What do you think?

**Taxmancometh** · August 17th, 2012, 07:32 AM

Bakery Owner Says She Will Not Accept Food Stamps

**Epidemic** · August 17th, 2012, 07:44 AM

I agree with her. I hope all businesses do the same with this EBT program. It is probably against the law to refuse though

once again if I as a tax payer am going to be subsidizing someone to help them live. It should only be to help them remain healthy nothing more.

**GroundZero3** · August 17th, 2012, 08:56 AM

What are the laws when it comes to EBT? I assume a business has the choice to accept these or not is that correct? If so then she has every right to say no to EBT so what is the big deal?

**Epidemic** · August 17th, 2012, 09:28 AM

I can't find out if it is legal to refuse EBT.

But I am frequently amazed that people defend the person using EBT for luxury items. if you are living on the public dole, you may have your reasons but I do not believe the public should have to pay for your entertainment anymore than they should pay for mine when I fall short at the end of the pay period.

When I run short on funds I do not ask my neighbor to buy me tickets to disneyland. Before I would demand society to assist someone I would most certainly insure that I provided just the essentials. EBT should be only used for life supporting activities. Basic wholesome food, Basic clothing, and Basic shelter. If there is money left over it should revert to the tax payer.

You as the recipient of such aid should be looked down upon if you try to do otherwise on the backs of those who offer you aid. The gaul of someone who would argue in the face of the following logic

Whiton told the customer that EBT cards shouldn’t be used to purchase luxury items such as cigarettes. Of course, the EBT holder didn’t take her refusal lightly and the two “had a little go-around” while the checkout line grew larger.

“I made the statement, ‘do you think myself, that lady, and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?‘ and he responded ’yes.’ Then he said, ‘Give me back my card.’ And I said, ‘Give me back my cigarettes,’” Whiton said.

is a crime.

When you consider abusing good will of the people a right.

I don't care if you are addicted, the government does not care if your addicted because they don't give you a pass on cocain when it comes to sentencing. Cigarettes are a stupid luxury that if you want them you have to earn. If you can't earn them then you must go without.

In fact if you continue to damage your body while on public assistance I might even say that you should be denied medicaid for cigarette related issues.

**Whir** · August 17th, 2012, 09:35 AM

I see a lot of whining and no suggestions on how to improve the system. But I guess that's pretty standard for this particular part of the forum.

Hell, the OP didn't even bother to make a statement. It's like playing a game of who can bitch the loudest.

**Epidemic** · August 17th, 2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Whir

I see a lot of whining and no suggestions on how to improve the system. But I guess that's pretty standard for this particular part of the forum.

Hell, the OP didn't even bother to make a statement. It's like playing a game of who can bitch the loudest.

Umm the solution is simple, don't allow EBT to be used for things other than basic necessities. Done!

**Whir** · August 17th, 2012, 09:54 AM

Fair enough.

So you think people on welfare should only be able to buy bread, milk and underwear? I mean, it's my dime they're getting too, you know. Doesn't my opinion count?

**Epidemic** · August 17th, 2012, 10:17 AM

So it is your opionion that a limited resource of tax dollars should be able to be spent on what ever the desires are?

Of course We can take the 1% 5% ...10% of money spent on booze and pop and cigarettes and give it to others with real needs.

If we pay say 200 hundred dollars a month on meeting the needs of people on EBT and 37$ is spent on a pack a day habbit, then that person did not need $200 they needed $163. Five such assholes could pay for another person "in need".

Do you think it is right to take more money away from the tax payers and their needs to cover this guys wants? Where do we stop covering wants, cable, X-box, xbox live subscription or do we just give the needy fun money?

How much fun money should a person receive so their kids can have cupcakes, soda, and they can have cigarettes/booze? Should we throw in some money into a vacation account?

If that 200 dollars given is what the calculation the government determined is needs, then obviously this guy is taking needs away from the kids and misappropriating funds. The money is not accomplishing the desired needs.

If he buys cupcakes then he did not buy an apple or cereal for the kid. Perhaps now the kid does not have enough food for lunch.

Why would you defend a persons who squanders tax money specifically designated for the welfare of people in need, on self destructive activies which deny children benefits?

**Whir** · August 17th, 2012, 10:37 AM

I don't recall defending anyone. Nor, in fact, did you even ask for my opinion before launching into a tirade of perceived injustices done to you and your fellow taxpayers.

Truthfully, I don't disagree that things like alcohol and cigarettes should not be purchasable with money received from government programs. But where should it stop in your opinion? Do the children of the poor not deserve an icecream sandwich or a bottle of pop because mom stays at home and dad got laid off?

But you didn't answer my question, you did whatever is you did up there instead.

**tony_j15** · August 17th, 2012, 10:46 AM

First off, I haven't watched the video. Second off, EBT is an application process, so if a business hasn't signed up to accept food stamps/EBT then they are under no obligation to do so. That said, IIRC, some EBT cards are cash/debt cards that work though a normal POS. If it is one of these cards, you doesn't really have the right (IMO) to refuse service.

I would suggest not getting into a pointless debate with Epi on this subject. His position is well known, and there are multiple past threads where this has played out. Leave him to his scroogery and move on.

**Epidemic** · August 17th, 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Whir

Fair enough.

So you think people on welfare should only be able to buy bread, milk and underwear? I mean, it's my dime they're getting too, you know. Doesn't my opinion count?

I took this to be your opinion. I think it implies that you are in disagreement with my point and somehow believe that they should be able to buy more than necessities...

**Epidemic** · August 17th, 2012, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by tony_j15

Leave him to his scroogery and move on.

Actually that is a false characterization of my position.

I support aiding the poor, what I don't support is giving them luxuries with funds that could better be used helping more people, or remaining with people who earn them.

No we should not give them money for ice cream for their kid. It is not required to raise a healthy kid.

people lived for thousands of years with out cupcakes and icecream.

Perhaps we should buy them x-boxes otherwise they will feel bad that their friends have em and they don't.

**Whir** · August 17th, 2012, 11:00 AM

Sorry Ep, Tony's right. We've had this argument before in that other "woman-won't-sell-cigarettes-to-welfare-guy" thread. No sense in rehashing it.

**Epidemic** · August 17th, 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Whir

Sorry Ep, Tony's right. We've had this argument before in that other "woman-won't-sell-cigarettes-to-welfare-guy" thread. No sense in rehashing it.

I know we have had the argument before, but I am still amazed that folks can defend the ice-cream for poor little johnny. That ice-cream is bought with little johnny's lunch money, and the cigarettes were the fresh produce needed for little johnny to grow up big and strong.

When i see someone defending the cigarette buyers right to buy smokes, it seems like a little perspective should be able to sway the defender. When logic does not work I am frustrated.