In response to:

EBT Abuse: The Cash-for-Drunkards Program

Michael160 Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 2:00 PM
What is the difference what it is spent on, particularly in the case of EBT funds not allocated as food stamps? It's not like the people get extra money if they run out after spending it on discretionary things that conservatives apparently find sinful. They get a set amount, and whether it is spent on food or alcohol, it is the same cost to the taxpayer. How about the liberty loving conservatives stay out of people's personal choices, or does liberty only extend to the rich?
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 2:42 PM
If I am giving somebody money, I ought to have a say in how it is spent. The money doesn't become the recipient's discretionary income. You know. my money. my values. You understand it as your government, your values.
ericynot Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 2:10 PM
Michael,

The difference is that EBT cards are supposed to be used by the poor to buy necessary food. As taxpayers, we deserve the right to say how our tax monies are spent, and funding alcohol, porn, etc. for the indigent is not a priority for many taxpayers.
Michael160 Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 2:29 PM
No, only food stamps are. EBT cards have funds that are simply coming from cash payments, unemployment benefits included. Should the unemployed also be micromanaged even though they paid for their unemployment insurance?
SpaceVegetable Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 6:13 PM
Unempoyment doesn't come in the form of EBT cards - at least not here in Mass.
SpaceVegetable Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 6:15 PM
Oh, and it's employers who pay for unemployment, not workers. It's a completely different concept, since it not funded by the taxpayers (at least until they start with extensions and such). That money has no designated purpose like SNAP or welfare. If people have enough to afford such things as vacations or jewlery, then they're getting too much. I work and haven't had a vacation in 3 years. I resent paying for others - who contribute nothing - to have a vaction on my dime.
bbtruth Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 7:16 PM
Employees, before they become the unemployed, with the exception of two states, contribute nothing to unemployment insurance directly. Furthermore, because of the "new normal" of benefits extensions, federal funds (taxpayer and borrowed "revenues") are now being spent to pay for the depleted funds.
DB07 Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 2:03 PM
Actually, I think that's a valid point michael. But, if they're spending on gambling or alcohol, that does mean we're giving them more money thatn they need.
Navy-baby Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 2:07 PM
Or their kids are going hungry--in spite of our care and concern for the innocent children.
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 2:43 PM
SpaceVegetable Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 6:12 PM
Exactly! If they have money for vacations and lap dances, they are obviously not spending on "needs" and are getting too much. If you're living on the taxpayer's money, you owe them some accountability in how you spend it. When you earn money, it's yours to spend as you wish, but these funds are designated for purchasing food and clothing - needs v. "wants." Funny how most people I see using these funds have the latest expensive cell phone and are wearing lots of expensive jewelry.
From New York to New Mexico and across the dependent plains, welfare recipients are getting sauced on the public dime. Drunk, besotted, bombed. But while politicians pay lip service to cutting government waste, fraud and abuse, they're doing very little in practice to stop the EBT party excesses. Where's the compassion for taxpayers?

You see the signs everywhere: "We accept EBT." Fast-food restaurants do. Clothing retailers do. Auto repair shops, liquor stores and even sushi joints are joining the club. "EBT" stands for the federal government's electronic benefits transfer card, which is intended to provide poor people with food stamps and cash...