Town Square

Post a New Topic

California welfare recipants now allowed to use YOUR money to buy alcohol and cigarettes!!!

Original post made by A classic on Sep 9, 2011

Next time you walk to the ballot box you should consider how your elected officials are using your money! Cheers!!!


Web Link

Comments (58)

Posted by Agreed, a resident of Amador Estates
on Sep 9, 2011 at 8:06 am

Dear Classic,
Among those you can "thank" are the editors, management and owners of the Pleasanton Weekly for strongly supporting any and all Democrat candidates who push the socialist welfare status on us.


Posted by Wow, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 8:14 am

I would love to get a liberal's defense of this. Something like like "it is inhumane to restrict vices from the poor and you are selfish and a racist for even bring this up."


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Sep 9, 2011 at 8:17 am

serious drinkers know where to purchase alcohol with no problem...


Posted by reformed_republican, a resident of another community
on Sep 9, 2011 at 8:48 am

I have been waiting for almost three years for just one post to make me see the light and make me switch over to the democrat party!! This is the post!! That's the best news ever!! I've decided to quit my job, collect the never-ending unemployment, apply for Section 8 housing, & now that I know I can indulge my smoking & drinking on the taxpayer's dime.....WOOHOO!!!! You guys finally got me!! Jerry Brown & Barry Obama, you know how to treat people right!! Here I wasted all this time working hard, paying taxes & just hoping when the weekend rolls around I have enough money to PARTY!!


Posted by Tea Party Gertrude, a resident of Birdland
on Sep 9, 2011 at 11:49 am

This comes as great news to me. We certainly don't want the Nanny State telling us what we can and cannot buy with our money. And purchases of cigs and alcohol will help stimulate the economy. Most tobacco and alcohol products are made in the US. Better to have them spend their money on American products than ludafisk from Norway or Olive Oil from Italy. Besides, past regulations of grocers determining what welfare and food stamp recipients can and cannot buy was a negative value practice that simply was not sustainable. On this one the Dems got it right! Liberty for all!


Posted by Wow, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 11:53 am

You are probably right, recipients likely do believe it is their money so they should be free to do what they want with it.


Posted by Welfare Mom, a resident of Walnut Hills
on Sep 9, 2011 at 12:01 pm

Yeah, that's what we pay taxes for -- so that if we slip through the net, there are govt support programs for us and our children. It IS my money, and I'll spend it on whatever helps me to get me and my kids through the day. Care to hire me at your office, chump? Didn't think so you smug, creepy ignoramus.


Posted by Wow, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Are you part of the 50% who pay no Federal taxes? If so, I'm not surprised to hear your attitude.

I guess booze and cigarettes help you and your kids get through the day?


Posted by Welfare Mom, a resident of Walnut Hills
on Sep 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm

I have paid my fair share of taxes in the past. Yes, a little booze and cigarettes helps me get myself and my kids through the day. Thanks for your compassion, you sicko.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Sep 9, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Note that the story linked to says:

"California's EBT/ATM card caught national attention last year ... Former (Republican) California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quickly quashed the vacation perks, but failed to stop the alcohol or cigarette buying ability."

So why is this a Democratic problem if it was caused by a mistake by a Republican Governor?

In either case, this is all a red herring. Regardless of whether direct buying of alcohol and tobacco is or is not allowed by EBT cards, people using EBT cards will find a way to get alcohol and tobacco by bartering goods. Same sort of things happen with food stamps. I'm not in favor of recipients of food stamps and EBT cards using public assistance to get alcohol and tobacco, but focussing on whether direct EBT purchases of these items is possible or not is, again, just a red herring. That's not the solution to the problem.


Posted by Tea Party Gertrude, a resident of Birdland
on Sep 9, 2011 at 12:30 pm

If we believe in individual liberty, then we ought to tolerate others having a drink or using tobacco.

Sometimes I think the people who talk about liberty are only talking about themselves, not the liberty of others. Given their own liberty, perhaps they'd use it to restrict the liberties of others. Restricting people on welfare from drinking or using tobacco products? Next maybe we should supply welfare investigators with smoke detection devices. All welfare smokers will then be jailed, or deported, which is what WOW seems to be most in favor of.


Posted by Wow, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 12:36 pm

One gives up some of their liberties when they take money from others - just like the parent/child relationship and when you take out a loan from the bank.

It is amazing to see such entitlement mentalities first-hand. No wonder this country is going down the tubes.


Posted by Welfare Mom, a resident of Walnut Hills
on Sep 9, 2011 at 2:40 pm

@ "One gives up some of their liberties when they take money from others - just like the parent/child relationship and when you take out a loan from the bank."

Right. Like they are no longer citizens with citizen rights?

WOW seems overwhelmed with hatred and the need to punish others for his unhappiness. What a miserable wretch he must be. He knows nothing about matters political, but uses political threads to vent his anger and misery and need to lash out at others.


Posted by Wow, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 3:05 pm

Of course they are citizens, but They have the responsibility to society and themselves to better themselves. I'd love to hear your argument on how smoking and drinking is a path to improvement.

Hey if they are paying for this stuff on their own, then by all means party all you want. But when they are on the taxpayer's time, its a different game. It is not their money - it is society's money that we are extending to them to help them out.

I'm sure you will be one of the ones on the street rioting (just like in Greece) when we finally do start cutting back on all these freebees.

If you don't like it, don't take the money.


Posted by So..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Apparently this is no change from the way it's been for years, but the furor now is over the fact that the California legislators decided to follow the Republican model and say that less government meddling is better than more?


Posted by Wow, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 3:33 pm

Let's not make this a Democrat/Republican thing. This is about what we society expect of people when society helps them out. I'm sorry but there is no great track record of people improving their lot in life when they are given a blank check with no strings attached.

And aren't you conveniently leaving out half the story? No meddling would mean not providing any support and letting people fend for themselves. This is not humane. But giving people money and making it easy for the to blow that money on their vices is not doing them or society and good.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 3:45 pm

This state is unbelievable.

I have also just read that a bill to unionize childcare has passed in the Assembly and is going to Jerry Brown. This one will be to unionize child care workers who receive state funds for looking after kids from low-income families. So if Jerry signs this (which I hope he doesn't) we as taxpayers will be on the hook for more union driven craziness.

And the unions are pushing through a last minute deal to delay a public vote on creating a rainy day fund until 2014 and require that citizen initiatives have to go on ballot in a general election, not the soonest election. They wrote the bill late last night and it may run through the whole law making process in less than a day so we the people don't have a say in this.

How the he## is California going to get better economically with this kind of thing going on???


Posted by Leland, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Sep 9, 2011 at 4:22 pm

I've always had a blank check regarding my alcohol and tobacco use, and it's never impaired my ability to stay ahead. Most of my wealthy friends at the club smoke and drink, and they seem to be doing fine. I realize that sometimes we need to clamp down on most of the little people who aren't capable of making the right choices. But if we restrict their alcohol purchases, then on the same reasoning we should restrict their purchases of pizza, hot dogs, potato chips, and chocolate milk. Sounds a little bit punitive to me, though I do admit the unwashed masses are a pretty motley bunch of people and frequently need to be told how to run their lives.


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 6:43 pm

Funny, when retired seniors use their social security checks to buy cigarettes and alcohol, no one seems to mind? Isn't that my tax dollars paying that social security check?


Posted by Wow, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 7:27 pm

I suggest you ponder the differences between Welfare and Social Security.


Posted by Ponderer, a resident of Ponderosa
on Sep 9, 2011 at 7:47 pm

They are both tyrannical entitlement programs that take away my money. No one should be able to drink or smoke with my money. Throw all the loosers in jail.

I also don't like people who drive slow in the lefthand lane. And why do the cashiers at Raleys always look at me funny?


Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Sep 9, 2011 at 8:34 pm

The article does not say that welfare recipients receive additional benefits for the purchase of booze and butts, so what's the problem?


Posted by Ponderer, a resident of Ponderosa
on Sep 9, 2011 at 9:15 pm

The PROBLEM is that welfare recipients don't deserve to have a good time, under any circumstances, period. Every wakeful hour of every day should be spent in abject misery until they find a minimum wage job to support themselves and their kids. They don't deserve to be able to kick back and relax at the end of the day. And if they want to deal with the anxiety of not being able to adequately support their family, they should eat a dozen hotdogs purchased at walmart for $1.99. Eating the hot dogs is cheaper than smoking a pack of cigarettes. I know. I've been there. My weight became something of a problem, but I'm currently down to 350, and I sure don't have to worry about dying from lung cancer. The thought of a welfare mom smoking a cigarette repulses me. I bet the founding fathers wouldn't have approved, and it's nowhere in the constitution.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 9:19 pm

It's just so frustrating Mike.

You work 50 hours a week, try hard to pay your own bills, try to meet your obligations. And you pay taxes, some of which goes to welfare. Which would be fine if it were the old fashioned concept of helping someone in need get back on their feet in times of hardship and trouble.

But it feels wrong that we should have to pay for luxury items, which alcohol and cigs are - you most definitely don't need them to survive and get back on your feet.

I am OK with my money going to help buy food and pay the rent etc. to help someone in need, but times are tough and I really don't want my tax money being spent buying someone else a beer when I have to put food on my table.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 9:25 pm

Ponderer, why don't you set up a "Beer and ciggie so welfare recepients can kick back and relax at the end of the day" charity. Then you and others who agree can all pitch in and make sure that every day ends with toxins if you really feel that is the way ahead. But don't expect those who don't have the means or inclination to do this via taxes.


Posted by Ponderer, a resident of Ponderosa
on Sep 9, 2011 at 9:31 pm

What are you talking about "voter"? I'm with you all the way. I don't like others having a good time, and especially welfare moms. They deserve to suffer, all the time. Why aren't you willing to tolerate yet another fascist poster like yourself?


Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Sep 9, 2011 at 9:44 pm

Voter,

I understand and agree with your feelings.

As much as I am personally saddened by this embarrassing statement about the world we live in, it seems that society will always have a certain percentage of people who can't or won't improve past the most basic level of existence.

As I grew, I thought this could or would change; but it hasn't.

Mike







Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm

To "Wow",

OK, I've pondered for a while. Both welfare and social security take tax money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't earn it. We got along just fine in the past without these big government giveaways. People need to take responsibility for their own lives and stop asking me to give them my money and that goes for seniors especially. Did you ever think about planning ahead and not asking others to bail you out? Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Nope, I have to agree with Ponderer. No Social Security for booze and cigarettes.


Posted by Ponderer, a resident of Ponderosa
on Sep 9, 2011 at 10:33 pm

@"As much as I am personally saddened by this embarrassing statement about the world we live in, it seems that society will always have a certain percentage of people who can't or won't improve past the most basic level of existence."

I'm also embarrassed by poor people like welfare moms feeling as if they need to smoke or drink to dull the pain of their life condition. It's one of the most embarrassing things I've ever experienced.

But it will Always be that way, as there will Always be smokers and drinkers who are unwilling or unable to improve themselves. I learned that in college.


Posted by No welfare, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 11:07 pm

Welfare and UNemployment are two different issues. So let's not confuse the two. The heading reads 'welfare' so I'll go with that, and disregard any UNemployment comments.
Welfare is my money, and I'll set the rules. When you earn your own money, you make your own rules, except for what our governments take away from each worker, against our will.
My rules would be no alcohol $$, and if you have one child, you know what caused it. While begging for money from workers, you cannot get pregnant. Since you know the cause, it could not be an accident. I would demand IUDs during welfare periods. If you can't feed yourself, you certainly can't humanely provide for additional children, My money, my rule. Include condoms in the welfare envelope, and all 'food baskets'. The best way to prevent hunger is to not breed more than you can feed. Churches should heed the bible....'teach them how' (to fish, to NOT get pregnant,etc). It's a moral, ethical, logical, and environmental policy. If you have 3 starving children, it would be inconsionable to breed a fourth for them to share their tidbits with....Or the pope could provide for his flock, and keep them trapped in centuries past. Don't get yourself in those fixes.....your problem, not mine, and my government should not make it my problem. Where is MY freedom from injustice,


Posted by Maria, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 11:16 pm

I'm confused. They refuse to enact MORE regulation and you guys are squawking? I'm not saying that the system doesn't get taken advantage of, I see it all the time. But the sheer hypocrisy cracks me up.

Ever heard the term "food desert"? Web Link There are some areas of Oakland that have liquor stores every block, but you can't buy fresh produce ANYWHERE. These folks aren't faultless for spending their money on drugs, but restricting purchasing behavior is a band-aid. There needs to be change on the street level.


Posted by always amazed, a resident of another community
on Sep 10, 2011 at 12:06 am

No Welfare has provided a great parody of the hypocritical Republicans who claim they are against a nanny state - unless it involves restricting women's consumptive and reproductive rights. Yeah, that's the kind of free society I want to live in!

Note too how No Welfare doesn't mention anything about deadbeat dads or their consumptive and reproductive rights. It's all the woman's fault. Nope, no neanderthal knuckle draggers on THIS site.

Reading these posts is funnier than watching professional wrestling as a kid. Is it real or isn't it? Are there people who actually hold these kinds of views living in our midst, or it is one master jokester who's fooling us all while entertaining us? It's a riot. Apparently, they're allowed out of their padded cells to VOTE on election day!

Sometimes I feel like I'm reading the likes of Don Knotts on crack. The tsunami is coming! My college professor said that. It's my money, and I'll set the rules the way I like. Obama is a half-black, half-white Marxist. I'm for reduced govt except where it involves militarizing the border and workplaces and schools and regulating the smoking and sexual habits of destitute moms. Fight on loyal tea partyists. Never change! There will always be people who try to sneak a smoke while they're suffering impoverishment. That's the embarrassing truth. But it's eternal, for always and evermore. Walmart prices are based upon heinous child labor practices? So what? It's probably just a union thug saying that. Say, is the union paying you to be on this site? Haven't seen anything like this since the old Joe Pyne and Morton Downey shows.


Posted by Job Creator Hero, a resident of Downtown
on Sep 10, 2011 at 10:57 am

I'm not a whiner. Honest. But I work nearly 60 hours a week. I like to think of myself as one of those heroic job creators. I own a couple of restaurants, and at times I've had to sweep the floors and wash the dishes myself. I know, that probably sounds humiliating to most of you. And I agree, I didn't deserve such humiliation. But its my taxmoney that I'm writing about.

A few days ago I was in Raley's and I saw a woman at the checkstand using food stamps. While fumbling around in her purse, a full pack of Marlboro Lights spilled onto the counter. My teeth almost fell out. AND she was buying birthday candles for one of her two kids (she probably has 6 or 7 more at home). Not regular birthday candles, but the trick kind that you blow out and then they relight themselves? I asked myself, what business does this deadbeat smoker mom have buying the trick candles at 2.99 a pack when she could get the regular candles at 1.99? That's MY money she's wasting away on one of her kid's birthday parties. By what right??? And with MY money!!! I don't have kids myself, but if I did, I wouldn't buy the trick candles. What GIVES with these people?

But what really angers me is I'll be passing a bunch of illegal aliens in their beat up pickup truck, and they'll all have smiles on their faces. What's THAT all about? It bothers me to no end. In this country illegally and having a good time? ABO ... Anyone But Obama in 2012.


Posted by Problem Solver, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 10, 2011 at 4:38 pm

The solution is patently clear. Anyone who is to claim govt assistance of any sort shall be tested for drugs every two weeks. In addition, anyone receiving govt assistance caught or rumored to be drinking alcohol or using tobacco products will be imprisoned and will have to take a two-year rehabilitation course before they can have their children returned to them. All welfare moms shall be forced to wear chastity belts that function much like ankle bracelets we currently have, except they'll be more comfortable.

All of these practical solutions are necessary in a society that maximizes liberty like the Founding Fathers wanted. No more Nanny State!


Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Sep 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm

In my opinion, people who have had, have and will have so little of the stuff that makes life right can do what they want with what the government gives them.

Or show me a program that has actually helped to reduce the problem and I'll give it my support.

This is a situation that should trigger sadness rather than anger.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 10, 2011 at 5:36 pm

I've been thinking about this one since yesterday and have changed my mind. I agree it's not really anyone's business how people spend the money they are given. I might make different choices, but it's not me there and you never know where life will take you - it's important to have a safety net for those truly in need. Though I stress truly in need.

I agree also with Mike's comment that it's a situation that should trigger sadness rather than anger. Mike, I just also wanted to say that I've noticed your thoughtfulness in posting on this message board. I might not always agree with you, but you seem like a very decent person and a good contributor to different discussions.


Posted by Converted Democrat, a resident of Danville
on Sep 10, 2011 at 5:49 pm

It's too late, voter. Based on what I've read on this post line, I've decided to switch parties from Republican to Democrat. Thanks a lot for showing me the light! ONce a Republican, now a Democrat.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm

I guess we'll cancel each other out because I'm making my first republican vote ever in 2012 :)

I voted for Obama and the line he kept making about going through the budget "line by line" was the one that really hooked me in. I'm really disappointed in him and his fiscal policies. Though I still think he's much better on the international stage than Bush was.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Sep 10, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Voter,

This is what discussion should be, the intelligent and civil exchange of opinions and facts through which participants can come to informed conclusions about issues of importance.

Mike


Posted by Jon, a resident of Beratlis Place
on Sep 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm

Civil dialogue is always better than uncivil dialogue. And it's better to be intelligent than dumb. People in glass houses should never ever throw stones when they can throw them from in front of other people's houses.

My vote is going for Michelle Bachmann. She is always always right and Obama is always always wrong.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 10, 2011 at 6:47 pm

Bachmann would worry me, so would Perry for that matter. I don't think it will come to that - I hope not. I'm really hoping for a true fiscal conservative with a more liberal social side. I'm not sure that's what we're going to get though unfortunately. I don't love any of the "first tier" folks now. But some of the others I find intriguing . . .


Posted by Changing, a resident of Del Prado
on Sep 10, 2011 at 6:54 pm

I am going from democrat to independent this time and voting for whoever is running against the democrat. This is ridiculous! We now allow our tax money to be spent on booze and smokes? What a joke! and to think i voted for most of these idiots.


Posted by Changing, a resident of Del Prado
on Sep 10, 2011 at 6:56 pm

voter,

it does not matter who they run against Obama because they have my vote. i cannot believe i was so stupid to have voted for that piece of s...........


Posted by Changing, a resident of Del Prado
on Sep 10, 2011 at 7:01 pm

heck i would vote for charlie the tuna!


Posted by Agreed, a resident of Amador Estates
on Sep 10, 2011 at 7:27 pm

Dear Voter and Changing et. al.
I admire you for realizing and admitting your political mistake (tho huge). It is not easy to admit this because political beliefs can run deep.

I personally was raised by public school and college teachers, both democrats, and therefore I thought it was my "destiny" to always be a democrat. However, soon after working for a living, I realized that I was more of a conservative and opposed most if not all democrat principles.

I've been a conservative (not necessarily a republican) for over 35 years now.

If I could impart any recommendations to you, I would caution you from voting for someone based upon their personality. First...re-evaluate your principles and then vote for the person whose principles closely resemble yours.

For example, I am not exactly thrilled with Sara Palin's communication style...but her principles are very consistent with mine...which are 100% aligned with the US Constitution. Therefore, I could definitely vote for her if she were running. (However, she may or may not be my first choice among the republicans...we will see who shakes out).

On the other hand, since Obama's principles are 180 degrees opposite of the US Constitution, any of the republicans would have my vote.

Principles matter.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Sep 10, 2011 at 7:29 pm

I'm willing to give Obama another 4 years.
I've benefited greatly during his time in office and tend to agree with the majority of his policies.

Mike


Posted by Peggy, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Sep 10, 2011 at 7:35 pm

Me too. I especially liked it when Palin charged rape victims 210.00 for rape kits. And she quit her governorship with such grace. And I read the books and newspapers she reads. And I believe dinosaurs roamed the earth with Adam and Eve too.


Posted by Steve, a resident of Parkside
on Sep 10, 2011 at 8:34 pm

Good one, mike...yeah, we can afford four more years...grab your ankles.
Give the welfare drones a blank check with no rules or strings attached and send the bill to the calif. Dem party HQ


Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Sep 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm

Steve,

Your experience and current situation may differ from mine. I can respect that.

Mike


Posted by Converted Democrat, a resident of Danville
on Sep 10, 2011 at 10:39 pm

Steve,

Your experience and current situation probably differs from mine. Since I don't know what your experiences have been, or what your current situation is, I don't know whether I can respect them or not. If they have involved wearing cone hats and sheets, as I suspect, then of course I cannot respect them.

More importantly, please don't expect me to respect the hate-filled idiocy that you consistently spew onto these pages. Don't get me wrong, I respect your right to spew hatred as you do; and rest assured that your idiocy always shows through to anyone with a brain. But I have no respect for you as a person. Our brain gives us the potential to think beyond our base prejudices. When people like yourself use your brain only to advance those prejudices, it deserves no respect, but only condemnation.


Posted by Martha, a resident of Country Fair
on Sep 11, 2011 at 9:32 am

I just do not understand how our elected officials at a time when they have bankrupted the state could vote to allow our money to be spent on alcohol and cigarettes. I find that thought process just amazing.


Posted by Jennifer, a resident of Jensen Tract
on Sep 11, 2011 at 10:47 am

It's obvious, Martha, that you've really thought this issue through.


Posted by Clifford, a resident of Del Prado
on Sep 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm

Jennifer,

Any purpose to your post other than to insult? Doesn't it bother you that the money you pay in taxes is be used for cigarettes and booze? Maybe it is because you do not pay taxes or simply do not care.


Posted by Jennifer, a resident of Jensen Tract
on Sep 11, 2011 at 4:48 pm

Yes, though sometimes it is difficult for one to say he/she thinks another's idea is foolish without appearing to insult them. I bet you get insulted a lot, right Clifford?

I may very well be wealthier than you. And I very well may pay more in taxes than you do. I drink wine with most of my meals, and beer on Sunday afternoons while watching football games. I also, to my husband's chagrin, enjoy a cigarillo after dinner. Now, why would I begrudge others who have less income than me the right to use tobacco and alcohol, unless I were to have strong fascist tendencies like yourself and others?

I bet you're one helluva guy, Cliff.


Posted by steve, a resident of Parkside
on Sep 12, 2011 at 8:42 am

converted dem: If I respected your opinion, I'd be concerned about your rant. However, I'm more concerned with your defense of drunk and tobacco addicted welfare mothers who are allowed to continue their unhealthy habits on the taxpayers dime.
It must be nice in your guilt-ridden ivory tower in Danville, eh?


Posted by steve, a resident of Parkside
on Sep 12, 2011 at 8:53 am

jennifer-since you can pay for your indulgences, it's your right to partake, but welfar is intened to cover basic survival needs, and booze and tobacco are not necessaities and using them is not a right.
Surely, even a bleeding heart liberal can see that. Invite some welfare recipients over to your house to watch football on Sundays, if you're that magnanamous.


Posted by Pat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2011 at 9:17 am

Oh, but it is perfectly OK to spend Social Security checks on this stuff (taxpayers footing the bill) and then use Medicare to pay for the health consequences (more taxpayers footing the bill). Seniors are bankrupting this country. It is disgusting.


Posted by Jimbob, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2011 at 9:53 am

Pat,

What's your point? Most people who receive Social Security and Medicare are white. I rest my case.

P.S. I couldn't live without MY tobacco and alcohol. It's when sexually promisquoous minority women use them that I get really riled up and loose all sense of my magnamanitee.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 1,026 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 758 views