Food Stamps and EBT at fast food Places

And they should be cut off if they get arrested.

Smaller Gubmint!

With the number of people being thrown off the system because of alcohol, nicotine, and illegal drugs in their blood the amount of money saved would more then make up for the testers.

It's a missing, necessary component of a social safety net that I had no hand in creating. If you'd rather just do away with the programs entirely, you have my support.

And yet Jamey Whistler won't scold *you* for creating false dichotomies...

while I don't necessarily object to the "buy this, not that" suggestion at first blush - i think it's unlikely to make much difference in the cost of the program or the diet of the individuals in question. It will make the taxpayers feel somewhat better about the program but that's about it.

Oh, come on.

They would just be sent to a hospital for a blood test...no extra government employees necessary.

It's only "false" if you consider allowing people to smoke, drink, and do drugs while collecting benefits to be a valid option.

If the card literally can't purchase the crap they will have a harder time getting it.

There should also be consequences for misusing the card if they are caught doing so.

Okay, someone's got to issue the script ordering the recipient to go to the hospital. That someone needs to be paid.

Next, the hospital's not going to perform the tests pro bono...assuming the recipient bothers to show up and doesn't send his sober brother-in-law in his place.

Then someone's got to verify the results of the tests and enter them in a central data bank.

Extra employees, extra pay-outs, all that stuff that gives Smaller Government types hives.

So you support the abolition of social programs on the basis that it's too expensive to properly monitor recipients of benefits. Got it.

False. No "script" need be issued. You can get blood and urine tests at hospitals and independent clinics without any orders. None. Nada. Subtract one layer of bureaucracy and one expenditure from your formula.

The hospital may not, however, there's no need for any additional expense: The cost of the testing can be deducted from the benefits, charged directly to the EBT card. It's the cost to the individual for being in the program. Subtract another layer of expenditure from your formula.

As I pointed out upthread, the infrastructure already exists for data entry and maintenance. If there were any appreciable additional cost, it would be minimal, and it would be more than offset by the savings to the program.

Nope and nope. So far, Uncle Albert's plan is looking like just the thing we need.

No, you're confused. I'm the person who'd like to see the richest nation on Earth feed and educate its children.

So we're back to pretending that allowing them to drink and do drugs is a valid option.

Why are you so keen on letting welfare recipients have drug, booze and cigarettes?

No, we're back to Uncle Albert wants smaller government until he wants government to do something.

I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the disconnect between "I want smaller government" and "except when it comes to the things I want."

Stop with the transparent little games for one minute and answer the damned question. Do you or do you not thing it is a valid option to allow recipients of public benefits to indulge in drugs and alcohol?

You can either show some spine and commit to a point of view, or play more little stupid, dissembling games that only impress you.

Jamey already pointed out how that is not necessarily true.

Well, that's the first time you've actually asked the question.

Are they buying the drugs/alcohol with food stamps? No? Then their use of substances is no more your business than your use of substances is theirs.

Are they spending the rent money on those substances? Are they abusing family members because they're drunk or stoned? That's a whole 'nother conversation.

Another conversation entirely is your desire to obliterate everything that might involve your paying taxes...except you'd be willing to pay extra to follow welfare recipients around and make sure they don't enjoy a beer or a toke.

I realize that's not an either/or answer, and I fully expect that if you don't understand or accept it you'll pull the usual "garamet doesn't answer questions" bullshit, so knock yourself out.

The hell it isn't. If they're in such dire financial straits that they cannot afford to purchase their own food, or purchase enough to sustain themselves and instead rely upon my tax dollars for that food but can pay cash for drugs, their use of substances is most certainly my business.

So when do you sign up?

Yes, you are. Big damn Internet hero...

there are consequences - IF they get caught which is seldom because it can be pretty difficult. One easy and obvious example:

Go to the grocery with your mom - buy eligible and non eligible stuff, stamps pay for eligible, mom pays for non-eligible, go home and divvy up (i.e. give mom a bag of flower and a sack of potatoes, get back a bag of chips and a 12 pack of coke)

How can anyone possible catch that and penalize it?

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

If they're on the public dole, they're on MY dime, not theirs.

I've always said we had the drug testing thing ass-backwards. We've been testing workers and leaving welfare recipients alone. Do you have any idea what that has resulted in? People leaving the workforce and getting on welfare or SS Disability so they can do the drugs and not have to worry about getting busted on a piss test.

Don't try to tell me even once that it doesn't happen because I've seen it so many times that it fucking makes me sick.

of interest... one of the local pizza places times it's customer appreciation, buck off of a $5 medium pepperoni to the last three weekdays of each month. Right when those on assistance are down to their last pennies.

If these places are going to accept EBT, then I think they should be working out a deal with the government to lower the cost for purchase made on those cards. In return their lost profit margin could be written off as some sort of charitable deduction come tax time. Maybe an additional break on payroll taxes for every recipient they hire for more than one year?

Bullshit it isn't. If they are claiming they are unable to support themselves and need taxpayer assistance, they should not be wasting money on unnecessary luxuries.

Obvious, self-serving lie.

the cards are already misused. a good friend of mine gets all of her groceries by using her sister's card. she pays half. so, her sister gets $200 worth of groceries on her card and sells it to my friend for $100. probably so she can buy drugs with the cash. it happens ALL THE TIME!

There's an obvious solution. Bring back the workhouses! Gruel for everybody! Mr. Bumble agrees!

Or gruel for some, corporate jets for others, and whining on message boards for everyone else...

Time to get ridiculous again I see.