Bad checks and vountary contributions

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That she disagreed with me, I like. That she had a fairly cogent argument, I like even more.

Food stamps in the computer age

At issue was a piece I wrote a while back in which I said I stood behind a woman at a checkout counter who bought $200 worth of junk food with a EBT (electronic benefits transfer) card. EBT has replaced food stamps in Georgia.

I was extremely irked that the woman bought junk instead of more nutritious food. The junk she bought was also more expensive, because of the packaging and promotion, that more healthy food.

The young lady who objected to my objections reasoned thusly: Once you give it to me (the EBT account and the money) it's mine to spend as I wish.

You want money? Get a JOB and earn it.

I note the young lady arguing with me does not get EBT, she was merely debating and inserted herself as the example.

I replied: But I have no choice in this. The money was taken from me. It was not a voluntary contribution.

"Doesn't matter," she said. "When it is mine, I can spend it however I want to."

She felt there should be no strings attached to the money for food because it was given.

I have to partly agree. If you give me something, it's mine. What I do with it from then on is none of your business. If you attempt to tell me what I may or may not do with something, then it is not mine, it is yours and I merely have limited control over it.

I've had people "give" me stuff and then object to what I did with it. They also threatened to never "give" me anything else. In case you are wondering, I don't go there, I don't play that and I stopped taking guilt trips imposed by others a long time ago. If you "give" me something and adopt the attitude mentioned directly above, it is absolutely not going to affect what I do, how I do, when I do or where I do with whatever you "gave" me.

Except you may convince me to never accept anything from you again.

But the issue with EBT is different. I have no choice. The money is taken away from me by government.

That makes a difference.

If government takes my money away from me and gives it to other people, I believe government has the right to attach strings to that money.

People who accept the EBT may not like attached strings. They are also under no obligation to accept the EBT.

Come now the Sunshine State's legislature and Gov. Rick Scott. Florida has a new law requiring drug testing for EBT and similar government aid recipients. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393263/Florida-governor-Rick-Scott-signs-law-forcing-welfare-recipients-drugs-tests.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Hurt me baby make me write bad checks.

I like it. A lot.

An attempt to inject some sense into government spending.

I still like it. The more I think about it the more I like it.

My opinions about such things as marijuana and other drugs is already on record, so I shan't hash (HARHAR!) that here.

I will say if you have enough spare cash to spend on reality-perception-altering substances then you have enough money to buy food and you don't need government raiding my wallet to give you money.

Some people object to this. But then some people are blithering idiots and are adult poster children for the abortion rights crowd.

Yeah, I said it. I mean it.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Wonder if she felt her privacy was invaded?

Florida is not the first state to attempt to put some reins on public assistance money. Other states have done similar. Courts, but not the Supreme Court, have shot down the laws as being unConstitutional, mostly along the lines of an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

Ok, I'm willing to grant that line of reasoning. For government to come in and do random drug testing with a solid reason involving public security and safety is unreasonable. SCOTUS ruled the same in case you are wondering.

But. There is no Constitutional requirement that government take money away from me and give it to other people simply because they are able to convince bureaucrats they have less money than me.

Not Voluntary.

EBT and like programs are entirely voluntary. For that matter, so are the jobs people have where SCOTUS has ruled random drug tests are permissible. No one forced me to get a commercial driver's license, with the requisite drug testing that comes with it. I chose to get the license, knowing I'm subject to be asked to pee in a cup any time.

In Georgia, possession of a valid driver's license also carries with your permission to be DUI tested any time you are driving. That law has been upheld in court.

So if you want to accept money from the government to live on, then I have no objections to you being required to pee in a cup periodically.

I also have absolutely NO problem in the money being taken away if you test positive, for reasons mentioned above.

If you object to that, then don't take money from the government.

If you don't get money from the government, then you can alter your perceptions of reality however you choose and you won't hear a single complaint from me.