Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Ok...so tell me how you'd stop it.

apple strudel

chicowalker

If there's a card being used, I'd think you could use bar codes for items somehow, but I'm not sure how that works with different stores/chains.

My question is where you draw the line. Somebody mentioned soda. Is a bottle of wine really worse than a bunch of soda or other junk food?

I like the idea in theory, though, and I don't see any argument for cigarettes.

apple strudel

You're on welfare. Your life sucks. The welfare is the only thing keeping you going. Thinking about it makes me almost want a cigarette, and I hate smoke more than just about anybody else.

Are Americans unhealthy? Sure. But education would seem a lot more productive than draconian measures. This country is way too uptight.

chicowalker

Well, I agree about education. imo it's the single biggest issue and opportunity we have -- not the economy, not terrorism, not immigration.

Look, if it were a cigarette every day, I'd agree. But most smokers smoke a lot of cigarettes, and that's a lot of $.

I'm sorry if somebody is on welfare, but I don't think our $ that is supporting them should be wasted on cigarettes (or a daily six pack or bottle of wine or soda for their kids)

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Ok, look, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.....aren't we, by saying that the government should monitor how welfare money gets spent, saying that all men are NOT created equal - that the poor deserve government watching and that the government (or we) have the right to tell them what they can and cannot eat, drink, smoke, buy, etc.?

If that's the case, shouldn't we also be able to demand that any government employee, social security recipient, state employee and city employee have their wages allocated to specific items, too, since it's all "taxpayer's money" which is supporting them?

Don't we start down that slippery slope when we start telling people exactly how they can spend their money?

apple strudel

Freedom for capitalists is all good, but freedom for the poor people is verboten. Obviously.

apple strudel

You should see the kind of things the Haliburton executive team spends out tax dollars on. Or GE, or Honeywell, or Hughes, or Boeing, or Xe, or Lockheed, or Northrop Grumman, or Raytheon, or General Dynamics.

If you want real cost savings, you're probably looking in the wrong place.

chicowalker

I'd say no and no.

A poor person doesn't have to accept welfare. If you prevent them from buying certain things with welfare $, they're only being regulated to the extent they accept that $. Doesn't the same already happen regularly wrt schools, municipalities and certain companies that receive govt funds?

You also can't equate wages paid in exchange for work to money given as welfare. Apples and oranges.

chicowalker

I agree, but I also wasn't claiming this could be a big area of cost savings. I don't think "it's not that much money" is a good argument for wasteful spending to continue, however.