Do you think you should be able to use EBT to buy guns - this Sen. proposed a law

[Fred_G]

At least you guys are more compassionate than on another gun site. Where some advocate for the total abolishment of Welfare, Soc Sec, and any other assistance so that even if you are unable to work due to age or disability they want to "let nature take it's course." So that you have the disabled and the aged starving to death and homeless.

I think we all would agree that some people need assistance. And some abuse the assistance, and some don't get enough assistance. The whole 'subsidy' and gubment 'help' programs need to be revamped.

 

[beeenbag]

absolutely not!

i personally think giving entitlements in cash form is a joke. if someone falls on hard times and needs food assistance, they should get it in the form of grain, rice, powdered milk and such. Make being on welfare programs undesirable so it doesn't become a career choice.

I get so sick of being behind a ebt holder in the grocery store line with their buggies full of steaks and name brand groceries, swipe their card for the food then pull out cash for their carton of smokes and booze. I despise the way our handout programs are setup!

 

[beeenbag]

I think people who are on welfare have the same rights as anyone else.

i disagree. I think if you become a ward of the state your rights should be nil, including voting rights. Why should someone who will not support themselves be rewarded with the confiscated wealth of a producing society and have the same rights?

 

[barnbwt]

Welfare recipients are not 'wards of the state.' They are still legal free agents free to make whatever decisions they see fit, since they are fully competent individuals. I suppose you could debate whether some recipients should be classified as such, but the broad-stroke it is gross hyperbole.

"Ward:
A person, especially an infant or incompetent, placed by the court in the care of a guardian."
Receiving assistance is not being placed under the authority of a guardian

The Due Process Clause:
"[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Provides for the means to remove civil rights from those who lack the responsibility to possess them. Depriving people of rights due to social standing is what Debters' Prisons used to do, and was a specific grievance we had against the Crown and English society.

TCB

 

[beeenbag]

A person, especially an infant or incompetent, placed by the court in the care of a guardian."
Receiving assistance is not being placed under the authority of a guardian

A person that claims incompetents, and is placed under the care of the government funded by the tax paying society, for goods or services (EBT) is a ward.

"[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Provides for the means to remove civil rights from those who lack the responsibility to possess them. Depriving people of rights due to social standing is what Debters' Prisons used to do, and was a specific grievance we had against the Crown and English society.

I agree with due process... It says nowhere in there that people shall be REWARDED these things either. If someone is on hard times and doesn't take the assistance, great, keep your liberty, if you wish to trade your liberties and rights for an ebt card, that is their choice. If we didn't have all the people that were worried about entitlement programs being cut off, voting for themselves, we would see a huge change in our political environment, for the betterment of the nation as a whole.

 

[barnbwt]

"i personally think giving entitlements in cash form is a joke. if someone falls on hard times and needs food assistance, they should get it in the form of grain, rice, powdered milk and such. Make being on welfare programs undesirable so it doesn't become a career choice.

I get so sick of being behind a ebt holder in the grocery store line with their buggies full of steaks and name brand groceries, swipe their card for the food then pull out cash for their carton of smokes and booze. I despise the way our handout programs are setup!"

Wait, you think they should be given need-specific items, but you also disapprove of them spending their own money on non-need-specific items? Sounds like you simply want them to not have their smokes (i.e. be miserable and suffer for the 'crime' of poverty. You Puritan, you ). If they were given real cash instead of monopoly money, they could blow it on the smokes they feel they need, and not on the steaks neither you nor they really want. They could also spend it on the car repairs needed this week, the late rent/power bill next week, and set some aside for savings the week after that. Right now they'd require individual subsidies for each, which would flow in regardless of need.

Our current system is based around micromanaging every spending decision in their lives on the assumption their poverty means they cannot make these decisions themselves; if such is the case, have them committed to an asylum as incompetents. Otherwise, these remotely-run programs will make less efficient choices than the individuals can (like giving them a giant can of powdered milk they'll just throw away since they have nothing but rice to mix it into )

Hard to blame EBT holders for spending the balance, whatever it takes. Same rules our .gov budgeteers abide by.

TCB

 

[beeenbag]

Wait, you think they should be given need-specific items, but you also disapprove of them spending their own money on non-need-specific items? Sounds like you simply want them to not have their smokes (i.e. be miserable and suffer for the 'crime' of poverty. You Puritan, you ).

The context of the statement you quoted was written to infer, if they can afford a carton of cigarettes, they are above the need-specific items, and should have had to spend that money on their own needs, not mine and your tax dollars paying for their needs while they fund their wants.

Why make it enjoyable to be on welfare?

 

[barnbwt]

"A person that claims incompetents, and is placed under the care of the government funded by the tax paying society, for goods or services (EBT) is a ward."

Wait, wait, wait. Who claims incompetence to receive EBT aid? I don't think legally incompetent individuals can maintain custody of their kids; use the correct terminology. To receive aid, 'need' (which is shorthand for 'need + lack of resources') is established through various means like unemployment/homelessness/interview/etc. that are prescribed by whatever authority is doling out the goods.

Bringing this back on topic; the best way to determine if an individual actually has a need for a gun greater than they have a need for food, is allow them to spend their resources on either. If their resources come from EBT, so be it (and if you think they'll waste it, they are obviously getting too much through EBT and that's a separate issue entirely). Otherwise you are purporting to know better than they do what's best for them; that is the exact mentality motivating this forum's enemies.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"The context of the statement you quoted was written to infer, if they can afford a carton of cigarettes, they are above the need-specific items, and should have had to spend that money on their own needs, not mine and your tax dollars paying for their needs while they fund their wants.

Why make it enjoyable to be on welfare?"
If you let them spend welfare on whatever they want, you don't have to give them as much, since they won't have excess in some areas (food) and no incentive to spend other areas on necessities (their petty cash/off the books income)

Basic game theory. If you force them to undertake action to receive the goods (i.e. don't just direct deposit it into a debit card ) they won't stay on it longer than needed.

TCB

 

[WestKentucky]

Beeen has my sentiments, probably more eloquently spoken. I see a lot of people openly trading the WIC and EBT products for more desirable products.
#1 if a person is able to work and doesn't, they don't need help, they need a job.
#2 if a person is smoking cigarettes at $5 a pack they don't need help, they need a budget
#3 if a person is trading/selling stuff then they didn't need it and WE shouldn't pay for it
#4 the stuff people get should not be "valuable" it should be what people strive to not have
#5 giving ^^^these people guns isn't OK because they are already misusing OUR resources
#6 if a person is trying and needs help, give him a $30-40 yearly allowance for ammo/fishing tackle to bring home game as food.

 

[beeenbag]

I do not mean to sound barbaric or crude about this issue, I really do not. I understand people need help, but I come from a poor background and have family members who abuse the welfare system. I see first hand how it is possible for...

A.) get out of being dependent and work for the things you want in life. I had no college education, nothing paid for, I worked my way up in life through hard work and drive to learn a skill. I am not wealthy, and probably never will be, but I am comfortable by the sweat of my own brow.

B.) Stay on the system and abuse it to its full potential. As said above, I have family members that make me sick to watch. They are drug addicts and on welfare. They trade most of their food bought with ebt for drugs and cigarettes. They still eat well... How should this be possible? They should only get what they need to live, nothing more.

Im sorry if I have offended anyone, I just get very angry when this comes up, therefore I am not going to engage in this thread further.

 

[barnbwt]

Guys, I'm not a bleeding heart (though I sound like one, I just realized). I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, because there are merits on both sides of the issue --even the gun part.

"I see a lot of people openly trading the WIC and EBT products for more desirable products."
Yes, because they actually need/want/desire those products more than the stuff the aid is giving them. And because people just above the WIC/EBT line often have nearly as much need for those subsidized products.

If the recipients could spend the aid toward those things, nothing's lost in the transaction, and they have the same standard of living as before (i.e. no net loss and greater efficiency). No one's gonna starve to death buying rims over food, and anyone with a drug problem is gonna trade away food for drugs until they starve regardless. Directed EBT is dumb for the same reason rationing/quotas are dumb.

"#1 if a person is able to work and doesn't, they don't need help, they need a job. That's great if there's jobs to be had and a way to get to them. I have less sympathy for folks here since in the Depression people sought work using trains with just the clothes on their backs, but that "noble" solution was also pretty horrifying in practice (Grapes of Wrath and etc.)
#2 if a person is smoking cigarettes at $5 a pack they don't need help, they need a budget. If they spend that money over food/rent, they probably do actually need help, which could be in the form of a budget. They most likely need real spending discipline, which directed EBT is a crappy substitute for
#3 if a person is trading/selling stuff then they didn't need it and WE shouldn't pay for it Unless they actually need the stuff they trade for, like a water pump for their sole mode of transport
#4 the stuff people get should not be "valuable" it should be what people strive to not have Because people should be punished for being poor, in addition to the consequences of stress/shortage
#5 giving ^^^these people guns isn't OK because they are already misusing OUR resources Fair enough in many cases, but we aren't exactly giving them the most "usable" resources in the first place, since a pile of SNAP food won't pay for repairs or new shoes
#6 if a person is trying and needs help, give him a $30-40 yearly allowance for ammo/fishing tackle to bring home game as food. I'm sure that's exactly what a struggling family in downtown with no car or untainted fishing hole nearby has been waiting for. Licensed hunting is, for the vast, vast majority of cases, pretty much the most inefficient way to get protein there is, and fishing is probably number two. I'd sooner give them goats, chickens, and feed to raise in the tenements; this actually works out nicely in 3rd world countries, until warlords show up and steal everything because the townfolk don't have guns to defend themselves"

Sorry to rebut point by point, since it's annoying when people do that; it's just that Puritan thinking actually fights its own end-goals a lot of times. Given the proverbial 'boost' and no other interference in living their lives, I think a lot more people would take off than do in the dumb systems we have currently. But I also recognize that so many societies have been 'externally-incarcerated' for so long they've basically become domesticated and would have an extremely difficult time adapting to actual self-responsibility (though I also think peoples' assumptions of this are greatly inflated)

TCB

 

[WestKentucky]

Barn, you have some decent points but they don't away my thoughts on the matter. I do have to question how hunting and fishing is so inefficient...that's pretty much how humanity lived until we developed agriculture, and cities. Assuming a person is on gooberment assistance, they likely don't have the land for animals to graze on, or room to grow a crop even for subsistence so $40 worth of ammo buys about 40 rounds of rifle ammo that can bring in (realistically) 35 deer, moose, etc which is protein for the whole year for a family. Not very inefficient huh? Assume 40 pounds of meat per whitetail and you have 1400 pounds of food. Basically 4 pounds a day. That's thriving. Keep up the subsidized milk or whatever and suddenly this family is eating well enough to go to work and bring home a paycheck to better themself. I understand this is not possible in all places, but fishing would be possible in most places. Of course were now at a discussion on whether a landscape can support these people so if it can't, maybe they should go elsewhere that is more hospitable to their current situation.

And your comment on society punishing people for being poor is misguided in my opinion. We shouldn't punish people for being poor, but in that situation we also shouldn't reward people for being poor either. That's the fine line which has to be established which is all a matter of opinion. Bill gates may see all of the US as poor where the average Somali sees all of the US as very wealthy. When the govt tries to decide for us what the poverty level needing assistance is, it should be put to vote. I'm sure that in the 30s things would have been pushed pretty far toward the Somali standard of living before govt assistance comes into play. Now we have too many freeloaders sucking at governments tit that the swing would be drastically different.

 

[Kaeto]

And if they cannot afford the transportation to where they can hunt? Where I live the nearest place to hunt is 60 miles away. What do you expect city people to hunt and eat, Rats?

Or do you just expect them to starve because they don't live where you think they should?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Give a man an EBT card he'll have groceries for a month.

Let a man buy a shotgun and a box of shells with an EBT card he can suplimemt those groceries with wild game for the rest of his life, at the just cost of additional shells.

(Maybe I was just jesting but, on second thought, there are folks in rural areas around here that do subsistence hunting and fishing. For enough folks, it is important.)

 

[WestKentucky]

If they can't afford to drive then yes they need to move to where they can survive on the means they have at hand. The nomads did it. There's a reason very few people live north of the arctic circle, or in true deserts. Migrant workers come to the US each year to improve their well being. If a person can't survive in the city then they need to go where they can survive. There are housing opportunities outside of big cities just like there are in big cities.

Supposedly when the city I currently live in got a welfare office more people of lower social status moved here to take advantage of that. They can move for a handout but they can't move to EARN a living in one way or another? Bull. If a person lived literally within eyesight of that welfare office here they have a river within walking distance to catch fish from, several lakes within 20 minutes drive, and 3 WMAs to hunt on within an hours drive, one is 15 minutes away. If they can't make it in big city USA they should be able to here, especially with low cost of living and natural resources. I won't chase this rabbit here as it's WAY off topic for THR but if these same people abusing our system were not so lazy we wouldn't be importing labor and paying unemployment at the same time. This country needs to wake up before EVERYBODY is too lazy to fix our problems and this nation fails due to spineless govt officials allowing BS such as this to continue while paying hand over fist for things we don't want or need like wars that we have no interest in.

 

[JERRY]

ive yet to meet anybody on welfare who also did not already have easy access (next door, down the sidewalk etc...) to guns, drugs, booze, or smokes.

EBT should not be used for firearm purchases, only food necessities.

 

[Al Thompson]

This thread evolved to more about EBT cards and not much about guns. I think this one's done.