2007-02-11 11:42:43 · 12 answers · asked by roses edge 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
You are now entering the area of "quality of life". Is a television necessary? No, but i have no problem with someone purchasing one with "assistance" monies. There are many other items that go along the same lines. Do they need to be taking vacations and cruises? Of course not, but i will allow a "quality of life" that I think is fair and just. There are many who who worked for years who cannot work now because of health issues, who am I to tell them what they can and cannot spend their money on.
2007-02-11 12:40:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Those benefits are for people to use to get them the essentials, food, clothing, heat, water, electric, phone and a decent vehicle to drive. Other than that, I don't like the idea of people being on assistance having cell phones, a 56" plasma TV, a home theater system, designer clothing and the like. I am sure that people will not agree with me, but if you are struggling for money and have super luxury items, that makes no sense to me. It reminds me of driving through slums of a big city and seeing people living in run down, barely standing homes and having a brand new Cadillac or Lincoln sitting in the drive. Doesn't make sense.
2007-02-11 19:50:40 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There would be no way to prevent people on state aid from buy non essentials. However, the state could assign every recipient of state aid with a 'Buddy' to watch over them and monitor their purchases.
The state can only provide classes to teach people how to manage their money, to save, and to not waste their money (and your money) on nonessential purchases.
2007-02-11 19:50:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean like movies, gas guzzling cars ( can't afford hybrids), Pepsi instead of store brand & cocaine instead of going back to school? Who will be the spending police? In a purfect world things would be provided like WIC but even those get traded for....
2007-02-11 19:53:01 · answer #4 · answered by know it all 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are spending taxpayers money - that means you - so when they complain they ain't getting enough cash(for free) that should cause you to choke. No, it suppose to get them over a rough period, so be on it as short as possible. But stay on for years, and are at the bars, got a car and gas. They didn't work for it (you are working for them)
2007-02-11 19:52:29 · answer #5 · answered by ButwhatdoIno? 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Noppers. Their spending should be controlled so that if they want the non-essentials, they can get a job, otherwise they just get an endless free ride.
2007-02-11 19:50:02 · answer #6 · answered by JiveSly 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not, you would think if someone was that destitute, they would onlt be concerned with essentials for survivial, but its not about be destitute any longer its about - those people who work have luxuries, so I should be able to have them too.
2007-02-11 19:47:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ya I like the buy cigarettes then get sick then get medicaid. So I can pay for your sorry self in many ways. We shouldnt give checks just cheese and clothes.
2007-02-11 19:51:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What's really disgusting is when they use their welfare to buy alcohol and tobacco. People will say that's not possible but it is possible.
2007-02-11 20:02:43 · answer #9 · answered by Gemini Girl 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
And I suppose that you want to be the one to define what is "essential" or "non-essential."
2007-02-11 19:55:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋