HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Kansas' experiment in con... » Reply #14

Response to hfojvt (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:38 PM

14. Amplifying the Indignity of Joblessness Welfare recipients going on cruise ships is fantasy; telling

 

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

them where they can buy underwear is nuts.
--------------------------------------------------

You say: "Well, how is it either a burden or a restriction if the poor people are NOT spending their money on it anyway? They can't have it both ways."

Nobody is trying to have it both ways. Also, if they are not spending their money on cruises or other things anyway, why make it a law" The law is cruel, demeaning to poor people & trying to make them feel like second class citizens & worse among the other things going on with this Governor. Your saying they are not spending money on cruises anyway is nothing more than Brownback Thinking.

-------------------------------

The law and others like it provide in their laundry lists of verboten expenses a guide to what some state legislators fantasize are the lifestyles of the poor and anonymous, from liquor, “tobacco paraphernalia” and gambling to tattoos, massages and body piercings to video arcades, movie theatres and swimming pools (because the shiftless poor shouldn’t be encouraged to relax – or take their child for a swim on a hot summer weekend). No more will these indolent sinners be permitted to spend their ill-gotten lucre in a “sexually oriented business” or at a “lingerie shop.”

Given that “lingerie” is just a fancy way of saying “underwear” will Kansas welfare-women now have to go commando? Or just buy it at Walmart instead of Victoria’s Secret, that well-known hangout of the government hand-out set? Wait a second – Walmart sells lingerie, does that make it a “lingerie shop,” off limits to welfare recipients? What qualifies as “lingerie shop” anyway? Will someone sit in judgment about whether a given business sells undergarments too titillating – probably bought in hopes of making more welfare babies – or fancy for a welfare recipient’s station in life? Basically, where does a government get off telling women where they can shop for their underwear?)

http://bit.ly/1Jpe6mI

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
EV_Ares Apr 2015 OP
workinclasszero Apr 2015 #1
world wide wally Apr 2015 #2
maindawg Apr 2015 #4
world wide wally Apr 2015 #6
hfojvt Apr 2015 #11
BillZBubb Apr 2015 #3
stillwaiting Apr 2015 #5
world wide wally Apr 2015 #7
jwirr Apr 2015 #8
SheilaT Apr 2015 #9
hfojvt Apr 2015 #12
SheilaT Apr 2015 #18
Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2015 #10
hfojvt Apr 2015 #13
LineLineLineNew Reply Amplifying the Indignity of Joblessness Welfare recipients going on cruise ships is fantasy; telling
EV_Ares Apr 2015 #14
hfojvt Apr 2015 #19
EV_Ares Apr 2015 #20
UCmeNdc Apr 2015 #15
blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #16
blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #17
Please login to view edit histories.