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

[techs]

It was cash assistance. The food stamps were separate in the OP.

Maybe I misunderstood. I figured the 270 wasn't enough for the tv so it was taken out of the food stamps portion. I guess you can buy a 32 incher for 270 nowadays.

 

[drebo]

Should the money you get back on your taxes from various deductions, which are subsidized by other tax payers, have restrictions on how you spend it?

There are many examples where one group of taxpayers pays for another citizen's benefits.

No, because any refund I get is a refund of money that I overpaid.

Deductions simply reduce my taxable income and apply to ALL taxpayers, not just the ones who refuse to work.

Also, it's not money being "given back" to me by "other taxpayers." That would imply that the money was not mine to start with.

 

[drebo]

So by that logic banning abortions is not anti-choice because women have the choice to get her tubes tied and have all of the non-baby producing sex they want.

Somehow I don't see liberals embracing that logic anytime soon.

Or they can get an IUD or they can get birth control, which is available free almost everywhere, and even if it's not free it's only ~$5/mo for the daily pills.

Make an IUD a requirement for being on welfare. It's an outpatient procedure that is easily reversible.

 

[nehalem256]

Or they can get an IUD or they can get birth control, which is available free almost everywhere, and even if it's not free it's only ~$5/mo for the daily pills.

Make an IUD a requirement for being on welfare. It's an outpatient procedure that is easily reversible.

So women can easily avoid pregnancy without having to be permanently sterilized 😱 :hmm:

 

[ArchAngel777]

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.

This is actually a sensible post, in my opinion.

Edit ** And I just realized I will probably be flamed for the above. Fact is, i am a conservative at heart, but even I know that you can't be 100% rigid like this. The system needs an overhaul but until that time, I don't know the all the situations these people face. We already know the system is abused, but just because we find an instance where we 'think' it might be abused doesn't mean it really is.

 

[KlokWyze]

"You down with EBT? Yeah, you know me"

Wake up. Wake up. Wake up.
It's the first of the mooooooooonth.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This is actually a sensible post, in my opinion.

There is nothing useful that does anything other than encourage them to CONTINUE sitting on their ass. It's not so much a matter of TV - it's that it encourages them to continue their trend of being leaches of society.

 

[KlokWyze]

Maybe I misunderstood. I figured the 270 wasn't enough for the tv so it was taken out of the food stamps portion. I guess you can buy a 32 incher for 270 nowadays.

I bought a cheapo 32" Sceptre LED 720p about 2 years ago for $240. Still going strong. :thumbsup:

 

[ArchAngel777]

There is nothing useful that does anything other than encourage them to CONTINUE sitting on their ass. It's not so much a matter of TV - it's that it encourages them to continue their trend of being leaches of society.

I hate leaches more than anything. But I also know and keep learing that whatever I think I know, I really don't. I am schooled time and time again when I jump to conclusions about somebody. After a few mistakes I am a bit more cautious because experience has taught me that appearences are deceiving.

One thing is for certain though. If the money is given free of charge, most people will not spend it wisely. It appears to be me that people appreciate more what they have to work for... I see this time and time again as well. Give something to someone and because they don't understand the time and effort required for such a thing, they tend not to appreciate it... The whole system needs an overhaul.

 

[Incorruptible]

This is the problem with welfare, its not their money and they will waste it. They dont understand how hard it is to earn the money they take from taxpayers. Its because of this they think they can waste it on whatever BS they want

 

[werepossum]

This is actually a sensible post, in my opinion.

Edit ** And I just realized I will probably be flamed for the above. Fact is, i am a conservative at heart, but even I know that you can't be 100% rigid like this. The system needs an overhaul but until that time, I don't know the all the situations these people face. We already know the system is abused, but just because we find an instance where we 'think' it might be abused doesn't mean it really is.

If one assumes she is not cheating the system and actually scrimped and saved her meager dole to buy it, I agree. The three automobile keys would beg to differ, but perhaps she carries those to make people think she isn't on welfare. 😉

 

[techs]

Maybe I misunderstood. I figured the 270 wasn't enough for the tv so it was taken out of the food stamps portion. I guess you can buy a 32 incher for 270 nowadays.

I bought a cheapo 32" Sceptre LED 720p about 2 years ago for $240. Still going strong. :thumbsup:

Based on the way the OP wrote the post it made it seem like the person used food stamps to buy the tv. Otherwise why would the OP mention food stamps?

As to the person buying a 32 inch tv with welfare money, I would say it is probably not a terrible thing. It is probably the most cost effective entertainment you can get for your money. It keeps them and their children informed of public events. So, for instance they know the weather, the politicians, critical issues, health news, etc.

I really don't get the point of the OP. Unless it was to insinuate that people are using food stamps for televisions. Although, it could be the unsubstantiated claim they had "key fobs" for three cars. All in all it just sounds like the OP wanted to get up some hatred for poor people. Hopefully no one will grab a gun and go out shooting poor people based on the OP.

 

[drebo]

Based on the way the OP wrote the post it made it seem like the person used food stamps to buy the tv. Otherwise why would the OP mention food stamps?

As to the person buying a 32 inch tv with welfare money, I would say it is probably not a terrible thing. It is probably the most cost effective entertainment you can get for your money. It keeps them and their children informed of public events. So, for instance they know the weather, the politicians, critical issues, health news, etc.

I really don't get the point of the OP. Unless it was to insinuate that people are using food stamps for televisions. Although, it could be the unsubstantiated claim they had "key fobs" for three cars. All in all it just sounds like the OP wanted to get up some hatred for poor people. Hopefully no one will grab a gun and go out shooting poor people based on the OP.

The point is that the welfare system is broken.

Someone with three cars w/ keyless entry (implies they're not beaters) should not be on welfare. Someone on welfare (implies they cannot afford the basic needs of their family) should not be buying luxury items.

 

[nehalem256]

As to the person buying a 32 inch tv with welfare money, I would say it is probably not a terrible thing. It is probably the most cost effective entertainment you can get for your money. It keeps them and their children informed of public events. So, for instance they know the weather, the politicians, critical issues, health news, etc.

You means so long as you exclude libraries and radios to name 2 cheaper alternatives off the top of my head

 

[SparkyJJO]

Of course a large part of the problem is that their household only includes one adult which makes it much harder to support a household.

"Much" harder if you don't want to budget accordingly. Sure, 2 incomes always makes it easier, especially to afford nicer stuff, but it isn't horribly difficult to support a family on 1 income. Just have to know your limits.

The point is that the welfare system is broken.

Someone with three cars w/ keyless entry (implies they're not beaters) should not be on welfare. Someone on welfare (implies they cannot afford the basic needs of their family) should not be buying luxury items.

To be fair, keyless entry has been around for a long time, and there are a lot of cars equipped with it that are in the beater category by now. Mid-90s cars started having keyless entry as a more and more common option, and those cars can be had for cheap.

 

[nehalem256]

"Much" harder if you don't want to budget accordingly. Sure, 2 incomes always makes it easier, especially to afford nicer stuff, but it isn't horribly difficult to support a family on 1 income. Just have to know your limits.

Its much harder even if you do want to budget properly because you have to budget for childcare.

 

[Lemon law]

"Much" harder if you don't want to budget accordingly. Sure, 2 incomes always makes it easier, especially to afford nicer stuff, but it isn't horribly difficult to support a family on 1 income. Just have to know your limits.



To be fair, keyless entry has been around for a long time, and there are a lot of cars equipped with it that are in the beater category by now. Mid-90s cars started having keyless entry as a more and more common option, and those cars can be had for cheap.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sparky 110 is correct on two counts.

(1) Just because its possible to own a few cars that are high repair costs old beaters, they still enable some of the older welfare children to get a job and help support the family to get off the welfare rolls. The way this country is now laid out means no car equals no ability to get and retain gainful employment.

(2) Even if that welfare Cadillac is always cited as the reason why we should deny welfare to those who legitimately need it, but still that welfare Cadillac is rarer than hens teeth. But it does rarely happen. So even worse in terms of catching the welfare abusers, righty tighties make it easier to abuse the system by cutting welfare funding. On one hand anyone who comes into the welfare system can claim welfare eligibility by meeting State welfare standards on a pieces of paper. Point granted, most are legitimate and a few are not. But still, in terms of investigating who are legitimate and who are not, does not fall to the average welfare worker who are compelled by law to grant welfare on the basis of a piece of paper. As their job is to grant welfare on the basis of that piece of paper. In term of detecting fraud, that job falls on the State welfare investigators. And when righty tighties cut welfare funds, the first to be laid off are the welfare investigators that police the system.

 

[LumbergTech]

I hate leaches more than anything. But I also know and keep learing that whatever I think I know, I really don't. I am schooled time and time again when I jump to conclusions about somebody. After a few mistakes I am a bit more cautious because experience has taught me that appearences are deceiving.

One thing is for certain though. If the money is given free of charge, most people will not spend it wisely. It appears to be me that people appreciate more what they have to work for... I see this time and time again as well. Give something to someone and because they don't understand the time and effort required for such a thing, they tend not to appreciate it... The whole system needs an overhaul.

I don't think it is that they don't understand the time and effort...I think its just that they don't have motivation which can be for a variety of reasons..some being more understandable than others.

 

[SirStev0]

who pays $600 for a 32 inch TV???

 

[LumbergTech]

who pays $600 for a 32 inch TV???

This is a travesty!!!!!!

If you are gonna get a TV on the dole, at least get it from a slickdeals thread

 

[chucky2]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sparky 110 is correct on two counts.

(1) Just because its possible to own a few cars that are high repair costs old beaters, they still enable some of the older welfare children to get a job and help support the family to get off the welfare rolls. The way this country is now laid out means no car equals no ability to get and retain gainful employment.

(2) Even if that welfare Cadillac is always cited as the reason why we should deny welfare to those who legitimately need it, but still that welfare Cadillac is rarer than hens teeth. But it does rarely happen. So even worse in terms of catching the welfare abusers, righty tighties make it easier to abuse the system by cutting welfare funding. On one hand anyone who comes into the welfare system can claim welfare eligibility by meeting State welfare standards on a pieces of paper. Point granted, most are legitimate and a few are not. But still, in terms of investigating who are legitimate and who are not, does not fall to the average welfare worker who are compelled by law to grant welfare on the basis of a piece of paper. As their job is to grant welfare on the basis of that piece of paper. In term of detecting fraud, that job falls on the State welfare investigators. And when righty tighties cut welfare funds, the first to be laid off are the welfare investigators that police the system.

If what you suggest is true, I wouldn't see it abused by me so much. The abuse I see would be so rare, I'd hardly ever see it. Instead, it's seen all the time. For f*cks sake man, wake up! Women talk freely on the train here about how they are, and/or how to, game the system.

It's like you actually believe what you say...

 

[JEDIYoda]

If what you suggest is true, I wouldn't see it abused by me so much. The abuse I see would be so rare, I'd hardly ever see it. Instead, it's seen all the time. For f*cks sake man, wake up! Women talk freely on the train here about how they are, and/or how to, game the system.

hahahaha...gotta love the lies andf false stories that you perpetrate to try to sound all informed and such...rofl...

 

[chucky2]

hahahaha...gotta love the lies andf false stories that you perpetrate to try to sound all informed and such...rofl...

What's sad is you likely have F all first hand experience at what I'm talking about. Dude, I live in Chicago's "fine" southern suburbs, and have for nearly all my life. I laugh at you laughing at me...you're like a 14 year old laughing with his buddies at something you know jack about...

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

No, because any refund I get is a refund of money that I overpaid..

Nope.

You and I can both have the same income (earned income) yet pay different rates of taxation. If your rate is lower I am implicitely subsidizing your tax rate.

Deductions simply reduce my taxable income and apply to ALL taxpayers, not just the ones who refuse to work.

Also, it's not money being "given back" to me by "other taxpayers." That would imply that the money was not mine to start with.

Deductions are money that the government would normally collect but don't due to exceptions in the tax code.

However, those exceptions are not free and the lost income must be made up somewhere else and always through more taxes elsewhere.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You haven't addressed anything. You made a claim that you can not back up, and are trying to weasel around having to prove it. Moron. My views on gun control, and the "freedom" to spend tax payer money are perfectly squared. Even trying to equate the two is a sign of your mental impotence.

I disagree with that view and followed up with a question on personal freedom which you chose to ignore.

No wonder you spend so much time using insults, its a great way to dodge actually discussing the issue.