Hey I'm on Welfare, take it off baby!!

[Beco]

DENVER — A second ban on welfare cards being used at pot shops is moving in the Colorado Legislature.

The state House approved a bill Friday to add marijuana businesses and strip clubs to the list of Colorado businesses where electronic benefits cards — called EBTs — can t be used to withdraw cash.

Colorado recreational marijuana shops and medical dispensaries

A similar bill has passed in the Senate. But the bills are slightly different. The House version adds enforcement, while the Senate version doesn t give the state any way to monitor ATMs.

Liquor stores, casinos and gun shops already have such limitations. Marijuana industry groups and the state agency that administers welfare support the pot-shop bills.

 

[Beco]

Hey, I wonder why they had to enact a law banning the use of EBT cards in these joints (pardon the pun)???

 

[BotanyBoy]

Hey, I wonder why they had to enact a law banning the use of EBT cards in these joints (pardon the pun)???

Prob same reason they banned them at liquor stores and porn shops.

Everyone likes to get twisted and get off....not just rich folks.

 

[lovecraft68]

Hey, I wonder why they had to enact a law banning the use of EBT cards in these joints (pardon the pun)???

Because the welfare money is supposed to be for them to "live" and most importantly take care of their kids not for them to get drunk, stoned of stare at tits.

One of the reasons food stamps went from actual stamps to an EBT card is because assholes were selling the food stamps to get money for other things, these were the other things.

When they get jobs and support themselves they can blow their own money wherever however they want.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Meanwhile in reality these folks will just go to the ATM across the street or next door and still blow it at the titty bar/booze rack/doob dispensary/ etc.

LOL fucking moron legislators wasting tax payers dollars fucking around with this stupid fucking retard shit.....but hey it sounds good and that's all that matters.

You either give them the welfare and let them spend it how they see fit or you don't give it to them b/c one way or another they will exploit it's value for what they want.

We decided to give it to them...time to move the fuck on. Now we can take it away but you're not going to be able to control how they use it once they have it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Meanwhile in reality these folks will just go to the ATM across the street or next door and still blow it at the titty bar/booze rack/doob dispensary/ etc.

LOL fucking moron legislators wasting tax payers dollars fucking around with this stupid fucking retard shit.....but hey it sounds good and that's all that matters.

You either give them the welfare and let them spend it how they see fit or you don't give it to them b/c one way or another they will exploit it's value for what they want.

We decided to give it to them...time to move the fuck on. Now we can take it away but you're not going to be able to control how they use it once they have it.

Even if you can't prevent the abuses, at least you can make them more difficult. Besides that, ATM's are not usually all that convenient. They can be fund in banks, but there is a fee for using them and they are found in grocery stores where they can be used to make purchases. There were limits to what could be bought with food stamps, and there should be the same kind of limits for the EBT cards.

As for "wasting tax dollars" I believe there will be savings enough to make up for it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Even if you can't prevent the abuses, at least you can make them more difficult.

Why? Just to be dicks?

Besides that, ATM's are not usually all that convenient.

I live almost 100 miles from the nearest bank....I have FIVE ATM's within 10m driving. What the fuck kinda crack are you smoking? You can't walk 10ft in Denver CO without running into an ATM. There is one on just about every block in practically every major city in the US

And even out in the middle of nowhere....there are ATM's
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4096/4782691017_9e3e5fdf14.jpg

Do you know what year it is?

There were limits to what could be bought with food stamps,

No there wasn't....good as cash.

and there should be the same kind of limits for the EBT cards.

Like having to walk outside and around the corner/across the street to get your titties n' beer with a doob tube for the road? OHHH big limits!

As for "wasting tax dollars" I believe there will be savings enough to make up for it.

You keep on believing champ b/c no data backs it up...of all the deep red states that banned EBT use for getting titties n' beer has resulted in no savings....ever. Because they just go right outside the door and hit that ATM anyhow...1.99? No problem. Take all 220 left and stick it in that strippers ass.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Wouldn't be an issue if they properly adjusted the minimum wage.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Wouldn't be an issue if they properly adjusted the minimum wage.

But then Wal Marts employees could no longer qualify for food stamps.....can't have that happening!!

We've been told time and time again by Republicans on here that they aren't responsible for paying their employees.

 

[about_average]

No there wasn't....good as cash.

Actually there was. Certain items you couldn't use food stamps for. When at the register when it was rung up, if the item was in the system correctly, or the clerk was doing thier job, it went in a non-eligible category and was totaled separately.
There's actually no reason EBT cards can't be handled the same way and no withdrawals allowed at all, only used at the register.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wouldn't be an issue if they properly adjusted the minimum wage.

It still would be an issue with those who are living off welfare of some kind and have no wages.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Actually there was. Certain items you couldn't use food stamps for. When at the register when it was rung up, if the item was in the system correctly, or the clerk was doing thier job, it went in a non-eligible category and was totaled separately.
There's actually no reason EBT cards can't be handled the same way and no withdrawals allowed at all, only used at the register.

That's true. Originally, a food stamp user would go to some designated place at a designated time and buy food stamps, paying less than their face value. For instance, paying ten dollars for twenty dollars in stamps. The stamps could be used only for buying food that had been produced in the US, and not from a restaurant. They could not be used for things such as soap or toothpaste or other non-edible groceries, nor could they be used for hot cooked food, such as a barbequed chicken from a supermarket. People paid cash or maybe by check or credit card for that sort of thing back then, although most people using food stamps would not have credit cards. There were no ATM's. I am referring to the 1960's when computers were not as ubiquitous.

And I agree the EBT cards could be handled much the same way.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It still would be an issue with those who are living off welfare of some kind and have no wages.

And just how many is that?

 

[Boxlicker101]

And just how many is that?

Look it up if you really want to know.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Look it up if you really want to know.

Did a quick Google search couldn't find any specific numbers on it easily.

I'll maintain my original thought, this wouldn't be a problem if companies were responsible and paid fair wages. The number of people who are on welfare and don't work is likely so small this wouldn't be a problem (assuming that it actually is).

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

And just how many is that?

He can never provide anything concrete for any of his assertions. At most he'll provide a link to a google search for whatever topic he's bloviating about.

Look it up if you really want to know.

As if on cue.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Who knows, but Obama did drop the work requirement for receiving welfare imposed by Bill Clinton.

Wrong. That was a lie perpetuated by the Romney campaign

Work requirements were not simply “dropped.” States were allowed to change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.

It put the requirements, for the most part, in the hands of the states rather than under federal purview.

 

[desiwife16]

Hmmmm..what next???

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Wrong. That was a lie perpetuated by the Romney campaign

Work requirements were not simply “dropped.” States were allowed to change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.

It put the requirements, for the most part, in the hands of the states rather than under federal purview.

As a side note: Unlike Obama, the Bush administration "pushed for a welfare 'superwaiver' that would allow states to waive just about every requirement, including the work requirement," a proposal which passed in the House three times.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yes Mr. Apology, we know.


Issue Brief #3712 on Welfare and Welfare Spending
August 29, 2012
Ending Work for Welfare: An Overview
By Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield

On July 12, the Obama Administration released a policy directive from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rewriting the successful welfare reform law of 1996. The 1996 reform restructured the largest federal cash welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), by inserting work requirements and renamed the program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). As a result of the reform, within five years welfare rolls decreased by approximately 50 percent and child poverty dropped precipitously.

The Obama Administration’s new directive allows states to waive the TANF work requirement, gutting the reform of its most critical element and bludgeoning the letter and intent of the law.

Obama Administration Violating the Law

In establishing welfare reform, Congress made the core work requirements of the TANF program mandatory and non-waiveable; it explicitly protected the work requirements from any future Administration that might wish to weaken them.

The Obama Administration is now illegally claiming authority to waive the TANF work requirements through a legal device called the section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315). Section 1115 states that “the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements” of specified parts of various laws. However, this is not an open-ended authority. Any provision of law that can be waived under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself. The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (titled, appropriately, “Mandatory Work Requirements”). Section 407 and most other TANF requirements are deliberately not listed in section 1115 and hence are explicitly not waiveable.

Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115: section 402, which describes the reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the requirements established in the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.

Rest of article here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...inistration-ends-welfare-reform-as-we-know-it

Now don't disappoint us and not slime the messenger, Mr. Apology.

Meanwhile, in the real world.

The Obama administration has not and did not remove work requirements from welfare as you claimed.

In July 2012, the administration announced that it would comply with governors' requests -- including Republicans -- to consider proposals to create more efficient ways to report on the work requirement for people receiving TANF benefits. According to Health and Human Services, any program that weakened or undercut welfare reform would not be approved, and waivers would only be granted to proposals that "move at least 20% more people from welfare to work."

The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities found that these waivers would strengthen welfare reform by "giving states greater flexibility to test more effective strategies for helping recipients prepare for, and retain jobs." The New York Times reported that the new requirements continued the administration's efforts "to peel back unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and allow states to spend federal money more efficiently."

The claim that President Obama ended work requirements for welfare is gross misrepresentation of reality. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

in other words, you're full of shit, again, and so is the Heritage Foundation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Actually there was. Certain items you couldn't use food stamps for.

But you can flip whatever you buy with it. It's as good as cash. Hell back in the day you could sell the stamps themselves, good as cash.

There are lots of trailer park kids going to bed/school with another belly full of koolaid and oatmeal because titties n' beer made possible directly by welfare. It will happen all across the deep south, today, right this very second and continue on along as long as it's facilitated.

There is an element of the welfare crowd that will take their food money and go blow it on whatever their vice is...booze, gambling, drugs, sex...poof the food money is gone the day they get it. And as long as we as a society keep giving this specific set of folks anything of value they will continue to exploit it to fuel their addictions.

Personally I'm fine with it, it's going to happen but I think over all it's a small % of assholes and it really does help a lot of desperately fucked people. So *shrug* besides food stamps are really a drop in the bucket.

If we are going to attack welfare corporate welfare sucked straight from the genitals of congress critters is the welfare problem....RepOHz just don't want to highlight that because at that level there are just as many red hogs at the gubbment slop trough as there are blue.

 

[doubleover]

Did a quick Google search couldn't find any specific numbers on it easily.

I'll maintain my original thought, this wouldn't be a problem if companies were responsible and paid fair wages. The number of people who are on welfare and don't work is likely so small this wouldn't be a problem (assuming that it actually is).

Do you really teach kids?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Do you really teach kids?

Hmmm...Almost 600 posts in 8 years and somehow you think you know my profession?