07-19-2012, 11:40 AM #1
New welfare restrictions to target cigarettes, gambling, booze and other "sin" items
I actually agree with some of this. If you want lung cancer, alcoholism or to be a compulsive gambler get a job and do it on your own dime. If you expect a handout from the gov't do be mad when the gov't tells you what to do with the money that they give you. What are your thoughts?
07-19-2012, 12:23 PM #2
i wouldn't be trying to outlaw them as "sin" items but i would be all for outlawing them as unnecessary items. I think if we are going to have government handouts, it should only be able to be used on necessities.bucket:Hidden Content
Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches
07-19-2012, 02:33 PM #3
they won't e able to stop it, they could barder for these items and if caught with them, they could easily say someone bought them for them.
i think they should have a huge welfare police program, visit their place of residence and bust them that way, and they should give drug tests as well.
they can start right here where i live and i could even point out who to check first. i am tired of people rolling up for free food in cars that are worth 20+ grand smoking cigs, having large screen tv's, and the best internet and cable tv services available, just to name a few.
07-19-2012, 02:48 PM #4
I am all for these restrictions and more. Welfare is for people in need for a short period of time, its not a lifestyle. Anything deemed non essential or a luxury they should not be allowed to purchase. If they do not like it then get off of it.
07-19-2012, 03:29 PM #5
I belive welfare should be only for essential stuff so I think we should ban cell phones, high speed internet, cable, good cars ect. But I do think we should allowed dial up internet, so if they want a job they can find one. Also they have to submidt receipts for every purchase they made.Hidden Content
carlos ruiz 215/630 34.12%
mike Schmidt 251/6684 3.75%
07-19-2012, 03:30 PM #6
07-19-2012, 03:30 PM #7
I don't believe this is as big a problem as some make it out to be, but with that said, I certainly don't think these types of restrictions are out of line. I also think that the governments involved could do a lot of good by showing the taxpayers that they are being better stewards of their money, and reduce the resentment directed at many receiving benefits.
07-19-2012, 05:19 PM #8
07-19-2012, 05:26 PM #9
07-19-2012, 06:05 PM #10
habs, i can tell you that in my very small town, there is plenty of government housing, I have been in around 80% of these homes. out of the ones i have been in, around 90% are living above their means. meaning they have nice new cars, the best internet connection, all premiums channels with a dvr or two, alcohol, cigarettes, and some smell like dope. they have shoes that cost more than all my shoes combined, they have N64's, nice stereo systems.
don't get me wrong, some don't have much but their place is clean and they work what jobs they can, but most have adult kids living there and no one works.
couple this with government overspending and earmarks and we have about 2/3 of our deficit.(just a wild guess)