Buying a 32" HDTV with a food stamps card...

[waggy]

The whole WIC program is essentially by definition abuse. Hey lets support women who cannot afford to feed themselves have more children

WIC is one of the few programs i agree with 100%. I dont' give a damn about the mother. I do about the child. this makes sure the child has access to formula and milk when needed.

also you can't abuse it. you are given cards with a set limit. you buy the items and nothing more.

though i remember reading they were opening it up to EVERY pregnant women and child. no income limits on it..

 

[nehalem256]

I thought it was to ensure the babies and infants get proper nutrition that otherwise would not have been provided for them?

WIC provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/

It is yet another program to bailout women who have kids they cannot afford.

See the bolded which is clearly discriminatory toward men and has nothing to do with ensuring nutrition for children.

I get in part your point... By supplying them with this source of nutrition for their children you are reducing the consequences for having child you can't afford in the first place.

The program by design gives benefits who do not deserve it. It is not designed for people who "temporarily fell on hard times".

 

[WackyDan]

Once again, that's irrelevant.

It's the way the program is run that's important, not the benefits it provides.

I've always been a proponent of a contract for welfare recipients that they do not have any more children (or abortions that are paid for by the tax payers.) In fact, I'd be in favor of an IUD being installed in every female welfare recipient.

Free Birth control is already offered to these breeders and that doesn't seem to resolve the issue.

I'm all for my tax dollars going to surgical methods of sterilization to ensure they no longer can birth a new generation of life long welfare recipient. Fuck it... Pay them a cash bonus to encourage more to get it done. Tubes tied? Free surgery and $2000... And seeing that there is a big problem with the men fathering several kids and bailing offer the same to them.

 

[nehalem256]

also you can't abuse it. you are given cards with a set limit. you buy the items and nothing more.

The intended use of the program is an abuse to the taxpayer. It is intended to fund women's poor reproductive choices.

 

[Lemon law]

Wasting public Welfare benefits on booze and cigarettes may make me hot under the collar, but somehow I fail to see the outrage in doing so for a modern 32 LCD. I just bought a 39" 1080P LCD for $280, I hooked up to my home OTA antenna and don't pay a dime for subscription TV. Would you deny their children the ability to watch television? Especially if their old analog TV crapped out? And now if their old analog set crapped out, said welfare recipient would have to buy a $100.00 converter box now that the US digital transition already occurred in 2009. As said person could also use their digital cable television as a computer monitor, hook it up to a cheap computer on dial up, and their children could be competitive in their school work and the parents could do on line job searches rather than waste tons of time and very expensive gas running all over town at random.

Is Television and internet access a luxury or a necessity? Even if the single parent or parents are hopelessly disabled. Will we deny their children access to basic information that can only perpetuate the cycle of welfare?

In short, 404 outrage not found on a modern 32" digital TV. Maybe if such a parent bought a very expensive 60 inch TV, maybe. But at least a welfare mother can put their children in fr5ont of a TV and programs like sesame street will get them started on the road to literacy. Instead of being bored, run on streets, and get into trouble. And finally get to school and find themselves the permanent underclass unable to socialize.

In short, typical conservative thinking, punish the children for their parents, and then complain, bitch, and bemoan the harvest of their dollar foolish outrages.

 

[drebo]

Free Birth control is already offered to these breeders and that doesn't seem to resolve the issue.

I'm all for my tax dollars going to surgical methods of sterilization to ensure they no longer can birth a new generation of life long welfare recipient. Fuck it... Pay them a cash bonus to encourage more to get it done. Tubes tied? Free surgery and $2000... And seeing that there is a big problem with the men fathering several kids and bailing offer the same to them.

Right, but it's not as though a woman can remove her own IUD. It's not voluntary.

 

[drebo]

Wasting public Welfare benefits on booze and cigarettes may make me hot under the collar, but somehow I fail to see the outrage in doing so for a modern 32 LCD. I just bought a 39" 1080P LCD for $280, I hooked up to my home OTA antenna and don't pay a dime for subscription TV. Would you deny their children the ability to watch television? Especially if their old analog TV crapped out? And now if their old analog set crapped out, said welfare recipient would have to buy a $100.00 converter box now that the US digital transition already occurred in 2009. As said person could also use their digital cable television as a computer monitor, hook it up to a cheap computer on dial up, and their children could be competitive in their school work and the parents could do on line job searches rather than waste tons of time and very expensive gas running all over town at random.

Is Television and internet access a luxury or a necessity? Even if the single parent or parents are hopelessly disabled. Will we deny their children access to basic information that can only perpetuate the cycle of welfare?

In short, 404 outrage not found on a modern 32" digital TV. Maybe if such a parent bought a very expensive 60 inch TV, maybe. But at least a welfare mother can put their children in fr5ont of a TV and programs like sesame street will get them started on the road to literacy. Instead of being bored, run on streets, and get into trouble. And finally get to school and find themselves the permanent underclass unable to socialize.

In short, typical conservative thinking, punish the children for their parents, and then complain, bitch, and bemoan the harvest of their dollar foolish outrages.

TV is a luxury. If you can't afford to feed yourself or your kids, you can't afford a TV. End of story.

 

[michal1980]

Wasting public Welfare benefits on booze and cigarettes may make me hot under the collar, but somehow I fail to see the outrage in doing so for a modern 32 LCD. I just bought a 39" 1080P LCD for $280, I hooked up to my home OTA antenna and don't pay a dime for subscription TV. Would you deny their children the ability to watch television? Especially if their old analog TV crapped out? And now if their old analog set crapped out, said welfare recipient would have to buy a $100.00 converter box now that the US digital transition already occurred in 2009. As said person could also use their digital cable television as a computer monitor, hook it up to a cheap computer on dial up, and their children could be competitive in their school work and the parents could do on line job searches rather than waste tons of time and very expensive gas running all over town at random.

Is Television and internet access a luxury or a necessity? Even if the single parent or parents are hopelessly disabled. Will we deny their children access to basic information that can only perpetuate the cycle of welfare?

In short, 404 outrage not found on a modern 32" digital TV. Maybe if such a parent bought a very expensive 60 inch TV, maybe. But at least a welfare mother can put their children in fr5ont of a TV and programs like sesame street will get them started on the road to literacy. Instead of being bored, run on streets, and get into trouble. And finally get to school and find themselves the permanent underclass unable to socialize.

In short, typical conservative thinking, punish the children for their parents, and then complain, bitch, and bemoan the harvest of their dollar foolish outrages.

Typical lefty answer. The ability to justify any government waste is amazing on your side.

404 error brains on left not found.

 

[DCal430]

Welfare should be in-kind.

By that, I mean that the government should not be providing any form of liquid asset to the people receiving welfare. They should be given certain items which are required for balanced eating and sanitary living and then they should be given rent vouchers. The government should be reimbursing the stores, not giving money to the recipients.

Look at the WIC program in California. That's how it SHOULD be done.

How do you expect them to pay for things like utilites, what about a computer. These things are necessary.

The exact same argument used uere can be used for things like disability. People on disability shouldn't get money.

 

[chucky2]

Wasting public Welfare benefits on booze and cigarettes may make me hot under the collar, but somehow I fail to see the outrage in doing so for a modern 32 LCD. I just bought a 39" 1080P LCD for $280, I hooked up to my home OTA antenna and don't pay a dime for subscription TV. Would you deny their children the ability to watch television? Especially if their old analog TV crapped out? And now if their old analog set crapped out, said welfare recipient would have to buy a $100.00 converter box now that the US digital transition already occurred in 2009. As said person could also use their digital cable television as a computer monitor, hook it up to a cheap computer on dial up, and their children could be competitive in their school work and the parents could do on line job searches rather than waste tons of time and very expensive gas running all over town at random.

Is Television and internet access a luxury or a necessity? Even if the single parent or parents are hopelessly disabled. Will we deny their children access to basic information that can only perpetuate the cycle of welfare?

In short, 404 outrage not found on a modern 32" digital TV. Maybe if such a parent bought a very expensive 60 inch TV, maybe. But at least a welfare mother can put their children in fr5ont of a TV and programs like sesame street will get them started on the road to literacy. Instead of being bored, run on streets, and get into trouble. And finally get to school and find themselves the permanent underclass unable to socialize.

In short, typical conservative thinking, punish the children for their parents, and then complain, bitch, and bemoan the harvest of their dollar foolish outrages.

Wow....just....wow....

 

[DCal430]

FYI many people on TANF are disabled and are waiting for SSI/SSDI to be approved. It can take 2 years to get SSI/SSDI once you apply and people can go on TANF in the mean time to get some income, they can also go on it for their children.

 

[schneiderguy]

Wasting public Welfare benefits on booze and cigarettes may make me hot under the collar, but somehow I fail to see the outrage in doing so for a modern 32 LCD. I just bought a 39" 1080P LCD for $280, I hooked up to my home OTA antenna and don't pay a dime for subscription TV. Would you deny their children the ability to watch television? Especially if their old analog TV crapped out? And now if their old analog set crapped out, said welfare recipient would have to buy a $100.00 converter box now that the US digital transition already occurred in 2009. As said person could also use their digital cable television as a computer monitor, hook it up to a cheap computer on dial up, and their children could be competitive in their school work and the parents could do on line job searches rather than waste tons of time and very expensive gas running all over town at random.

Is Television and internet access a luxury or a necessity? Even if the single parent or parents are hopelessly disabled. Will we deny their children access to basic information that can only perpetuate the cycle of welfare?

In short, 404 outrage not found on a modern 32" digital TV. Maybe if such a parent bought a very expensive 60 inch TV, maybe. But at least a welfare mother can put their children in fr5ont of a TV and programs like sesame street will get them started on the road to literacy. Instead of being bored, run on streets, and get into trouble. And finally get to school and find themselves the permanent underclass unable to socialize.

In short, typical conservative thinking, punish the children for their parents, and then complain, bitch, and bemoan the harvest of their dollar foolish outrages.

Are you serious? If they want information they can go to the fucking library.

 

[SheHateMe]

Hey guys, just came back from Best Buy and the Welfare office. I got a sweet deal on a 50" Plasma!

 

[chucky2]

Are you serious? If they want information they can go to the fucking library.

What's insane is this is the Lefty base mindset. They are guaranteed 30% vote, and growing, each election from folks like this. Think for a while on what that means for the future of the country...

Chuck

 

[drebo]

How do you expect them to pay for things like utilites, what about a computer. These things are necessary.

The exact same argument used uere can be used for things like disability. People on disability shouldn't get money.

Computers are not necessities. Utilities are already subsidized.

People who are disabled to the point where they cannot hold a job and have no family are an exception. They are the only ones, in my mind, who should be getting government assistance.

A mother of four who just plain doesn't want to work should not get a free ride by virtue of the fact that she just doesn't want to work.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

FYI many people on TANF are disabled and are waiting for SSI/SSDI to be approved. It can take 2 years to get SSI/SSDI once you apply and people can go on TANF in the mean time to get some income, they can also go on it for their children.

I don't think many people are upset when someone who is truly disabled receives government funding.

However, many people don't support the government playing daddy for those who made poor decisions several times. The money that is paid out should go toward essentials (ie food, utilities, basic life needs......) and not towards luxury items.

 

[nehalem256]

How do you expect them to pay for things like utilites, what about a computer. These things are necessary.

A compute is not necessary.

 

[nehalem256]

A mother of four who just plain doesn't want to work should not get a free ride by virtue of the fact that she just doesn't want to work.

Unfortunately a lot of the time the problem isn't that she doesn't want to work its that she made poor life choices and a single mother with 3 kids and minimal job skills is not going to be able to make enough to support her family.

 

[zanejohnson]

in texas it's pretty hard to get a cash benefit, most single mothers i know don't get it, they get like 2-300 in food stamps, and there are alot of restrictions on what can be bought with it.. definitely no electronics or alcohol or tobacco..

 

[DCal430]

Computers are not necessities. Utilities are already subsidized.

People who are disabled to the point where they cannot hold a job and have no family are an exception. They are the only ones, in my mind, who should be getting government assistance.

A mother of four who just plain doesn't want to work should not get a free ride by virtue of the fact that she just doesn't want to work.

These people have little to no other income and I said some of them are disabled as well.

No one is getting a free ride, those who are able body are required to attend courses on finding a job, and required to actively look for employment.

 

[Baked]

They need to give the poor people necessity material rather than money.

 

[DCal430]

Unfortunately a lot of the time the problem isn't that she doesn't want to work its that she made poor life choices and a single mother with 3 kids and minimal job skills is not going to be able to make enough to support her family.

The fact is people like you would have these children on the streets with no food, water, or shelter. Very sad how you people think.

 

[nehalem256]

The fact is people like you would have these children on the streets with no food, water, or shelter. Very sad how you people think.

No I would prevent them from being born in the first place.

Also, if a woman CHOOSES to have a kid she cannot feed, water, or shelter why don't we put the blame where it belongs?

And hint the blame shouldn't be on me.

 

[DCal430]

No I would prevent them from being born in the first place.

Also, if a woman CHOOSES to have a kid she cannot feed, water, or shelter why don't we put the blame where it belongs?

And hint the blame shouldn't be on me.

Regardless if she should have had them or not, they are born and need to be taken care of. We can't just have them thrown into the streets and left to die like most of you seem to think.

 

[drebo]

Regardless if she should have had them or not, they are born and need to be taken care of. We can't just have them thrown into the streets and left to die like most of you seem to think.

So take them away and put them in an orphanage. 9 out of 10 would be better off.