RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies

RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/17/2015 7:26:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u They are unenforceable because lingerie is sold in lots of places,right next to functional underwear too ....so how do you enforce it This is just a guess, but I'll have at it. It seems reasonable enough. "Lingerie shop" is probably defined as such because a certain percentage of their profit comes from intimate apparel. Or something along those lines. Then, like any other entity that can't accept this payment method for certain items, they refuse. Otherwise, I would imagine they'd be fined. But surely Macy's,for an example,sell some items designed to titillate ?

Kaliko -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/17/2015 7:32:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u They are unenforceable because lingerie is sold in lots of places,right next to functional underwear too ....so how do you enforce it This is just a guess, but I'll have at it. It seems reasonable enough. "Lingerie shop" is probably defined as such because a certain percentage of their profit comes from intimate apparel. Or something along those lines. Then, like any other entity that can't accept this payment method for certain items, they refuse. Otherwise, I would imagine they'd be fined. But surely Macy's,for an example,sell some items designed to titillate ? But the bill doesn't say that a person can't buy lingerie. It says they can't buy an item in a lingerie shop. And if - if - a lingerie shop is defined by where the majority of its profits come from, then Macy's wouldn't fall into that category. They're not saying a woman can't buy items to titillate. They're saying that a person using these funds - a man or a woman - cannot buy an item in a lingerie store.

BamaD -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/17/2015 7:40:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u They are unenforceable because lingerie is sold in lots of places,right next to functional underwear too ....so how do you enforce it This is just a guess, but I'll have at it. It seems reasonable enough. "Lingerie shop" is probably defined as such because a certain percentage of their profit comes from intimate apparel. Or something along those lines. Then, like any other entity that can't accept this payment method for certain items, they refuse. Otherwise, I would imagine they'd be fined. But surely Macy's,for an example,sell some items designed to titillate ? But the bill doesn't say that a person can't buy lingerie. It says they can't buy an item in a lingerie shop. And if - if - a lingerie shop is defined by where the majority of its profits come from, then Macy's wouldn't fall into that category. They're not saying a woman can't buy items to titillate. They're saying that a person using these funds - a man or a woman - cannot buy an item in a lingerie store. Can't buy lingerie and can't spend in a lingerie shop are not the same thing. Only a fool would say that Macy's would be considered a lingerie shop.

Kaliko -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/17/2015 7:44:10 PM)
FR ITEMS THAT CANNOT BE PURCHASED WITH CASH ASSISTANCE — Alcohol — Cigarettes — Tobacco products — Lottery tickets — Concert tickets — Professional or collegiate sporting events — Tickets for entertainment events intended for the general public — Sexually oriented adult materials _____ PLACES WHERE CASH ASSISTANCE COULD NOT BE USED — Retail liquor store — Casino — Gaming establishment — Jewelry store — Tattoo parlor — Massage parlor — Body piercing parlor — Spa — Nail salon — Lingerie shop — Tobacco paraphernalia store — Vapor cigarette store — Psychic or fortune telling business — Bail bond company — Video arcade — Movie theater — Swimming pool — Cruise ship — Theme park — Dog or horse racing facility — Pari-mutuel facility — Sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment — Any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted. Credit The St. Augustine Record

bounty44 -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/17/2015 8:35:09 PM)
im sorry, the republicans are still evil meanies who hate poor people (even though it must be getting harder to hold to that position as we read on)

DesideriScuri -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 5:24:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl Other states have restrictions too, but is lingerie on their list? Apparently bras and undies aren't considered necessities. Next they'll ban menstrual pads....oh wait, they don't need to since those require undies. http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-rules-limit-spending-welfare-benefits-052002582--politics.html HB2258 quote: No TANF cash assistance shall be used to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, tobacco products, lottery tickets, concert tickets, professional or collegiate sporting event tickets or tickets for other entertainment events intended for the general public or sexually oriented adult materials. No TANF cash assistance shall be used in any retail liquor store, casino, gaming establishment, jewelry store, tattoo parlor, massage parlor, body piercing parlor, spa, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia store, vapor cigarette store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, dog or horse racing facility, parimutuel facility, or sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment, or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted. TANF cash assistance transactions for cash withdrawals from automated teller machines shall be limited to $25, per transaction and to one transaction per day. No TANF cash assistance shall be used for purchases at points of sale outside the state of Kansas. Nowhere does it say you can't buy underwear or lingerie. You can't purchase things in a lingerie shop. Considering undergarments are sold outside of lingerie shops, you might still be able to purchase them with public assistance.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 5:38:04 AM)
I think all of you righties are missing the point. these people *deserve* to live at the same standards level of a family that has two people at the head of it, working three jobs between them. These people on assistance have a *God-given right* to eat lobster once a week. They *deserve* red meat (preferably a nice, lean, filet) three times a week. They should have their every whim provided for or subsidized by the people who break their backs to *earn* the money to feed, house, clothe, and pay for the socialist Obummercare for their own family but have to work that much harder to pay for people who are on assistance to live to the same standard that they do (see: "Your fair share"). I understand that (possibly) a majority of people on assistance are in true need of it. I'm fine with that but just the fact that some of these retailers need to be on the list of no-go shops shows me that assistance money was being used at these places. Just a few weeks ago, we had a thread about people on assistance not being allowed to go on cruise[sic] ships. I can't afford a cruise but I should contribute to theirs. The welfare state has been laying the ground work for this class war. I just wish the people that have made a lifestyle of suckling at society's teat could see what this is really about and how the left has been using them as pawns since the 1930s. Michael

Kaliko -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 5:52:51 AM)
Just for the record, I'm 100% for public assistance. But, in this particular case, I'm only trying to clarify what is actually in the law versus what was being reported or claimed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 5:55:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I understand that (possibly) a majority of people on assistance are in true need of it. I'm fine with that but just the fact that some of these retailers need to be on the list of no-go shops shows me that assistance money was being used at these places. Just a few weeks ago, we had a thread about people on assistance not being allowed to go on cruise[sic] ships. I can't afford a cruise but I should contribute to theirs. Michael This is the same bill. I think the previous thread was before it was passed. This time, the bill has been passed.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 5:56:18 AM)
LOL It's sarcasm! Hi. I'm Michael. Have we met? Michael

DerangedUnit -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 6:07:38 AM)
I just have to add that in the 1700s in france(or was it england.... maybe england) there was public assistance FOR undergarments. Specifically. The idea was, whores didn't wear corsets so let's clean up the streets by giving away free corsets. Of course working women still couldn't tighten them(by working I mean farmers, laundry ladies, servants, etc) This is where the term "loose", came from... and "straight laced" came from the effects. The original way of tying stays(early corsets) allowed them to still stay upright when loose, so a new method, that 'ensured ones virtue' was developed... straight lacing OK I'm done butting in with random underwear history (Wait wait! Corsets weren't originally for women, but for young boys. The idea was to mold them as they grow to be one size. The size of a suit of armor, so they would have a higher chance of being choose for a higher ranking position(which got the nice expensive armor) OK now I'll stop ;)

Kaliko -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 6:10:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr LOL It's sarcasm! Hi. I'm Michael. Have we met? Michael Yes, I got that. :) But still, I wanted to clarify not only in response to your post, but for my posts throughout the thread. I just dislike mass media and am always happy to correct slanted reporting with actual fact. That doesn't mean I agree with the law. (Though in this case, I do. LOL)

PeonForHer -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 7:37:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I think all of you righties are missing the point. these people *deserve* to live at the same standards level of a family that has two people at the head of it, working three jobs between them. These people on assistance have a *God-given right* to eat lobster once a week. They *deserve* red meat (preferably a nice, lean, filet) three times a week. They should have their every whim provided for or subsidized by the people who break their backs to *earn* the money to feed, house, clothe, and pay for the socialist Obummercare for their own family but have to work that much harder to pay for people who are on assistance to live to the same standard that they do (see: "Your fair share"). I understand that (possibly) a majority of people on assistance are in true need of it. I'm fine with that but just the fact that some of these retailers need to be on the list of no-go shops shows me that assistance money was being used at these places. Just a few weeks ago, we had a thread about people on assistance not being allowed to go on cruise[sic] ships. I can't afford a cruise but I should contribute to theirs. The welfare state has been laying the ground work for this class war. I just wish the people that have made a lifestyle of suckling at society's teat could see what this is really about and how the left has been using them as pawns since the 1930s. Michael The flipside of that is "They're unemployed and broke. Let's make sure that they're as miserable as they can possibly be by denying them anything that might boost their morale at all." Jeez. As I've been reading this thread, it's been reminding me of a bit of childhood education: One of the first things I noticed about photos and films set in WW2 Britain was that the women all wore lipstick. It was never banned or even frowned upon as a 'luxury' like so many other things here in the UK. Why? Because lippy on women was considered to be important for the morale of both sexes. Certain things that appear to be frivolous turn out not to be frivolous at all.

Sanity -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 7:46:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer The flipside of that is "They're unemployed and broke. Let's make sure that they're as miserable as they can possibly be by denying them anything that might boost their morale at all." Jeez. As I've been reading this thread, it's been reminding me of a bit of childhood education: One of the first things I noticed about photos and films set in WW2 Britain was that the women all wore lipstick. It was never banned or even frowned upon as a 'luxury' like so many other things here in the UK. Why? Because lippy on women was considered to be important for the morale of both sexes. Certain things that appear to be frivolous turn out not to be frivolous at all. Thats emotionally driven hyperbole. No one is saying or arguing anything remotely like what you are imagining they are

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 8:31:40 AM)
I saw it on tv first. I live in Kansas and this was on my local news station. I don't remember hearing the word store, just lingerie. Since bras and undies are sold in the lingerie section of department stores, I think it's safe to assume these items are considered lingerie. If the law says lingerie stores, not just lingerie, I stand corrected. That being said, I wonder how many welfare recipients will now have difficulties purchasing bras and undies from cashiers that watched news or happened to read an article that didn't specify lingerie store.

Aylee -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:00:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I saw it on tv first. I live in Kansas and this was on my local news station. I don't remember hearing the word store, just lingerie. Since bras and undies are sold in the lingerie section of department stores, I think it's safe to assume these items are considered lingerie. If the law says lingerie stores, not just lingerie, I stand corrected. That being said, I wonder how many welfare recipients will now have difficulties purchasing bras and undies from cashiers that watched news or happened to read an article that didn't specify lingerie store. None. The items are rung up and then the card slide and then anything not covered paid for with an alternative method. I had assistance in Kansas while my husband was in a coma and for a couple of months after he died. Cashiers really do not care what you are buying.

slvemike4u -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:05:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u They are unenforceable because lingerie is sold in lots of places,right next to functional underwear too ....so how do you enforce it This is just a guess, but I'll have at it. It seems reasonable enough. "Lingerie shop" is probably defined as such because a certain percentage of their profit comes from intimate apparel. Or something along those lines. Then, like any other entity that can't accept this payment method for certain items, they refuse. Otherwise, I would imagine they'd be fined. But surely Macy's,for an example,sell some items designed to titillate ? But the bill doesn't say that a person can't buy lingerie. It says they can't buy an item in a lingerie shop. And if - if - a lingerie shop is defined by where the majority of its profits come from, then Macy's wouldn't fall into that category. They're not saying a woman can't buy items to titillate. They're saying that a person using these funds - a man or a woman - cannot buy an item in a lingerie store. Can't buy lingerie and can't spend in a lingerie shop are not the same thing. Only a fool would say that Macy's would be considered a lingerie shop. Awwww....I take this post to imply that you think me a fool. Whatever shall I do.....how do I once again win your respect [&o] If the good people of Kansas ,and anywhere else for that matter,choose to use the functionings of government in such small minded petty ways as this I for one don't give a shit. I have no dog in this fight....but I would think folks feel that their elected officials have better things to do than this petty bullshit.

PeonForHer -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:33:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer The flipside of that is "They're unemployed and broke. Let's make sure that they're as miserable as they can possibly be by denying them anything that might boost their morale at all." Jeez. As I've been reading this thread, it's been reminding me of a bit of childhood education: One of the first things I noticed about photos and films set in WW2 Britain was that the women all wore lipstick. It was never banned or even frowned upon as a 'luxury' like so many other things here in the UK. Why? Because lippy on women was considered to be important for the morale of both sexes. Certain things that appear to be frivolous turn out not to be frivolous at all. Thats emotionally driven hyperbole. No one is saying or arguing anything remotely like what you are imagining they are Balls. It's reality about emotions, Sanity. I thought conservatives were all about 'reality' in emotions?

BamaD -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:43:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I saw it on tv first. I live in Kansas and this was on my local news station. I don't remember hearing the word store, just lingerie. Since bras and undies are sold in the lingerie section of department stores, I think it's safe to assume these items are considered lingerie. If the law says lingerie stores, not just lingerie, I stand corrected. That being said, I wonder how many welfare recipients will now have difficulties purchasing bras and undies from cashiers that watched news or happened to read an article that didn't specify lingerie store. The fault is the news station which wanted to make it sound bad, not yours.

BamaD -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:45:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u They are unenforceable because lingerie is sold in lots of places,right next to functional underwear too ....so how do you enforce it This is just a guess, but I'll have at it. It seems reasonable enough. "Lingerie shop" is probably defined as such because a certain percentage of their profit comes from intimate apparel. Or something along those lines. Then, like any other entity that can't accept this payment method for certain items, they refuse. Otherwise, I would imagine they'd be fined. But surely Macy's,for an example,sell some items designed to titillate ? But the bill doesn't say that a person can't buy lingerie. It says they can't buy an item in a lingerie shop. And if - if - a lingerie shop is defined by where the majority of its profits come from, then Macy's wouldn't fall into that category. They're not saying a woman can't buy items to titillate. They're saying that a person using these funds - a man or a woman - cannot buy an item in a lingerie store. Can't buy lingerie and can't spend in a lingerie shop are not the same thing. Only a fool would say that Macy's would be considered a lingerie shop. Awwww....I take this post to imply that you think me a fool. Whatever shall I do.....how do I once again win your respect [&o] If the good people of Kansas ,and anywhere else for that matter,choose to use the functionings of government in such small minded petty ways as this I for one don't give a shit. I have no dog in this fight....but I would think folks feel that their elected officials have better things to do than this petty bullshit. Generalized statement not aimed at anyone.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875