Its About Time: Kansas Welfare Recipients Barred From Cruises
We all know the biggest problem of our time is welfare recipients from Kansas wanting to take cruises. Thankfully, this horrendous practice is coming to an end.
Kansas welfare recipients will be unable to get more than $25 per day in benefits under a new law sent this week to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback’s desk by the state legislature.
The bill also prohibits welfare recipients from spending their benefits at certain types of businesses, including liquor stores, fortune tellers, swimming pools and cruise ships.
“We’re trying to make sure those benefits are used the way they were intended,” state Rep. Michael O’Donnell (R) said, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal. “This is about prosperity. This is about having a great life.”
Kansans receiving government benefits will just have to enjoy their “great lives” on land.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Suzanne McFly
59 responses to Its About Time: Kansas Welfare Recipients Barred From Cruises
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dwendt44 April 5th, 2015 at 13:11
Considering the way Brownback is running the state, I would protest the ban on liquor stores.
rg9rts April 5th, 2015 at 13:20
Kansas is on a major air corridor for commercial aircraft….those idiots tried to stop the airlines from serving alcohol while in Kansas air space…
Larry Schmitt April 5th, 2015 at 13:31
Is that true? It sounds like an Onion article.
rg9rts April 5th, 2015 at 13:40
Truth….back in the 70’s you can’t make this shait up
Suzanne McFly April 5th, 2015 at 18:37
From what I hear about the area, it seems as if alcohol would be required just so you have some way to escape the place as often as you may need to.
granpa.usthai April 5th, 2015 at 13:13
a ‘great life’ without knowing what your future holds while being obliterating drunk?
WTF
counting wheat grains is time well spent?
rg9rts April 5th, 2015 at 13:19
The only welfare recipients on cruises are those in the Kansas Legislature
Dwendt44 April 5th, 2015 at 16:31
ell, they are on a ‘trip’ at least.
Larry Schmitt April 5th, 2015 at 13:30
Once again, as with “voter fraud,” republicans are busy solving problems that don’t exist. Meanwhile, actual problems continue unabated. Nice legacy.
rg9rts April 5th, 2015 at 13:39
In Virginia they all gather around the peephole into your bedroom
Apocalypse April 5th, 2015 at 14:11
This is going to be a major setback For Carnival Cruises.
Larry Schmitt April 5th, 2015 at 14:13
The same effect as on Cadillac dealers.
wpadon April 5th, 2015 at 16:01
The Gateway Clipper Fleet will need to mothball The Duchess due to the drop in Kansas tourism here in Pittsburgh.
FatRat April 5th, 2015 at 14:50
Prohibiting money towards fortune telling, isn’t that religious intolerance? Do his religious beliefs trump the faith/beliefs of American citizens? I don’t ascribe to any superstitious beliefs, knock on wood, but I have a strong belief that he is a religious bigot.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3224704846_9e956f5e8c.jpg
Suzanne McFly April 5th, 2015 at 18:35
What purpose did this idiotic bill serve? Unless he was pandering to the idiots of the party who want to believe welfare recipients live in the ghetto and drive Range Rovers and spend their days getting manicures and going on cruises for vacations. It is sad that some of these people can’t see past themselves, they have no idea how others live and what is worse is they have no concern.
bpollen April 5th, 2015 at 20:16
“he was pandering to the idiots”
That sums it up quite nicely.
Abby Normal April 5th, 2015 at 18:45
Oh no! Without welfare recipients, most cruise lines will go out of business. They depend on them for a majority of their business. Seriously, I think the vast majority of Republicans are severely mentally challenged.
arc99 April 5th, 2015 at 20:29
In my opinion, welfare recipients should no more be restricted on the use of the money they receive courtesy of taxpayers than CEO’s of billion dollar defense contractors.
Once the check is cashed, it is their f*cking money. Whether it is the CEO buying a Posche and a bottle of Dom Perignon, using his salary funded by Pentagon contracts obtained from the government, or a welfare recipient buying a ticket to the local swimming facility on a 105-degree summer day, I see no tangible difference.
But that’s Republicans for you, always looking for ways to attack, demonize and stigmatize the least fortunate of our fellow citizens. Remember, these are the politicians who would tell you that the President is “divisive”. Meanwhile they stigmatize gay people, poor people, Muslims and any non-white people who have complaints about law enforcement.
As we saw with the Cliven Bundy Show, criticism of government and law enforcement is a privilege reserved for caucasian property owners, just like the 18th century.
Robert M. Snyder April 5th, 2015 at 22:12
At Baltimore Inner Harbor I saw a sign in the window of a seafood restaurant which said that they accept EBT cards.
Dwendt44 April 6th, 2015 at 01:18
So? Surely you aren’t suggesting that poor folks shouldn’t eat seafood. As it is, you can’t use EBT for hot or ready to eat food. If the had frozen food, or bottled sauces , and suchlike, that could be purchased with EBT.
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 10:23
Let me put it bluntly: If you need my help in paying for your next meal, the words “I’ll have the lobster” should not pass your lips.
Hirightnow April 6th, 2015 at 10:36
Let me put it even bluntlier: if I want seafood, and my two choices are WalMart and a local seafood restaurant, I’m going with the restaurant: they’re going to have the fresher, thus healthier, product.
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 10:47
I am happy to help people who are unable to provide for themselves. But seafood is an expensive luxury. Nobody needs seafood. If you want to spend your money buying seafood for poor folks, that’s your right and I am sure they would be grateful. But if you’re suggesting that people who are down on their luck have a right to use EBT cards to purchase seafood or other luxuries, then I think you’re going to get a LOT of resistance, and not just from conservatives.
Hirightnow April 6th, 2015 at 12:35
The single most abundant source of food on the planet, but nobody needs it, huh?
You’re either an idiot,or…
No.
You’re an idiot. There is no other possible explanation.
As for what EBT is spent on, I would like to see it spent on healthy food, which both seafood and lean beef are.
But I also think that, once someone has the card, they should be able to buy whatever food items they want. They’ll learn soon enough how to budget, if they don’t already know.
Nobody who needs EBT is making a habit out of buying filet mignon and lobsters, despite the oh-so-numerous RWers who all claim to have seen people “pulling up to the store in a Cadillac and buying high-priced items”, unless they want to eat air sandwiches from the 4th of the month on.
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 13:01
The fact is that a lot of people on assistance do not know how to budget and manage money effectively. That’s why agencies provide free classes on effective budgeting to low-income people. Putting restrictions on what can be purchased with assistance only helps to reinforce good habits.
Hirightnow April 6th, 2015 at 13:07
So, since there are people in a group who make bad decisions, every member of that group should face restrictions?
Fine.
Disulfiram for all drivers.
Budgeted use of money for everyone in possession of a bank account.
Automatic physical castration for all fathers of girls.
Automatic sterilization for all mothers.
Loss of voting rights for all Republicans.(Hey, I knda like that one…)
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 13:11
If you want to buy seafood for people who are down on their luck, more power to you. If you think you can convince a majority of Americans that their tax dollars should be used to buy seafood for poor folks, good luck with that.
Hirightnow April 6th, 2015 at 13:15
They’ve already been convinced.
Now Republicans want their opinion and only their opinion to count.
ChrisVosburg April 6th, 2015 at 13:18
Again, this legislation concerns the TANF benefit, which is a cash benefit. A store owner has no way of determining whether the $20 bill used to pay for goods and services comes from a TANF account or not.
Again, this is meaningless legislation.
Leannie April 6th, 2015 at 14:12
OMG…seafood!!!! The world will end and our economy will come to a halt becuase a poor person bought seafood!!!! Get a grip and focus on the important issues
ChrisVosburg April 6th, 2015 at 13:13
The legislation contemplated by Kansas puts a $25 limit on how much can be extracted per day from an EBT TANF account at an ATM. There is a charge of 85 cents each time this is done.
Do the math yourself, and tell me how this encourages smart budget management.
If it helps, contemplate the foolishness of only extracting twenty at an ATM from your bank account, for which you pay usually $2 and change to the ATM location, and $2 to the bank.
Again, this legislation makes no sense.
ChrisVosburg April 6th, 2015 at 13:07
Is a can of tuna a luxury? It’s seafood, isn’t it? Shall we distinguish between the pricy solid white albacore and the lesser priced stuff?
How much of a dick should we be, and how many additional layers of bureacracy should the taxpayers pay for just to be dicks to the poor?
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 13:35
In what universe would someone be called a dick for giving their money to help the poor? Anyone on assistance who uses that money to buy seafood should be ashamed of himself. They should be grateful for whatever money is being provided. The left always talks about rights, but never about responsibilities. If someone provides you with assistance, you have a responsibility to use it wisely.
oldfart April 6th, 2015 at 11:16
…looks like we’re not in Kansas anymore Toto…
i had no idea that the state of Kansas had any record of folks actually doing such things, let alone people made that much money on assistance (in Kansas no less) that they could afford to take a cruise.
should a republican grocery shop owner in Kansas have the right to refuse to sell a republican family on SNAP from buying lobster ?
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 11:27
The USDA operates the WIC program for Women, Infants, and Children. WIC checks may only be used to purchase specific types of products. If used for milk, it may only be used for the least expensive type of milk. There are many other restrictions. The goal is to provide for the nutritional needs of recipients at the lowest practical cost. WIC checks may be used to purchase tuna, but not lobster.
oldfart April 6th, 2015 at 11:34
I’ve been on both have you ? BTW talking SNAP here not WIC.
deflecting again I see. i know what WIC covers and i know Snap covers. if anyone is foolish to use their SNAP card for lobster they will not have enough money to buy other food but its their choice.
care to try and answer my question?
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 11:52
If I were a store owner, I would not attempt to figure out who is eligible to purchase what items, except when required by programs like WIC. But if I were a lawmaker, I would definitely not approve of any public assistance money being used to purchase seafood or other luxury items. I have not ever been on any type of public assistance, but I did get tuition assistance in the form of loans and grants while in college. I was grateful for that assistance and never complained about the lousy cafeteria food.
oldfart April 6th, 2015 at 12:40
if you had been on any assistance then maybe you would understand and appreciate the fact that any money you had paid into the system is also yours to take back out for your family. you would not appreciate people telling you what you can and cant do with your choices. nor would you like to be treated or called “a taker” , when politically imposed economic conditions are literally and physically causing you to be on assistance and is beyond your control to change it. thank your lucky stars you have never been subjected to this kind of treatment.
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 12:45
Cry me a river. People on assistance can eat soup out of a can just like the rest of us.
oldfart April 6th, 2015 at 12:50
and you can keep on hoping for less taxes and smaller government TTFN.
tracey marie April 6th, 2015 at 13:41
we would not want the poor to have a moment of happiness, no sir you woulod not want that!
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 13:49
You are correct. Unless I give every dollar I earn to the poor, I am not fit to walk the earth. Hey, how about if you donate your computer to the poor and also the money that you spend on your internet connection?
tracey marie April 6th, 2015 at 14:03
deflection and baggerbabble as usual from you
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 11:13
It seems a simple solution to this would be to change the benefits from cash to a certain amount of food. So instead of going to the store and picking out what they want they will instead choose from a list of basic food that is designed to provide the needed nutrients. A few options would be needed to address food allergies, but the stores could have pre-packaged boxes designed to hand out to those with benefits. Then you don’t even need to worry about inflation as the benefits would naturally increase as the price of food increased as well.
wpadon April 6th, 2015 at 12:11
Kraft Foods will pay millions to the RNC to require 30 boxes of Mac and Cheese be included in every package.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 12:27
It is quite possible that changing the plan from cash to food would actually cost more money – even alot more money, but I would be in favor of that because the plan would more likely to insure that the poor are given the nutritional food that they need.
Hirightnow April 6th, 2015 at 12:48
Who designs the menus? What foods will be forbidden? Mandatory? Will certain combinations be ineligible?
And wouldn’t this be MORE government? Costing more than the alleged “fraud” that is supposedly going on?
“Hey! My toe hurts!”
“Fine. First, we set up a bureau of toe management, to insure proper toe care is available. Then, we appoint a panel of toe specialists, some manager-level people to assist them, and perhaps a few independent non-toe advisers from, say, my home district, just to round things out. We’ll then embark on a government-funded 10 year study into how this toe situation can be handled, giving special attention to those areas where toe fraud may occur. All the while, we’ll be sending reports to the Congressional Comittee for Toe Affairs, who will from time to time offer their input, and perhaps suggest different directions that the toe panel can direct their studies. we’ll also need staff for them, and a budget. Oh, and a media division to keep people informed as to…”
“Or I could just take an Advil?”
“SHUT UP, you; we’re governing here!”
Cost more money?
I would bet the farm on that.
tracey marie April 6th, 2015 at 13:36
sounds kinda big governement going from the bedrooms to the kitchen. Stop trying making the poor feel like children and garbage with finger pointing and overlord tactics
tracey marie April 6th, 2015 at 13:39
Now the poor are not allowed to eat as they please, is that your suggestion? Next you will tell them what type of clothes or identifying enblams they need to wear so they are readily known so they do get treated appropriately, as people deserving of scorn.
ChrisVosburg April 6th, 2015 at 14:40
Not all needs are food based, Jimmy. For this reason, there are two benefits at play here. One is the SNAP program, which we know as food stamps, which although at first glance seems to give food to poor folks, serves also through them to subsidize the food-producing industry (it is after all administered by the USDA).
Second is the TANF benefit, by definition a cash benefit, which recognizes that you can’t pay for gas for your car or toilet paper for your butt with the SNAP benefit.
What’s silly about the legislation contemplated in Kansas is that it wishes to regulate purchases made with that TANF benefit somehow, without describing exactly how this scrupulous monitoring might actually be accomplished (hint it’s not possible)..
ChrisVosburg April 6th, 2015 at 12:46
Lot of misinformation downthread.
First, this law is not about the “food stamp” benefit, where the EBT card is used at point of purchase to buy food items (booze and cigs, no). It is about the TANF benefit (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a cash benefit, with which an EBT card is used at an ATM to extract cash money, meaning american currency, in twenty dollar multiples (just like your debit card).
So, the $25 maximum is very strange, since you cannot ask for $25 in cash from any ATM machine.
Second, it’s not possible to track how the cash removed from the TANF account is spent. Obviously, it can be commingled with other cash in the possession of the benefit holder, and if anyone thinks it’s possible to tell which cash is used for which purchase, then it becomes all the more obvious how ridiculous this legislation is.
As I said, any ATM machine with the “EBT” sticker on it can be used, which pretty much means any ATM machine, even those in adult bookstores, liquor stores, and other supposed dens of low repute, and it just makes some people (generally republicans) so mad, because it may mean that the money is being spent at the location of the ATM.
To which I can only say STOP BEING DICKS ABOUT IT, REPUBLICANS.
ShelleysLeg April 6th, 2015 at 13:31
$25 a day is ‘prosperity’? In 1900 maybe…..oh, yes, that is pretty much the year Kansas resides in.
Leannie April 6th, 2015 at 14:05
Oh how I miss the good old days when I was on welfare..I should have just kept on having more kids, we had a blast being poor!
ChrisVosburg April 6th, 2015 at 14:09
Not that surprisingly, your comment is unresponsive to the questions I just asked you (speaking of shameful).
And again, the legislation described in the post concerns the TANF benefit, which is a cash benefit, not the SNAP benefit, which we know as food stamps. Learn the difference before commenting again, please.
Robert M. Snyder April 6th, 2015 at 14:20
It doesn’t matter to me because in my opinion benefits should never be given as cash. Too many people will use cash to buy booze, cigarettes, and drugs. Nobody should be required to pay for other people’s luxuries or vices. I am comforted to know that assistance is there if I should ever fall on hard times and need it. But if that day ever happens, I will be eating bologna sandwiches, not seafood, and I will be spending the money I save on whatever it takes for me to once again become self-sufficient.
ChrisVosburg April 6th, 2015 at 14:27
Again, you don’t address the legislation contemplated in Kansas which only concerns itself with the TANF benefit, by definition a cash benefit.
Since, as you say, you don’t care about that, it would behoove you to remain silent, read, and learn, instead of talking about things not being addressed by the legislation, which serves no useful purpose here.
FatRat April 6th, 2015 at 17:07
Do you know when surfer dude bought the lobster? I think in was summer of 2013 I remember some article saying that lobster was actually plummeting in price due to a glut on the market. It was actually cheaper to buy lobster than bologna in some places. Looked around the web and can’t find that precise article.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0705/Lobster-cheaper-than-bologna-True-thanks-to-surplus
Lobster cheaper than bologna? True, thanks to surplus.
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/06/14/news/hancock/high-lobster-landings-in-canada-keep-dockside-prices-low-in-maine/
High lobster landings in Canada keep dockside prices low in Maine
If Coke is on sale, you buy Coke and the same goes for Pepsi. Seems like the prudent thing to do, buy the cheaper meat if there is currently a glut on the market.
If the guy (with his Jeff Spicolli personality) wants to splurge (maybe it was a cheaper meat) thats his choice.
ChrisVosburg April 6th, 2015 at 17:22
“Surfer Dude” is something of an outlier in the Lobster Wars dataset, inasmuch as he’s willing to say or do anything crazy to get his mug on the TV, in the interest of flogging his career as a musician or something.
BTW, I’ve never understood the appeal of lobster, and have reduced my indifference to it to a stock line whenever somebody asks if I’d care for some:
“No thanks, gave up shit-eating crustaceans for Lent.”
FatRat April 6th, 2015 at 17:38
I watched some history special where they described the mayhem over Americans being force fed lobsters. lol They called it the cockroach of the seas.
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/how-lobster-got-fancy-59440
Lobsters were so abundant in the early days—residents in the Massachusetts Bay Colony found they washed up on the beach in two-foot-high piles—that people thought of them as trash food. It was fit only for the poor and served to servants or prisoners. In 1622, the governor of Plymouth Plantation, William Bradford, was embarrassed to admit to newly arrived colonists that the only food they “could presente their friends with was a lobster … without bread or anyhting else but a cupp of fair water” (original spelling preserved). Later, rumor has it, some in Massachusetts revolted and the colony was forced to sign contracts promising that indentured servants wouldn’t be fed lobster more than three times a week.