Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 2:22:00 PM (view original):
I'm responding to you.  We have a volunteer military force.  I never hear them complain when they're put in harm's way.   They signed up willingly.  They know the deal.   But people like you object to deployment.    "as an American I'm not going to advocate putting American lives in danger to help out the Ukrainian".   It's not your call, it's not a soldier's call. 

No ****. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree with deployment decisions.

So you do think smoking habits can be solved via welfare?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 2:08:00 PM (view original):
Seriously.   I think obesity is worse than smoking.   That said, not that many accidents are caused by sugar highs.   

I personally have no problem with disallowing smoking by those on welfare.   I'm just not sure why that's the "worst" abuse of funds. 

People need to eat. If they both a snickers bar, but that was their lunch? "I wasn't that hungry." OK.

If you see a continuous amount of unnecessary purchases from someone on welfare - $100 shoes one week, $150 dress another week, $75 shoes the next week, etc - sure, cut them off. They don't "get it."

I fail to understand your point.   Smoking seems to be your focal point whereas, IMO, going to the movies, owning a pet, buying expensive sneakers, eating junk food, etc, etc are just as poor in the financial decision department. 

So shouldn't you be able to afford movies, pets, sneakers, junk food without taxpayer money if you want those things?

I don't know exactly how much people on welfare get. Let's say it's $350 a week? If cigarettes cost $10 a pack, and you smoke a pack a day, that's $70 out of your $350. No. That gives you no benefit, you need to make an attempt to stop. 

People don't need to eat a Snickers bar.   Or fast food.     I'll moy-out here.   I've been there.   I ate 3 meals of fast food every day.   Cooking wasn't my thing nor was sandwiches.   So I spent about $15 a day on food.   That doesn't include a candy bar, soda or pack of chips.   Let's just say $20 per day.    Do you know how many days I could eat chicken and rice for $20?  I do because I did it. 

So, if you want "sound financial decisions" with your tax money, don't focus on one thing like smoking.   It's a big ol' bucket of them.

Still missing your point.   You hammer smoking but ignore other bad decisions.   Get some consistency if you're going to restrict welfare purchases.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I fail to understand your point.   Smoking seems to be your focal point whereas, IMO, going to the movies, owning a pet, buying expensive sneakers, eating junk food, etc, etc are just as poor in the financial decision department. 

So shouldn't you be able to afford movies, pets, sneakers, junk food without taxpayer money if you want those things?

If you want me to break down every scenario, fine. The overall point is that people who live on the government's money don't have the right, in my opinion, to do whatever they want with it. Welfare is supposed to be temporary.

Smoking - you have to show you're making an attempt at quitting. You need to be using nicotine gum or patches (can be provided by government) if you can't quit on your own.

Going to the movies - You can have some sort of a life. If you go to a movie every so often, ok. You're allowed to enjoy that. If you go to 4 movies a week, we have an issue.

Buying expensive sneakers - See previous comment on purchasing clothing.

Eating junk food - What did you eat, when? Are you buying 38 snickers bars a week, on top of 3 meals a day? A few every week isn't a big deal, it's a cheap food.

Owning a pet - Did you own the pet beforehand? Ok. You're getting a pet now? No, you need to give it back.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Still missing your point.   You hammer smoking but ignore other bad decisions.   Get some consistency if you're going to restrict welfare purchases.

If Snickers bars were $10, I'd have more of an issue. Smoking is expensive.

Movies:   Watch TV.  
Junk food:  No, sorry, at least as bad for you as smoking.  Quit being a fatass.
Pet:   Sorry, you can't feed yourself.   Give the pet a better home.

I eat fast food for lunch many days a week.  Because it's a cheap lunch. Two McChickens at McDonalds for $2. Sound financial decision.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Still missing your point.   You hammer smoking but ignore other bad decisions.   Get some consistency if you're going to restrict welfare purchases.

If Snickers bars were $10, I'd have more of an issue. Smoking is expensive.

So is being fat.