So Hows This For Smaller Government

My private opinion :

This is so dumb, it almost makes sense. But I could hardly believe someone would really suggest it.

www.fightbacknews.org...

Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.

These are some of the same people who seem so despirate to lower governments involvment with our daily lives.

I post this because I would like to know how many others agree with which side of such an issue.
Mod Note : Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.

Hmmm....you now the odd thing is, I live in New York, I was laid off and had to get unemployment.....and I'll be damned if my state issued Debit card works in any ATM machine...I can't ever get the money out of it, I usually have to beg the teller to take the cash out....and I have to go to a specific bank in the neighborhood because the closer ones won't extract the cash....I can't even seem to get anyone on the phone to clarify it either..

Originally posted by hdutton

This is so dumb, it almost makes sense. But I could hardly believe someone would really suggest it.

Because it isnt true.

Here is a link to the actual bill...
www.revisor.mn.gov...

Rather than take somebody else's word for it, read it for yourself.
See for yourself.
Show me the bit where it is illegal to have more than $20. You wont be able to, because it isnt there.
The "illegal to have more than $20" is just yet another politician lying to you. Scaretactics work.

reply to post by hdutton


hdutton, this looks like a poor attempt to gain control over those who abused the system. seems the mentality is to put everyone under the thumb instead of just those who by past action have proven the funds they were trusted with did not reach their intended destination.

one can imagine this may have lead to repeating scenarios where homes with children were left without lights, heat or water. the people running the system have probably seen and heard of some harsh circumstances that could have been avoided.

food stamps are an attempt to control how funds are used but that system gets abused too. people that wish to will trade stamps to get what they want. so this intended program change is probably in reaction to system abuse that has resulted in hardships that could have been avoided.

blanket policy that lumps all together because of the actions of a few is not the solution. perhaps those that have abused the system should have their funds forwarded to creditors for them. but to do this to all involved is just another humiliating kick in the throat for folks that are already having a difficult time in life. such action is in poor taste IMHO.

Yep, pretty much one big lie created by the left.
See this

reply to post by hdutton


"Trust, but verify". I will push my philosophy here. Did you even bother to go to the actual source, H.F. No. 171? In case you didn't here is the link. H.F. 171.

In your sourced article, they state that "Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month." This is a twist on what is actually in the bill.

H.R. 171 states,

EBT cardholders may opt to have up to $20 per month accessible via automatic teller machine or receive up to $20 cash back from a vendor.

It says nothing to the effect of what Angel Buechner is claiming. Buechner claims "...[H.F. 171] appears to make it illegal for MFIP families to have any type of money at all in their pockets."

This is just not true. As I read the proposed bill, the only provision that affects a recipient in regards to cash is the amount they can withdraw from their EBT card. Purpose of such a provision is to fight the abuse of EBT programs that have been occurring and reduce the temptation to buy and/or use the EBT benefits to fund other things/activities that fall out of the realm of supplemental assistance.

Buechner continues with "How do you expect people to take care of business like paying bills such as lights, gas, water, trash and phone?” According to Chapter 256D, aid of this sort, in which a person is loaded a cash amount onto an EBT falls under the context of "entitled to receive grants of general assistance necessary to maintain a subsistence" But furthermore, the MFIP separates food-aid grants from other cash type grants. So it wouldn't be half as much a stretch as being claimed in the article that this bill is to govern the use of EBT cards that deal with the food-subsistence portion of the program.

The above shows that they want to ensure that the supplemental aid EBT cards are solely used for the purposes of supplemental aid. These types of rules are popping up in many different states because of reported abuse of 'welfare' cards. Particularily stories such as Welfare aid cards valid at casinos.

Notwithstanding the above, the cash withdraw limit is not an extreme measure to keep the poor, poor. It is to help eliminate those that take advantage of the program and ultimately hurt those that are using the assistance correctly and in need of it. More so, the MFIP has a work requirement so it truly is a supplemental program to help fill in the gaps. This allows families to pay bills such as rent and utilities with their work income and limit their worry about having to choose between rent or food.

In regards to the unconstitutional claim made by the author of the article, I am not quite sure they are correct. In Shapiro V. Thompson, the Supreme Court took up such residential requirements in context of welfare programs. Over all, the Supreme Court held that State's residential requirements must be limited in scope and not be used to 'fence out' persons seeking to move from state to state in search of greater benefits. That such actions by a citizen is not reason enough to place restrictive residential requirements on benefit programs.

But they did rule that if the requirement are compelling enough and are in place to promote early workforce entry (which the MFIP promotes), and other various governmental administrative purposes then the requirement does not affect the right to travel between state to state.

Additionally, the bill addresses emergency situations and provide a means for waiverable situations to bypass the proposed 90-day requirement. In other words, good luck challenging the constitutionality of such if the proposed bill were to pass.

The kicker in the article is when Buechner is quoted in saying "It is not right to use racist, bumper-sticker hate to inflict human misery for political gain.” What does that have to do with this proposed bill, other than to push and continue an agenda?

Got to go, but so far about what I expected.

Not much surprise from those who have never felt the degrading hassle from "the man"!

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Wasn't it Goebbels who said, "Repeat a lie long enough and they'll eventually believe it".

Seems like the democrats are using the same playbook.

reply to post by hdutton


Really? You assume much then I suppose. Does your crystal ball also show you my current financial situation?

Your rebuttal is to not offer a rebuttal but scoff and run. No wonder this country can't get crap done.

reply to post by beezzer


What I don't understand is these are the same people that rail against those that use MSM sources and say they are all just sheep for it....yet they live and die by articles written with obvious intent to slant and skew the debate and have no bother to even verify the story.

Trust but verify.....

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Wasn't it Goebbels who said, "Repeat a lie long enough and they'll eventually believe it".

Ugh I think you are confusing SOH Boehner.

The implicit lie that the GOP will endlessly repeat

Such repetition is not accidental. To the contrary, it represents a calculated, organized effort by Boehner and other conservatives to try to rewrite recent history and make the American people “misremember” what actually happened to them and their country in the last few years. It is an effort to drive home the point — the absolutely false point — that the greatest economic collapse in 80 years was somehow caused by government spending.

SOURCE

Seems like the democrats are using the same playbook.

The Republicans wrote the book on spreading lies and fear mongering and the Tea Party is perfecting it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce3fd4b5535f.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Fear has always been used but it was first perpetuated in mass media via the Democrats (I really don't care about either of them, but it is what it is).

The use of the infamous "Daisy" ad against Barry Goldwater during the presidential campaign of 1964 I believe. Can you tell me this isn't perpetuating unfounded fear with no basis or truth behind the ad?

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Fear has always been used but it was first perpetuated in mass media via the Democrats...The use of the infamous "Daisy" ad against Barry Goldwater during the presidential campaign of 1964 I believe.

What is 1949? for $100 please Alex

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c7e9f308a1f6.png[/atsimg]

In 1949, Pittsburgh, Charles Harris snapped a black and white photograph of a political advertisement mounted on a billboard on the side of the road in Pennsylvania. In the photograph, there is a cartoon image of a little girl with her mouth agape in fear, and she is holding a doll in one hand. The doll is black. The girl is standing on the right side of the billboard, and on the left side, there are two very large, evil looking hands reaching out for her. The text at the top of the billboard reads “Make our Homes and Streets SAFE!” and below the illustration is the message, “VOTE REPUBLICAN.”

www.newcommave.com...

Interesting Background of Photographer

I'm an infovore.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Technically it was government spending that caused the economic collapse, along with Government economic policy. The Government spending depreciated the Dollar, mostly due to the Wars that were fought to get us out of the previous economic recession that started in 1999. The depreciation of the Dollar amounted to a staggering 24%+ of it's value from 2000-2007 which culminated in a 24% to 50% (depending on the commodity) drop in purchasing power. Taking the depreciating Dollar, add staggering inflation of 75% for homes and health care, and a whopping 250% for oil and gas.. the average consumer was eventually pushed over the edge (by $150 oil) and began defaulting en masse.

Economic fact.

However before you yell at me for stating the obvious truth.. the Dirt bag Boehner isn't a liar, he's just a hypocrite.. since it was the Republicans that actually lead that economic train of ruin. Both parties contribute to economic decisions without thought for "the people", which perhaps that why even through the greatest economic disaster over our life time, corporate wealth has been increasing in triple digit gains.

In short, both parties are fascist bastards hellbent on meeting their own ends regardless of the means.

Originally posted by beezzer

Seems like the democrats are using the same playbook.

Your perspective appears very one-sided. Are you always this partisan, or are you aware that the republicans and democrats are basically the same party, repeating similar lies, reporting to the same masters?

Only on ATS can diehard Republicans pretend to be Libertarians.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Key word you didn't catch...mass media. Both parties perpetuate some type of fear based politicking. Dems usually use the children and older folks and the Repubs use the boogie man.

Equating this to the OP though, look at the fear that the person quoted in the article uses. Some how throwing in a 'racist bumper sticker" for no reason at all. The only reason is to drive peoples' emotions rather than they use their ability to critically think about the bill or what it means.

Even though the site of the article obviously has an angle they want to play with the article, how can you take it as serious journalism or even opinion? Everyone just gets sound-byte and quips to put in articles and not one journalist even questions those. They take it with face value without verification, without going to the source and taking 5 minutes to realize that this guy is stoking the "they want to make poor people more poor!" is irresponsible and dangerous. Just as dangerous as the public taking these types of 'reports' at face value without even trying to figure out if it is true or not.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Admittedly there is some validity in your points as supported here. There exist a myriad of reasons including, as you pointed out, the weak dollar and US economic policy. Additionally it was exacerbated to a large degree by the housing bubble and nefarious Wall Street financial products. (Mortgage backed securities, derivatives et al.) A perfect storm of sorts.

However the data fails to support that, in and of itself, our financial woes were caused soley by Government spending alone. Granted our deficit over the long term is troubling for many of the reasons you stated and sweeping reform is needed. I'd sure like to see discretionary defense spending and foreign aid cut drastically before I see American citizens deprived of essential health and social services though.

Given that I agree with you that Boehner is, at the very least, a hypocrite repeating lies.

reply to post by kinda kurious

However the data fails to support that, in and of itself, our financial woes were caused soley by Government spending alone.

Not alone no, but it had the biggest impact on the poor and the lower middle class because while they didn't get pay raises they had expenses increase through the roof through depreciation which is almost entirely caused by "printing" of money in various forms. Most of the depreciation however was off books, not specifically what WE spend money but HOW we spend money.. when we increased our debt so fast due to the Wars we had to buy our own debt to depreciate the amount owed, offsetting the entire currency.

The politicians then blamed the poor and the middle class for being "greedy" when their actual buying habits hadn't changed for the past 60 years.... Most of the "flipping" of property and investment property was undertaken by the rich and the upper middle class, but it was the poor and the lower middle class that fell first.

Also the aid your point.. the actual deficit is exacerbated by the fact that our tax revenue has decreased significantly.. and yet I don't hear anyone clamoring for Tax reform, a national VAT tax or closing of tax loopholes.

I also agree 100% I'd like to see defense cut, the wars end (along with the new one) and all foreign aid cut except for disaster relief (Haiti, Japan etc).

Though.... I don't hear anyone on capital hill trying to cut defense spending either... not even when dems controlled the Government, which I honestly hoped they would have. Hell end the wars and cut "defense" spending and research and we could all have health care without a problem.

reply to post by alfa1


He can't help it. The site is run by a bunch of socialist revolutionaries bent on starting a class war. You should see the very bottom of the page where there are links to a bunch of crap supported by socialists.

Like these people here www.frso.org...

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by alfa1

 

He can't help it. The site is run by a bunch of socialist revolutionaries bent on starting a class war. You should see the very bottom of the page where there are links to a bunch of crap supported by socialists.

Like these people here www.frso.org...

Sometimes it is hard to know just who someone referred to as "he" might be.

As for the reasoning for making the original post.

I will admit that making a post for the generation of a discussion about a topic might seem "revoltionary" for some. It may only be an attempt to start a class war in the minds of those who would want to suppress such discussion.

Your agreement with the topic is not necessary for you to express your opinion, which is very welcome.
However, your "blanket judgement" of those who may or may not disagree with you is usually not appreciated.