SEC=UGA Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that prohibits welfare recipients from using their government subsidy in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos. The measure easily received the necessary support of two-thirds of House members, with 395 voting in favor and only 27 opposing. House Republicans introduced and promoted the proposal as a way to eliminate government wasteful spending. It has passed the House before, and they re-introduced it again hoping it will become part of a bill to extend the payroll tax credit, which both the House and Senate is expected to debate this month. The Senate has not agreed to take up the measure. Hey, goodie-two-shoes, bible thumping, conservatives... Poor people need to have their fun too. Besides, this could have a negative economic impact on young single mothers, middle eastern immigrants and native Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 How can anyone vote against this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Next...eliminate the use of EBT cards at fast food restaurants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Besides, this could have a negative economic impact on young single mothers, middle eastern immigrants and native Americans. You've noticed how many liquor stores are run by Muslims too, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) You've noticed how many liquor stores are run by Muslims too, huh? I'm not sure of the implication here... The only thing I'm watching out for while at liquor stores are african native mexican redneck americans. Edited February 2, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I'm not sure of the implication here... The only thing I'm watching out for while at liquor stores are african native americans So are your ME immigrants you mention mostly strippers, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 So are your ME immigrants you mention mostly strippers, then? A buddy of mine in Turkey has a saying... Only ugly bitches wear burqas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I'm guessing this will save the tax payers 0 dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) How can anyone vote against this? No kidding. I'd like to know who the 27 were that voted against it. Edited February 2, 2012 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) I'm guessing this will save the tax payers 0 dollars. Sometimes it is just about doing the proper thing. However, I will draw the line at Hostess Twinkies and Cupcakes should it ever come up. Edited February 2, 2012 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Lemme say one thing... If I knew that I were getting cut-off from strippers, booze and gambling, I'd get a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Lemme say one thing... If I knew that I were getting cut-off from strippers, booze and gambling, I'd get a job.+1 Among other reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I agree that welfare people should make better use of their money, but I always find it amazing that people get so upset about welfare, but allow the corruption at the top to continue. My only guess about this phenomenon is that most people feel helpless against the rich and powerful, but figure they can do something about corruption at the bottom of the food chain? This, especially given the colossal difference in raw amounts of money involved. Classic Uriah Heep behavior - forelock-tugging, whipped dog deference to one group, snarling contempt and hate to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 This, especially given the colossal difference in raw amounts of money involved. Classic Uriah Heep behavior - forelock-tugging, whipped dog deference to one group, snarling contempt and hate to the other. The difference, in my opinion, is that the welfare people are not working those at the top, well, they are working. Also, for the most part, those at the top aren't "stealing", sure, they are shrewd and leveraging their positions, but aren't stealing. That is unless you are talking about the political class, yet they are still technically "working". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Sounds like they're just trying to keep their money in the community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 The difference, in my opinion, is that the welfare people are not working those at the top, well, they are working. Also, for the most part, those at the top aren't "stealing", sure, they are shrewd and leveraging their positions, but aren't stealing. That is unless you are talking about the political class, yet they are still technically "working". Nah, nice try but it's just ass licking like I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The Senate has not agreed to take up the measure. I agree that welfare people should make better use of their money racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I've gotta give 'em credit, Washington really knows where to look when it comes to wasteful spending. It's like a magician having everyone looking at the one hand while the other is doing the real dirty work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I am not a fan of legislation whose only real purpose is to posture for constituents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I've gotta give 'em credit, Washington really knows where to look when it comes to wasteful spending. It's like a magician having everyone looking at the one hand while the other is doing the real dirty work. Exactly. On one had, sure, why not? No reason people should be spending public hand-outs on strippers. It's just sort of funny because they make such a big deal about. "You know what is wrong with our budget? We're giving money to the poor, AND THEY'RE SPENDING IT ON POLE DANCES!" As if, that's why we're broke. It's the same deal with the welfare moms and Escalades. For all you hear about them, you'd think you'd see that all the time. Hell, given where I live, at least I would. But I don't. When I see "welfare mom" and her brood, she's either at the bus stop or driving around some old beater with the bumper being held on by a bungee cord. Is it really a hugh problem? Or have a few figured out how to work the system and cracking down on it is going to save us relatively nothing and simply feed our sanctimonious egos. "Take my hand out and spend it on strippers? No freaking way, stinky!" But when the CEO in the nice suit comes by and tells us to line up, we gladly drop our pants and grab a railing. Or, when a term or two in congress means you get a massive pension for the rest of your life, we're cool with that as well. Just so long as no derelicts on welfare are getting their jolly's off on the public dollar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Is it really a hugh problem? Or have a few figured out how to work the system and cracking down on it is going to save us relatively nothing and simply feed our sanctimonious egos. "Take my hand out and spend it on strippers? No freaking way, stinky!" But when the CEO in the nice suit comes by and tells us to line up, we gladly drop our pants and grab a railing. Or, when a term or two in congress means you get a massive pension for the rest of your life, we're cool with that as well. Just so long as no derelicts on welfare are getting their jolly's off on the public dollar. No offense to you personally, but IMO, this is a huge problem in this country today, that everyone assumes that, rather than try to eliminate corruption and exploitation of the system for one group, that somehow two wrongs make it more right if the other side can exploit the system too. As for congressional pensions, Dr. Paul did recently call out folks like Gringrich who use their position to start a lobbying career, and said they should not be able to keep their pension.... These are positive things we can do to reduce the amount of governement waste, not to balance it out by letting the other side waste more of the money we don't have too... I'm with you that it's unfair to target poor as if they're the primary problem, but I really don't see why you don't think this is perfectly acceptable... Welfare is put in place as a safety-net, hence why one of the main stipulations is you have to be seeking work, drug-rehabilitation, etc.... Again, it's put in as a safety net, not so someone can "get their jollies on the public dollar". All the latter does is give incentives to stay dependant on welfare, which is the exact opposite aim of the program (in theory anyway). We need to be doing the same at all levels to ensure that dollars are going to the right places and not being wasted, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not anymore right for welfare dollars to be used on entirely unnecessary "jollies" than it is for any other funds to be misappropriated. Nothing is supposed to come free in this world, so no, you should not just be able to use welfare on whatever you want (particularly not if you have kids to feed, clothe and house). Edited February 3, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Sounds to me like welfare recipients are also job creators. Accordingly, the founders would want them to be less regulated, not more regulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodside Warriors Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Lemme say one thing... If I knew that I were getting cut-off from strippers, booze and gambling, I'd get a job. I was thinking along those lines as well. Maybe they can hook me up with an access(foodstamp) card or maybe pay my heating bill, so I can spend more of my hard earned money on some lap dances. Been awhile since I visited the champagne room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Sounds to me like welfare recipients are also job creators. Accordingly, the founders would want them to be less regulated, not more regulated. Founders were around in the 1930's? I actually thought Florida had it right when they wanted drug screening done due to the belief the tax payer should not be funding drug addiction which would save the state millions each year but alas a Federal judge said No dice. I guess it's ok to drug test for a job but not if the government just pays. The system is a mess. I think the last President that really did anything about this system was Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Founders were around in the 1930's? I actually thought Florida had it right when they wanted drug screening done due to the belief the tax payer should not be funding drug addiction which would save the state millions each year but alas a Federal judge said No dice. I guess it's ok to drug test for a job but not if the government just pays. The system is a mess. I think the last President that really did anything about this system was Clinton. Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.