dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
877
share rss forum feed


sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1

CA Legislature: Okay To Use Welfare For Booze & Cigs

The Sacramento insanity continues. While the state faces a $23B shortfall the legislature okays welfare recipients using tax dollars to buy cigs and booze. Wouldn't that money be better spend on clothes and food for kids? Or cutting the budget?

»www.examiner.com/county-politica···lifornia

quote:
On a straight party-line vote California lawmakers gave the green light for welfare recipients to purchase alcohol and tobacco products using taxpayer money. The insanity in the Golden State continues despite the state’s $23 billion deficit and double-digit unemployment.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--


dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1

1 recommendation

I see you're back to your rare form!

As indicated in the snippit above which cites how it's already illegal to use government Food Stamps/EBT assistance to purchase Alcohol or tobacco products.

Here is the Federal law in detail: »edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/···71.2.htm

SB 417 (Dutton) is the equivalent of a bill that seeks to make running a red light illegal. It's nonsensical on it's face. It's impossible to "require the EBT system to be designed to prevent use of EBT cards by recipients for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products." as the bills states.

This is just like minors purchasing alcohol or tobacco products. If the retailer allows it, other than catching the retailer in the act, nothing can be done. What's worse is the story, and it's statement about "green lighting" the purchase of already illegal items under the program, is out and out political spin at it's bigoted worse.

I would like your opinion on another statement in the story;
said by linked story :

Senator Dutton also explained that more than half of welfare beneficiaries are parents who are no longer eligible for state aid, but still receive cash assistance on behalf of their anchor baby children.

I'm just wondering. Do you believe in the U.S. Constitution? Or is it just some parchment worthy of wiping ones ass on? I think the term "anchor baby" is as almost as foul as any racial slur. This condescending term demonizes and discounts certain American citizens.

Let me say that again; AMERICAN citizens. Almost all People who were born on U.S. soil, are Constitutionally American Citizens (Citizens of the United states). Some may not like it or find it convenient, but from Wong Kim Ark to Plyler, there is a century's worth of settled case law affirming birthright citizenship.

So again I ask, are you a U.S. citizen that upholds the U.S. Constitution, as it's currently written and amended, in it's entirety?


sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1

4 edits

You are confusing foodstamps with cash assistance. State issued debit cards were being used for vacation cruises, at casinos, and to buy booze. Arnold blocked their use at casinos and on vacation cruises but did not block their use for booze. Some emergency cash assistance was even being used in Hawaii.

said by dogma:

I'm just wondering. Do you believe in the U.S. Constitution? Or is it just some parchment worthy of wiping ones ass on? I think the term "anchor baby" is as almost as foul as any racial slur. This condescending term demonizes and discounts certain American citizens.

I vehemently disagree with the gag of political correctness and find the term anchor baby to be a useful and descriptive term. Political correctness is a tool invented by Progressives to limit speech and deny political opponents the tools to describe things that they oppose. I find any attempt to limit speech though political correctness to be as foul as you and I both find the "n-word". The term fits because the purpose of having a child in the US is often to get a legal toehold in the US.

Let me say that again; AMERICAN citizens. Almost all People who were born on U.S. soil, are Constitutionally American Citizens (Citizens of the United states). Some may not like it or find it convenient, but from Wong Kim Ark to Plyler, there is a century's worth of settled case law affirming birthright citizenship.

You are referring to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" There is an argument the key is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If an American child molester goes to Thailand and violates US laws he/she is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US government and can be prosecuted by the US government. If a Mexican citizen travels to Thailand and violates US laws the US has no jurisdiction. The debate is whether or not the "jurisdiction" of the US applies to a Mexican national smuggled in before birth and I frankly don't know the answer. How about we just finally finish the fence and deal with the problem that way.

So again I ask, are you a U.S. citizen that upholds the U.S. Constitution, as it's currently written and amended, in it's entirety?

Upholds it as it is actually written/amended and intended by the framers? Yes, even the parts that I disagree with (income tax). As it is currently interpreted though the politics of the statists on the various courts? No. For example the courts have refused to enforce much of the 14th Amendment (PoE clause), made a political decision to allow the US to drop the gold standard even thoough it's a requirement of the constitution, and have ignored the intent of the 10th Amendment for almost 80 years.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--


RR Conductor
NWP RR Inc.,serving NW CA
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1
reply to sholling

You were Pwned sholling



dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to sholling

said by sholling:

I vehemently disagree with the gag of political correctness and find the term anchor baby to be a useful and descriptive term. Political correctness is a tool invented by Progressives to limit speech and deny political opponents the tools to describe things that they oppose. I find any attempt to limit speech though political correctness to be as foul as you and I both find the "n-word". The term fits because the purpose of having a child in the US is often to get a legal toehold in the US.

hummm... lets check the wayback machine:

said by truth :
????? tea bagger doesn't mean gay. If you want to know what it means check urban-dictionary, I'd link but it's slighty nws.
said by sholling :
It refers to the practice of teabagging which is a part of the world of gay BDSM. I'm of course assuming that you're a mature adult that is above yelling slurs and just weren't aware of the actual meaning.

So, you have a certain set of privileged rules that apply exclusively to you and those that you think in lockstep with, and you have another set of rules that apply to the 2nd class citizens you don't agree with?

You think the term Tea Bagger, which is commonly used by some people when referring to members of the Tea Party, is a slur and yet when someone else suggest another term is disrespectful you wrap yourself in freedom of speech and political correctness.

BTW, based on your evasive non-answer, am I to assume then that you have special powers that allow you to channel the "framers" and understand their "intent".

Back OT, Like I pointed out, there is no way to block the purchase of items using any debit/credit card if there is no cooperation from the retailer at Point of Sale. I can purchase a bottle of malt liquor at a corner mom & pop, and it can be rung up as 4 bananas. How can the State possibly know??

The author of the bill was aware of this fact, yet chose to present the bill not in some effort to save the State money, but to twist the issue and seed a negative campaign issue in the future. One where he can say his opponents voted to "Okay The Use of Welfare For Booze & Cigs".


ksw_92

join:2001-05-13
La Verne, CA
reply to dogma

said by dogma:

So again I ask, are you a U.S. citizen that upholds the U.S. Constitution, as it's currently written and amended, in it's entirety?

I'm curious where you're going with this. Does it make him any less an American Citizen to NOT uphold the Constitution? Unlike naturalized citizens, we citizens-by-birthright don't swear this oath:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
I wonder how many people would balk at the "perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law" clause these days? Sounds like indentured service, don't it?


dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1

said by ksw_92:

I'm curious where you're going with this. Does it make him any less an American Citizen to NOT uphold the Constitution?

If he does NOT uphold the Constitution as it stands and how it's legally defined, he doesn't have a leg to stand on with respect to who is here legally and who is not. These are our rules. They can be changed by amendment and ratification, and interpreted differently by the SCOTUS...but right now these are the laws.

His linked article referred to "anchor babies". Yet he wouldn't call any member of his own family an anchor baby. This codeword means exactly what sholling See Profile described to those that use it. As he said for him; it's "useful and descriptive". If one takes that statement to it's next logical step, it's clear the term is "useful and descriptive" to "classify" a human being's citizenship status.

When we begin classifing ANY legal citizen (which is exactly what they are), we automatically degrade their citizenship into something less than full. Like 3/5 a human or 2nd class or some other such nonsense.


No_Strings
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2008-13
join:2001-11-22
The OC
kudos:6
reply to ksw_92

I think I'd get about three deep into that list before I moved to Canada.



sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1
reply to dogma

said by dogma:

If he does NOT uphold the Constitution as it stands and how it's legally defined, he doesn't have a leg to stand on with respect to who is here legally and who is not. These are our rules. They can be changed by amendment and ratification, and interpreted differently by the SCOTUS...but right now these are the laws.

A congressman or mere citizen cannot just go to the court and say "hey take another look at this ruling". They would lack "standing". The first step in that process is to pass a law that will be taken before the supreme court and the court will take a look at it.

His linked article referred to "anchor babies". Yet he wouldn't call any member of his own family an anchor baby. This codeword means exactly what sholling See Profile described to those that use it. As he said for him; it's "useful and descriptive". If one takes that statement to it's next logical step, it's clear the term is "useful and descriptive" to "classify" a human being's citizenship status.

The purpose is to put a stop to the practice. As I said before I'd rather just build the wall but if the president is going to continue to refuse to build the wall then what are you going to do? The usual do nothing about anything?

When we begin classifing ANY legal citizen (which is exactly what they are), we automatically degrade their citizenship into something less than full. Like 3/5 a human or 2nd class or some other such nonsense.

Oh yes the famous 3/5ths misrepresentation. It's so much more comforting to dismiss the founders as a bunch of evil white guys. The 3/5ths clause wasn't created to diminish the humanity of black people, it was created to limit the power of southern slave states and slave owners to expand slavery. Not a perfect solution but better than the alternative of slavery extending to all of the states.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--


ksw_92

join:2001-05-13
La Verne, CA
reply to dogma

You're mirroring the point that I was making...NOT following the Constitution, as written AT THIS TIME, is the key to being an American. The civil war, the suffrage movement and civil rights were all the result of disobedience to the Constitution and the "law of the land".

You're upset at sholling's jingoism and I can understand that. We've been down this before.



sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1

said by ksw_92:

You're mirroring the point that I was making...NOT following the Constitution, as written AT THIS TIME, is the key to being an American. The civil war, the suffrage movement and civil rights were all the result of disobedience to the Constitution and the "law of the land".

The constitution included a method for changing it to fit the times. In fact the civil rights movement was empowered by the 14th Amendment which empowered the federal government to enforce civil rights. The delay in establishing those right came in no small part from a supreme court ruling that gutted the 14th Amendment and the intransigence of Democrats fighting every civil rights act from the civil war to 1964 - including the CRA of 1964.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--