zero so far. "
So no Fake abuse doesn't upset me. Even so, a poor person buying undies seems reasonable if they lack the means to travel elsewhere. http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/13/buy-lingerie-with-ebt-cards-in-louisiana
I much more bothered by the fact that churches pays ZERO taxes and don't even have to report income.
"I reached out to the owner of Kiss My Lingerie earlier today to ask whether people were actually using EBT cards at her store and, if so, approximately how many. She just wrote me back, and here's her response: zero so far. "
So no Fake abuse doesn't upset me. Even so, a poor person buying undies seems reasonable if they lack the means to travel elsewhere. http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/13/buy-lingerie-with-ebt-cards-in-louisiana
I much more bothered by the fact that churches pays ZERO taxes and don't even have to report income.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would I give a shit if someone can spend TANF benefits to buy some underwear/dildo/play pussy at a lingerie shop? If anything, YOU should support such measures because maybe people will be
ing less since you're so tired to dealing with it at your job. Not to mention that the tax payer money goes right back into the economy?Hell, it's a bigger waste of tax payer money to pay you while you're sleeping since you get far more than a paltry $400.
Btw, it's threads and responses like yours that are a heavy hint that you aren't really "trolling" with the other thread you made the other day.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
This just in! Poor people have poor money management. Next topic we will discuss a study on what color the sky really is.
Depends on the time of day and weather conditions!
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would I care that people would use tax payer money on non essential items versus clothes or food for their kids? Are you serious?Why would I give a shit if someone can spend TANF benefits to buy some underwear/dildo/play pussy at a lingerie shop? If anything, YOU should support such measures because maybe people will be
Hell, it's a bigger waste of tax payer money to pay you while you're sleeping since you get far more than a paltry $400.
Btw, it's threads and responses like yours that are a heavy hint that you aren't really "trolling" with the other thread you made the other day.
I also would like to hear you explain how it is a bigger waste paying public services that ACTUALLY have value. Scratch that. I've heard your senseless non logic enough for a while. I'll check back in when I am ready to laugh at you some more.
Exactomundo!!! So let us provide vouchers for specific items versus letting them waste the money on goofy shit. It should actually teach them how to make wise purchases, ensure tax money is going to provide for necessities to adults and children, and will not piss off tax payers quite as much.
Like you actually give a
about buying clothes and food for those kids. You've said as much when it comes to generational welfare. I guess as a man, you have no idea what it's like to have a shitty bra that has no support. A bra from Victoria's Secret at full MSRP is still cheaper than to go see a doctor for back pain, but hey, it's the ing principle, right? That's why even though NO ONE has used their EBT card there, you're STILL bitching about it because someone MIGHT.Please explain the value of paying you to eat and sleep while on the clock. I bet that it costs the state more than $400 to pay you while you're sleeping.
I wonder if any single poster who tried to shame me for making comments about someone's personal situation will even DARE to say something to DD for doing the same thing.
I'm guessing not.
I'm guessing not.
Not really for this thread, but agreed. I see no reason to exempt any group from paying taxes in this manner.
Please take your meds or something. I miss the old Doh who made intelligent points versus this drivel that is coming from you now.Like you actually give a
Please explain the value of paying you to eat and sleep while on the clock. I bet that it costs the state more than $400 to pay you while you're sleeping.
Once again you presume to know what I give a
about. Please show me where I ever said that I wanted kids to go without food or clothes in a serious post. Dumbass adults who have proven that they will make bad decisions and break the law, maybe, but never kids.As far as value, I will explain it to you even though it should insult your intelligence. EMERGENCY situations require immediate response for the best mitigation of hazards and the protection of life safety. Having people in a centralized locations in order to respond to these situations is the best way to deal with them that we have found so far. Humans require sleep and food at regular intervals to perform work. If the city wanted to hire more people to enable enough shifts to allow me to only work an eight or ten hour shift, then so be it. They haven't found that to be cost effective. Preparedness and security are the provided value, along with fast response times and the preservation of life and property.
Thanks, Bob, but it cracks me up every time he tries to make this false equivalency. I like to laugh and therefore hope he continues. There is a bit of hypocrisy that you have exposed, too.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
and as an added bonus we get to embarrass and malign the poor even more!
the fact is NO ONE used EBT card to make a purchase at store and the store itself said they wouldn't accept it for sex toys (my guess is they would for underwear). But what's the truth got to do with it when you can manufacture outrage at the poor.
Should the card be allowed there is the question. I see you are pro preventative care in another thread, so would you get behind an EBT voucher system like WIC to ensure that only healthy foods were purchased by tax money? If the gov't can force people to purchase something from private companies (Obamacare), then surely they should be able to force people to buy non disease causing foods. How does this "embarrass and malign" anyone?
usickenme
CAGiversary!
yes, if it is only used for acceptable items. Look, this isn't the 70s, I am sure an EBT system could be used to flag items. But with people of your ilk crying for every dollar going to the poor the fact that "healthy" food is generally more expensive and doesn't keep as long does pose a problem. It's not as simply running to the store when it takes a few bus rides. I understand the emotional reaction to "oh that poor person is buying a candy bar with my money!!" but it ignores the fact that being generally poor sucks.
The old WIC system created a stigma, let's not play dumb. I worked at a grocery store for a while and most people using WIC were plenty embarrassed about it and others generally did look down (and comment) like WIC users were getting a free ride.
Edit: I realize I may not have answered your question. I am not opposed to limiting certain items on EBT, if it can be done in an unobtrusive manner and would include some education for it's users on what is allowed.
The old WIC system created a stigma, let's not play dumb. I worked at a grocery store for a while and most people using WIC were plenty embarrassed about it and others generally did look down (and comment) like WIC users were getting a free ride.
Edit: I realize I may not have answered your question. I am not opposed to limiting certain items on EBT, if it can be done in an unobtrusive manner and would include some education for it's users on what is allowed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you shitting me? I should be worried about someone's feelings versus cutting disease rates and obesity that we also pay for? If you are ashamed to use your EBT card, then don't use it.
yes, if it is only used for acceptable items. Look, this isn't the 70s, I am sure an EBT system could be used to flag items. But with people of your ilk crying for every dollar going to the poor the fact that "healthy" food is generally more expensive and doesn't keep as long does pose a problem. It's not as simply running to the store when it takes a few bus rides. I understand the emotional reaction to "oh that poor person is buying a candy bar with my money!!" but it ignores the fact that being generally poor sucks.
The old WIC system created a stigma, let's not play dumb. I worked at a grocery store for a while and most people using WIC were plenty embarrassed about it and others generally did look down (and comment) like WIC users were getting a free ride.
Edit: I realize I may not have answered your question. I am not opposed to limiting certain items on EBT, if it can be done in an unobtrusive manner and would include some education for it's users on what is allowed.
And as far as a "free ride", getting things with other people's money is a pretty good definition of that term, right? Especially if you have never paid federal income taxes. I am sure being poor sucks, not nearly as bad here as in other places, but that doesn't mean that we should not have expectations of people to even try and take care of themselves and better their situation. Surely sitting around your house playing PS3 GTA 5 all day is not going to further your ambitions, but the checks keep coming no matter what, so game on. So, when the Wall Street bailouts occurred were you in favor of capping CEO salaries for any corporation receiving a bailout as was proposed but never implemented?Are you shitting me? I should be worried about someone's feelings versus cutting disease rates and obesity that we also pay for? If you are ashamed to use your EBT card, then don't use it.
Please don't go down the route of "well, I didn't support the bailout" cause I'm sure you most likely didn't. Rather, let's focus on the fact it already happened, what limitations would you have favored on those corporations receiving public funds?
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice. "Let's not discuss one particular "what if" scenario, because that doesn't fit in with the argument I'm trying to make. Let's discuss my specific set of circumstances that I've made up to try and trap you."
Can't speak for ego, but the bailouts shouldn't have happened. Period.
Of course I was anti bailout, too big too fail my ass. No lessons were learned at all because no consequences were felt. If the gov't is paying for you to live or survive, then indeed I want regulation guaranteeing the most beneficial, efficient, and transparent use of the money, civilian or business. If the CEO's had contracts in place, then the waters are a bit murkier. Let em go bankrupt and start again. Do you feel it is ok for teachers, policemen, and firefighters to receive half of their promised pensions from municipalities that are broke while welfare is not cut? Should we cut social security benefits that people actually contributed to but not cut back welfare? Times are hard, but if we gotta make cuts, then the nonproductive members of society should be the first to suffer.
Often CEO salaries are set in contract, bonuses (which typically make up the bulk of their compensation) are set by the board at their discretion but sometimes for quantifiable goals set forth in their contract. Or, in the slimiest situations, the "golden parachutes" are negotiated settlements to allow a board to fire without having to go through the hassle of having to prove cause without fear of litigation.
As for your hypotheticals, I'm not aware of anywhere it occurred where a 50% decrease in pension benefits occurred while welfare benefits were paid out. Furthermore, that would be a difficult hypothetical to justify because welfare benefits are provided from state level funding whereas teachers, nurses, firefighters are employed at the local, municipal level. (i.e. They're coming from entirely different pots of money).
Additionally, "when times are tough" is exactly when welfare benefits are needed because those seeking government assistance are typically at their highest, not because they're lazy but because corporate executives want to cut costs and do it through layoffs. The ones seeking government assistance during tough times aren't lazy, but rather an unfortunate victim of circumstances.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/17/detr-m17.html
There is a newer deal in the works that may be better for these people. The fact still stands that pensions are being paid out at less than promised levels while welfare is constant. Anybody proposing welfare cuts is demonized. As far as differing pools of money, it is all tax payer money. Taking what a person has earned and giving it to someone who has not earned it=welfare=theft. Some who seek gov't assistance are very much indeed lazy, neither side should paint with an all encompassing brush. I am always going to side with people who have paid into the system and contributed to society over those who haven't. I do want conditions to be less than desirable for anybody who is able bodied and on welfare for more than six months. Leisure time is for workers. Those who receive checks from the tax payers should not be watching garbage TV or playing videogames all day. We should require them to read a few how to books and clean up the neighborhood, hell! anything rather than lying back and collecting a check. I am totally with you against corporate welfare. How the hell can we justify subsidizing oil companies???
There is a newer deal in the works that may be better for these people. The fact still stands that pensions are being paid out at less than promised levels while welfare is constant. Anybody proposing welfare cuts is demonized. As far as differing pools of money, it is all tax payer money. Taking what a person has earned and giving it to someone who has not earned it=welfare=theft. Some who seek gov't assistance are very much indeed lazy, neither side should paint with an all encompassing brush. I am always going to side with people who have paid into the system and contributed to society over those who haven't. I do want conditions to be less than desirable for anybody who is able bodied and on welfare for more than six months. Leisure time is for workers. Those who receive checks from the tax payers should not be watching garbage TV or playing videogames all day. We should require them to read a few how to books and clean up the neighborhood, hell! anything rather than lying back and collecting a check. I am totally with you against corporate welfare. How the hell can we justify subsidizing oil companies???
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
I feel like you bring nothing to the table. At least argue your point. Don't just make pointless comments and then pretend that you do not care.
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
You do realize that I actually go and defend my points when needed. I have yet to see you do it a single time. You are like a turd that won't flush.
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
And I use that little tidbit now to describe you and how perfectly it fits. Oh so many liberals cannot stand their hypocrisy that they use the ignore option. Pity.
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
Oh I am sorry! You must be the crazy right winger. Now now go on put me on the list. It is obvious you can only personally attack.
Rip44
Banned
It was bad.
Its practically theft when you look into the majority of cases. Such as lazy
s popping out kids just to have a "free" living and to collect food stamps with free cash. Then an even further, and fair assessment, is on a great percentage of them, spend only a handful of FS (mostly on themselves, not the kids) and get the rest in cash (which often happens) to spend on whatever they want. SNAP is giving to the undeserving scum of the Earth and held off for those in need of actual assistance.I grew up in Philly and all of this was pretty common. People on drugs, having kids, and collecting free money while living in free housing. The majority won't even try. (All the more reason to support drug testing on applicants.)
I have a friend who's sister was doing good for herself, going to college to become a nurse, and had no money to really do anything, including buying food for herself and she got denied cause she was attending school.
I'm not saying all people are scum, but its a high percentage.
This country -_-
/Rant.
Tsk tsk tsk, that article is all about Detroit as a city falling apart and nothing about Detroit having to pay out government assistance instead of pension benefits. Of course they can't pay their pension, the city is completely broke. Not because they were paying out welfare but because every major industry left and most of the property tax generators. You're playing fast and loose with the facts here and it's completely disingenuous. Cities aren't funded from the same money that funds welfare, plain and simple. You might sit there and say it's all tax payer money but they're entirely different tax revenue streams.
The point still remains that cities don't pay welfare benefits and thus there's no way they could cut pensions in favor of paying welfare. Cities and states are both government but they're completely separate entities, it's akin to saying Walmart would have to layoff employees if Target's sales were down.
bread's done