EBT cards – used to be called “food stamps” and I remember people using coupon books to pay for their items at the grocery store (and often, even now, a second round of purchases with cash or credit after using our money). Yes, our money, for remember that the State cannot give to someone until first taking from someone. That is the plain honesty of how it work – taking before giving and no amount of caterwauling from the Left can change that equation (yes, for them it seems that math and economics is hard). And Kansas has just voted that the Peoples’ money should be used for its proper usage – life sustaining items and not the “extras” like these:
- Tattoo parlors
- Spas
- Nail parlors
- Porn stores
And these as well:
- Alcohol
- Swimming pool entry fees
- Tobacco
- Movie theaters
- Psychics and fortune tellers
- Cruise ships
- Body piercings
Individuals receiving payments would also be limited to withdrawing $25 a day, in order to discourage spending on non-essentials (emphasis mine).
Non-essentials. The above are not certainly that. When I think of non-essentials, I think basics – basic food, basic shelter. But certainly many believe it should be MUCH more (regardless of the cost to others in taxes that maybe just one single step above treading water themselves – like when my town’s Welfare Officer admitted she provided money for cable access to those looking for support even as I knew that some of my fellow Budget Committee members couldn’t afford it themselves (and yes, there was a row over it as none of us agreed that was a proper use of welfare funds over her vehement objections). It seems that a Democrat legislator agrees with her outlook (and conveniently forgets where the money came from in the first place):
Democratic Representative Carolyn Bridges argued the new rules convey the idea that people need to be told how to spend their money:
“I just think we are simply saying to people, ‘If you are asking for assistance in this state, you’re sort of less than other people and we’re going to tell you how and where to spend your money.’”
Really, lesser people? Look, I have nothing but admiration for people that find themselves on hard luck times especially when it is not of their own making and I saw them when we ran our daycare center. I also have nothing but contempt for those that play and game the system and use it as a way of life instead of the hand up it is supposed to be. Yes, I will state it – allowing for things that sometimes *I* could not afford but allowable for those on welfare is not right – why should I support people spending money on things that I cannot?
With that off my chest, then yes, we should be able to say EXACTLY that – where and how our money is to be spent – not on luxuries, not on near-luxuries, but the things that are needed to sustain one. But the Left, in their ever increasing way, keeps raising to bar as to what is the low. Obamaphones, cars (Deval Patrick, former Gov of MA, tried that), strip clubs – and if true from the list above, cruises and vacations in spots considered to be “above and beyond” – sorry, those SHOULD be ruled out of bounds.
Societal support should not be luxurious and the intent is not supposed to be able to live a “comfortable” lifestyle on the public’s dime. Nor should it be such that it becomes a way of life and from one generation to another. I also believe that a lot of people would agree with this sentiment: those that ARE disabled or unable to care for themselves DO need our help but otherwise, welfare living styles should be an incentive to GET OFF welfare and make a better life for oneself. And yes, it can be done – I watch it with those that were tired of such a lifestyle and made life better for themselves.
