Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I'm not familiar with a lot of things Aussie.
Do you not have free market, or free enterprise? I don't recall how your system works.

---

Australia is a socialist utopia. we don't have a government, per se, but the population all live in self sufficent, self governing cells call 'Hooroos'. Each Hooroo generates its own power through wind and solar power and produces most of its food. Hooroos trade with one another for resources that one might have that the other does, and different Hooroos have specialities, ie textiles, electronics etc. Each citizen receives free education, free health care and free aged care. In between, you are expected to be productive and gainfully contribute to the Hooroo, but if you hit a period of hardship, you are looked after until you can get back on your feet.

Each year a representative of each Hooroo meets for Parliament, to make decisions and vote on behalf of their Hooroo for country wide decisions.

You really shouldn't bother to check wikipedia or anything regarding the above, because wikipedia is a capitalist conspiracy.

Any other questions?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Anyway nuff nuffs, back from the Crazy Town some of you appear to live inand into reality.

Quote:

---

Kansas issues its TANF benefits on debit cards instead of checks, and the bill currently on Governor Sam Brownback’s desk would disallow certain types of vendors from accepting payment from TANF debit cards. Traditional purveyors of vice such as tattoo parlors, liquor stores, and strip clubs all make the list (which is already required by federal regulations), but so do some more unexpected vendors. Under the bill, TANF recipients are barred from spending benefits at movie theaters, swimming pools, and even cruise ships. (Yes, cruise ships. In Kansas). In addition, the bill would limit ATM withdrawals on TANF debit cards to $25 a day—which is not only a massive inconvenience, but also significantly increases the bank fees that TANF recipients would have to pay in a month.

We're talking about $497 a month.

As it is, the maximum benefit in Kansas under TANF is fairly meager. According to the Washington Post, Kansans on the program can receive at most $497 a month in the priciest counties in the state. Families who are poor enough to be relying on that extra monthly income to pay the bills aren’t the likeliest candidates to be spending money on tattoos and French manicures, much less booking a spot on Royal Caribbean. The Kansas bill, however, isn’t just about tackling the imaginary problem of nonexistent welfare queens spending public assistance on a steak dinner at a casino -- it’s about punishing people for the crime of being poor.

Imagine being a person on public assistance in Kansas and scrimping even more on an already-tight food budget so you can afford the rare luxury of taking your kid to a movie or a public pool or even a theme park. In effect, the state of Kansas is about to say: As long as you’re poor, we’re going to prevent you and your children from having any fun.

In the conservative mindset that produced this bill, poverty is not the result of circumstance or a lack of striving; instead, it’s the result of shiftlessness, laziness, and a lack of motivation. From this point of view, people choose to be poor because being poor isn’t a hard enough lifestyle. So, if the government makes it even harder to be poor, most poor people will buck up, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and magically find good-paying work and stop being poor. It’s a privileged position that’s insulting to anyone who has ever struggled to make ends meet while looking for work, but it’s the basis behind a surprising amount of conservative legislation.

Kansas isn’t the only state contemplating laws of this kind, but its version is the most extreme. Missouri Republicans are considering a bill that would ban purchasing steak and seafood with welfare benefits. They insist, without any actual data, that people on welfare in the state are buying steak and lobster under the guise of nutrition assistance. And earlier this year, New Hampshire’s legislature was contemplating restrictions similar to the Kansas bill. Why? As one of the legislators pushing the reform said, “I can’t tell you how many times my constituents stand in line and watch someone pull out an EBT card to buy lobster or something like that.”

Is there any evidence beyond random anecdotes to suggest that poor people engage in this type of profligacy with any regularity? Absolutely not. In fact, poor people tend to be much more cost-conscious because they have no choice but to be. Meanwhile, we don’t drug-test wealthy people to make sure they’re not abusing the government benefits they receive, like tax deductions on mortgage interest or IRA contributions. But random anecdotes about poor people buying lobster with government benefits taps into a deeply held conservative belief about the nature of poverty and the character of those who experience it.

The end result of this obsession? Laws that will accomplish little besides inflicting even more misery, inconvenience, and expense on the people who can least afford it and do nothing to help lift people out of poverty.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Really!? How else are the poor to get a tan, in the middle of nowhere, where the cows have better rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Did you really come up with that answer? Man are you guys brainwashed!

Here's a lovely fact: There is no ban on buying guns!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The swimming pool ban is a bit rough....

---

It's not a ban. They're welcome to enter into public pools, just as anyone else, as long as they pay.

---

Did you really come up with that answer? Man are you guys brainwashed!

Here's a lovely fact: There is no ban on buying guns!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
I doubt they do any of that, anyway. Can't afford it.

Yes, just more hate for the poor.

---

If they don't do that, then there is no harm in banning the use of public assistance to pay for what you claim they won't do.
You really are a complete failure in logic, aren't you?

---

Then why didn't they ban GUNS! Riddle me that Batman!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Or use government handouts to subsidise the shitty wages provided by corporations who expect the lowest strata of your country to work as semi slaves.

---

Not the proper function of govt, for starters, and our " poor " probably live better than most middle class in other nations.

The poor are free enough to work harder and make more money , if they want. Many simply don't want to.

---

That'

There should be a law against anyone wanting to be poor. If we had a law against "those" people, we would have a better country. It's simple, make a law banning poor people. Anyone caught being poor should be deported to, hmmmmm, India or Pakistan or Somalia, or some such. You know, where those dirty unwashed poor people live. Then we would only have people with jobs and money.

Wait, who would the rich make money from if all the poor people are gone. Who would be blamed when things go wrong? Hmmmm, gotta think about this law some more. I work for a living, I don't want to be the Rich's guinea pig, or am I already. Hmmmmmmm


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

don't pay no mind to the "Knuckledraggers Club" - it's tough on them to adjust their eyes to the light of day once they climb out from underneath their slug-filled rocks. But you already knew that!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sig - there's no universal standard of what it means to be 'poor', is there? I mean, every country has its own definition. My only point was, here in the US, our " poor " have access to a better standard of living than do many of the middle class in other countries.

Developed nations, not some back water that barely has electricity.

My linked post, while not exactly on topic, still makes the point.

---

Quote:

---

Comparative cross-national poverty rankings suggest that U.S. poverty rates are
at or near the top of the range when compared with poverty rates in other rich
countries. The U.S. child and elderly poverty rates seem particularly troublesome.
America’s elders also have poverty rates that are high, particularly on relative
grounds. In most rich countries, the relative child poverty rate is 10 percent or less;
in the United States, it is 21.9 percent. What seems most distinctive about the
American poor, especially poor American single parents, is that they work more
hours than do the resident parents of other nations while also receiving less in
transfer benefits than in other countries

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The swimming pool ban is a bit rough....

---

It's not a ban. They're welcome to enter into public pools, just as anyone else, as long as they pay.

---

Did you really come up with that answer? Man are you guys brainwashed!

Here's a lovely fact: There is no ban on buying guns!


SGG

---

Are you still stuck in Kookoo land? I thought you might have come visit reality again by now.
Are you in the right thread? Have you read the subject matter you are quoting?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The swimming pool ban is a bit rough....

---

It's not a ban. They're welcome to enter into public pools, just as anyone else, as long as they pay.

---

Did you really come up with that answer? Man are you guys brainwashed!

Here's a lovely fact: There is no ban on buying guns!


SGG

---

Are you still stuck in Kookoo land? I thought you might have come visit reality again by now.
Are you in the right thread? Have you read the subject matter you are quoting?

---

Yes, I just got back from KooKoo Land,

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, we gotta stop those poor folk from living in the lap of luxury. Swimming pools, lobster for dinner and buying mink coats. To hell with buying food to live, no, survive another day, I'm going to buy my kid a Playstation.

---

Quote:

---

Get fucking real! Those "poor" people are the elderly, VFWs, and starving children.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
I doubt they do any of that, anyway. Can't afford it.

Yes, just more hate for the poor.

---

If they don't do that, then there is no harm in banning the use of public assistance to pay for what you claim they won't do.
You really are a complete failure in logic, aren't you?

---

Then why didn't they ban GUNS! Riddle me that Batman!


SGG

---

Are you dumb?
Which state has the government paying for the guns of private citizens, other than the communities which require gun ownership?
If there are no states providing full payment for the guns of the citizen, then there IS NO NEED to ban public assistance funds from the payment of gun purchases. If there are gun purchases funded by public assistance payments, then I do support a ban on that.
This thread subject is regarding a ban on that which is already happening and being abused.

Are you just up too late? Tired? Drunk posting?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Did you really come up with that answer? Man are you guys brainwashed!

Here's a lovely fact: There is no ban on buying guns!


SGG

---

What's that even suppose to mean ? That the poor buy guns, and shoot their way into swimming pools and tatto parlors ?

You're not even attempting to make sense.

If you don't have the $ to go to a pool, guess what ? You don't get to go swimming there. Deal w/ it.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
So let's see if I read that correctly.

---

Quote:

---

That's odd, because, as far as I know, that's against Federal Law. So Brownback just wasted the Kansas taxpayer's money passing a law that was already covered by the Feds.

SGG

---