DescentBB

in one of my favorite quotes---"We have met the enemy, and he is US". Lots can be said about the plight of the truly poor, both working and unemployed in this country, but this sort of thing bugs me.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personal ... ar-BBk49YZ

you know, these folks making 75-100K household income and living paycheck to paycheck are going to be a financial drain on SOMEONE at some point along the way. I don't mind at all assisting the destitute, but the stupid? And, of course, that is exactly the quandry with 'social safety net' programs. Thoughts on how to sort out such matters?

A person can't save money they don't have left over. The pundits on CNBC the other day were pondering the recent slackening of new homes sales, even with the historic low interest rates. Well, duh. The young people that used to be the ones to get married, settle down and buy a new home on a well paying salary can't anymore, because now they're saddled with massive debt from those student loans that paid for their expensive privatized education that used to be either free or state subsidized and affordable and so still live with their parent's, probably for a long time. Oh, and working for far less wages than their degrees should have given to them too.

Couple of interesting articles I stumbled across.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/what-pre ... 57141.html

An example of why Republicans are being accused of waging war against the poor. Tax the poor even more, indirectly.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-ou ... 29718.html

I find the logic to be weak behind the intent of the law. You either give them x amount of cash or you don't.

But I find the the claim it is taxing the poor to be ridiculous.

If person X gets $1200 a month from the government to cover necessities and the government issue debit card is not to be used for lottery tickets or cruise ships etc. etc. So it isn't accepted by those vendors and the poor person has to make countless trips to an ATM to withdraw small increments of cash in order to circumvent the law... thus paying too many fees for those numerous withdrawals. That isn't tax, it is a consequence of illegal activity. It's the price you pay for being stupid.

I think describing that phenomena as 'creating a tax on the poor' is completely missing the mark, on purpose. So it makes me wonder, why do you want to be so wrong?

Yea, really…use your card where you are supposed to…problem solved.

you clearly don't get the realities some poor people face, Will. I'm packing for a fishing trip and will leave it to others to explain. Suffice it to say, TC was NOT wrong.

So were all supposed to believe the Republicans did this just to be mean.

callmeslick wrote:you clearly don't get the realities some poor people face, Will. I'm packing for a fishing trip and will leave it to others to explain. Suffice it to say, TC was NOT wrong.

I would but... I'm not even going to bother. he won't listen. also; TC gets it.

A kick to the poor and a tithe to our financial overlords. That's what I call a win/win.

Vander wrote:A kick to the poor and a tithe to our financial overlords. That's what I call a win/win.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish...

callmeslick wrote:you clearly don't get the realities some poor people face, Will. I'm packing for a fishing trip and will leave it to others to explain. Suffice it to say, TC was NOT wrong.

Yes, TC was wrong, as I explained. One of the realities they face is stipulations on their subsidies. Those stipulations are not a "tax" nor are the consequences they face for trying to get around the law.

The laws may be wrong but if that illogical and ridiculous characterization is the best argument you, or that blogger, can make then maybe not...

woodchip wrote:

Vander wrote:A kick to the poor and a tithe to our financial overlords. That's what I call a win/win.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish...

....and he spends a lifetime pissing away money on fishing tackle. At least, that's my experience. Outta here, have a good week, folks.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:you clearly don't get the realities some poor people face, Will. I'm packing for a fishing trip and will leave it to others to explain. Suffice it to say, TC was NOT wrong.

Yes, TC was wrong, as I explained. One of the realities they face is stipulations on their subsidies. Those stipulations are not a "tax" nor are the consequences they face for trying to get around the law.

The laws may be wrong but if that illogical and ridiculous characterization is the best argument you, or that blogger, can make then maybe not...

There's a fee for every withdrawal, and since Kansas has now made it necessary for poor people to make more frequent withdrawals, they are essentially giving up a bigger portion of their subsidy as a fee just to access their money. So that "fee" is no longer staying in the hands of the recipients who really need it. It's now going to a bank. It's now Republican subsidized bank welfare in Kansas. How is that better?

callmeslick wrote:....and he spends a lifetime pissing away money on fishing tackle. At least, that's my experience.

This joke needs more appreciation.

vision, if you could see my Rav4 in the garage right now, looking like a rolling tackle shop, you'd know I was only half-joking.......

woodchip wrote:

Vander wrote:A kick to the poor and a tithe to our financial overlords. That's what I call a win/win.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish...

Not so. I could spend loads of money on fishing tackle, but with my luck, I wouldn't get any fish to eat. Then I'd be out the money for the tackle and I'd still be hungry.

As the saying goes: Lures don't catch fish, fishermen catch fish. Lures catch fishermen.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:you clearly don't get the realities some poor people face, Will. I'm packing for a fishing trip and will leave it to others to explain. Suffice it to say, TC was NOT wrong.

Yes, TC was wrong, as I explained. One of the realities they face is stipulations on their subsidies. Those stipulations are not a "tax" nor are the consequences they face for trying to get around the law.

The laws may be wrong but if that illogical and ridiculous characterization is the best argument you, or that blogger, can make then maybe not...

There's a fee for every withdrawal, and since Kansas has now made it necessary for poor people to make more frequent withdrawals, they are essentially giving up a bigger portion of their subsidy as a fee just to access their money. So that "fee" is no longer staying in the hands of the recipients who really need it. It's now going to a bank. It's now Republican subsidized bank welfare in Kansas. How is that better?

I can't tell if you just bought into the narrative and decided to shut off your brain before examining the assertion that an injustice has been created or you really can't see it after trying to understand it.

The bank fee is equally applied to everyone and the government doesn't set the fee. So strike that part of your conspiracy.

The government that provides the subsidies doesn't force the recipients to make extra withdrawals.
What is happening is the recipients are trying to spend the subsidies on prohibited product and services. The government is trying to make it hard for them to accomplish their illegal endeavors.

The people receiving the subsidy have no right to use the money on prohibited expenditures. Any expense they incur trying to circumvent the law is their own fault and theirs alone.

They don't have to spend the money in 10 dollar increments on APPROVED ITEMS AND SERVICES FROM VENDORS THAT ACCEPT THE CARD.
They can go fill up their shopping cart with *approved* items totaling more than 10 dollars at the grocery store.
They don't have to pay their rent in 10 dollar increments. Etc. etc.

you realize that the law also capped the AMOUNT that can be spent, daily, right, Will?

callmeslick wrote:you realize that the law also capped the AMOUNT that can be spent, daily, right, Will?

I see where they capped the amount of CASH that can be taken out from an ATM.

I don't see where the lady in line at the grocery store can't spend a hundred or more on *approved* groceries....or have her rent directly drawn from her account....both transaction types likely done with NO FEES.

I also see where you resist the distinction being pointed out because the narrative quickly changes from TC's evil repub bankers to people hurting themselves...

Would you agree the recipients should be given the money and if they blow it on crap and then suffer then it is on them? Or do you agree the government must not only give them money but also protect them from themselves? And if so how? (I apologize that there are no evil white repub bankers in those scenarios. I realize you aren't acustomed to discussing social problems without those evil bastages in the mix. Just do your best)

callmeslick wrote:I was only half-joking.......

That's why it's funny!

Will Robinson wrote:I can't tell if you just bought into the narrative and decided to shut off your brain before examining the assertion that an injustice has been created or you really can't see it after trying to understand it.

The bank fee is equally applied to everyone and the government doesn't set the fee. So strike that part of your conspiracy.

The government that provides the subsidies doesn't force the recipients to make extra withdrawals.
What is happening is the recipients are trying to spend the subsidies on prohibited product and services. The government is trying to make it hard for them to accomplish their illegal endeavors.

The people receiving the subsidy have no right to use the money on prohibited expenditures. Any expense they incur trying to circumvent the law is their own fault and theirs alone.

They don't have to spend the money in 10 dollar increments on APPROVED ITEMS AND SERVICES FROM VENDORS THAT ACCEPT THE CARD.
They can go fill up their shopping cart with *approved* items totaling more than 10 dollars at the grocery store.
They don't have to pay their rent in 10 dollar increments. Etc. etc.

For one thing, a fee like that is very regressive. It hurts everyone who can least afford it, even the honest ones. Plus, you're assuming that every poor person is a moocher and crook. Not true in the least, unless you listen to Fox News all the time. This law is nothing but a giant Republican stick just to punish everyone who's poor, all for the behavior of some abusers. Not very fair is it? You want to get rid of the abusers, find a better solution then giving out incremental cash withdrawals for food, rent and living necessities. But that would take more work on the government's part to set up a better system, and we all know how much Republicans have cut government funding because they hate anything socialistic and for the good of the commons. Leave it to them to create the problem in the first place, then bash that problem with a hammer as their fix.