Providers on WIC

Right wing republicans should not be hobbying.

Dude you are breaking the law, but now you get mad at her?

Just curious if you are married, that would make it even funnier!

ummmm. Where? Originally Posted by J.G. Wentworth

Its called the "California Dream Act".

This is exhibit A on why there should be a flat-tax on all purchases that go to the gubment. Reduce income tax across the board and throw in a .10 Fed tax, problems solved. Escorts, pimps, dope dealers, illegals and the ~ 150M people who pay no taxes still pay their share.

If you want to drink the milk, you damn sure need to help feed the cow!

Really dude? If she's on WIC, she has a kid and probably doesn't want to rely on fucking strangers alone to feed her kid. You CAN be on WIC AND have a job, what you posted was a bold-face lie. We spent $1.8 Trillion in wars since 2000 and the CEO of my company has a effective tax rate lower than mine, but let's get our panties in a bunch over the $200 an escort receives to feed her kid. Then she has the audacity to buy cigarettes! Once you give someone money, it ain't your business what they spend it on, it's THEIR money.

If she is a provider and pays her taxes..she has just as much a right to get government assistance as anyone else.

True story: I gave a provider a ride to the store the other day after a session in which I paid her in cash.

She pulled out a WIC card to pay for her groceries. Huh? Originally Posted by 2long

I suppose the provider left her Beamer at the incall, right?

Over 35% of even FULL-TIME Wal-Mart employees are paid so little they qualify for various types of financial assistance from taxpayers yet you're not complaining that Wal-Mart cons US into subsidizing their labor force!

I'll bet you DIDN'T write off the mileage you drove to the store on your expense account and I'll bet you also elected to "clock out" so your employer wasn't footing part of the bill for your "hobbying habit", right?

Sure.

Others made good points as well - Ron Mexico especially - when he said once you gave the money to her, it was hers to do with as she wanted.

Your outrage is comical - what if your employer said he didn't want to fund your "lifestyle" and fired you for being a philanderer?

It is not against the law for someone to have a job and get assistance as long as they pay or at least file their income taxes accurately as the lovely Reese said!

As for the Dream Act, it covers CHILDREN who were brought here illegally by one or both parents and who attended school here and who excelled in school well enough to be accepted to college. Many are brilliant and overcame language barriers, many also overcame an inability to get help from parents with homework, most had severe financial hardships and above all, as children, they had no real say in their U.S. residency. Instead of being lazy, they chose to work their asses off to become successful.

What do you want, scholarships for U.S.-born PIMPS while you throw bright, dedicated kids who made the best of a bad situation to the curb?

We might wind up with a populace that is as ill-informed as are you!

True story: I gave a provider a ride to the store the other day after a session in which I paid her in cash. After she filled up the cart, we proceeded through the checkout and the checker gave her the total.

She pulled out a WIC card to pay for her groceries. Originally Posted by 2long

So? WIC covers baby formula, crappy cereal, crappy cheese, and milk. What's your point?

That pissed me off. If you've got a job as a provider, you should not have a WIC card and government assistance. Originally Posted by 2long

Why would that piss you off? It's shouldn't. I've paid taxes for 30 years. I WISH I could get WIC now. Why should she not have a WIC card? That money you just gave her probably goes towards her rent. In case you didn't know, WIC doesn't pay that either. What we do isn't easy. If all she got herself was a scratch off and a pack of cigarettes to reward herself for sucking your dick, well good for her! At least she didn't go pick up any other type of vice.

I suppose the provider left her Beamer at the incall, right?

Over 35% of even FULL-TIME Wal-Mart employees are paid so little they qualify for various types of financial assistance from taxpayers yet you're not complaining that Wal-Mart cons US into subsidizing their labor force!

I'll bet you DIDN'T write off the mileage you drove to the store on your expense account and I'll bet you also elected to "clock out" so your employer wasn't footing part of the bill for your "hobbying habit", right?

Sure.

Others made good points as well - Ron Mexico especially - when he said once you gave the money to her, it was hers to do with as she wanted.

Your outrage is comical - what if your employer said he didn't want to fund your "lifestyle" and fired you for being a philanderer?

It is not against the law for someone to have a job and get assistance as long as they pay or at least file their income taxes accurately as the lovely Reese said!

As for the Dream Act, it covers CHILDREN who were brought here illegally by one or both parents and who attended school here and who excelled in school well enough to be accepted to college. Many are brilliant and overcame language barriers, many also overcame an inability to get help from parents with homework, most had severe financial hardships and above all, as children, they had no real say in their U.S. residency. Instead of being lazy, they chose to work their asses off to become successful.

What do you want, scholarships for U.S.-born PIMPS while you throw bright, dedicated kids who made the best of a bad situation to the curb?

We might wind up with a populace that is as ill-informed as are you! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Is a WIC card something you use to light a candle?

Just more proof the system is broken. Don't blame people using the system, blame those who made the damn thing so easy to exploit.

Term limits. First step.

You don't have enough information to determine whether this is an abuse of the system or not. First, as others have pointed out, you can have a job and qualify for WIC. It depends on how much the job pays. If this provider accurately reported her income, and still qualifies for WIC, I have no problem with her using the benefits that she qualifies for.

On the other hand, if she is not reporting income that she earns, and she earns enough to pay income or self-employment taxes, the she is a criminal. A tax cheat. Plain and simple. She should go to prison in my view. However, and please don't take this as defending her in any way, she in hardly alone among Americans on cheating on her taxes. This is especially rampant among those paid in cash. There is a huge underground cash economy that is poorly policed and in significant degree avoids taxation. But were she caught and were to come before me as a judge, I would have no hesitation in sending her to jail. Just like a waiter. A construction worker. Or any other person making cash and avoiding taxation.

Finally, I don't approve of her drawing WIC and buying cigarettes and lottery cards. However, in this instance, you have conflicting values of government assistance and freedom. And there is no effective way to prohibit those who draw public assistance from making foolish purchases with the funds that they have. Frankly, the fact that they make poor decisions often accounts for why they need public assistance benefits in the first instance. I don't know how to fix stupid, and both purchases are just that -- stupid. But I don't advocate starving a needy mother's child because her mother makes stupid purchases. Do you?

Put her in jail and do WHAT with her kids?

While you're at it, round up all the millionaires and billionaires who circumvent the system.

So she can't buy a pack of cigarettes and lotto ticket? Come on.

So? WIC covers baby formula, crappy cereal, crappy cheese, and milk. What's your point? Originally Posted by hotlips

WIC covers quite a bit more than that. It is supposed to be items mainly for pregnant or breast feeding women, infants, and children under 5 but there is a lot of standard grocery stuff included as well.

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wichd/WI...e-brochure.pdf

I only say this to show an example of how a system slowly expands over time, moving away from its original intended purpose. The list is now quite a bit more expansive than just "stuff for babies".

The woman in question here isn't the problem, the system is the problem. It's broken badly and the only way it's ever going to be fixed is when it finally collapses under it's own weight and has to be rebuilt from scratch. I fear we are not as far from that as many would like to believe.

Put her in jail and do WHAT with her kids? Originally Posted by Rambo Creed

You make a point but there is a problem with selective enforcement of the law. If she breaks the law should her punishment be altered because she has kids? How will that work out when bank robbers start claiming they need to stay out of jail to care for their babies? You're right, it puts even more burden on the system if someone with kids goes to jail, but you can't start selective enforcement. And yes millionaires who exploit the system should be rounded up as well, but they can afford to keep out of trouble. It's a no win.

Put her in jail and do WHAT with her kids?

While you're at it, round up all the millionaires and billionaires who circumvent the system.

So she can't buy a pack of cigarettes and lotto ticket? Come on. Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Re Tax Cheats. I absolutely for putting millionaires and billionaires who cheat on their taxes in jail. I would be less forgiving of them cheating than others.

That being said, the tax code is often drafted in such a way that tax avoidance (which is legal) is more available to the wealthy. Likewise, tax evasion (which is quite illegal) is something that very few wealthy people will risk, but many of limited means who work for cash do engage in. But so far as I'm concerned, anyone who engages in significant tax evasion should be sent to jail.

And if you will read carefully, I didn't claim that they shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes and a lotto ticket. I said it was a foolish purchase for anyone (poor or otherwise, but especially for someone who is poor). And while you would like to make someone who is on public assistance spend their personal money wisely, that conflicts with the value of personal freedom and is impossible to enforce. Therefore, there is no, nor should there be any such prohibition.

Isn't it risky seeing a provider who smokes, or does your wife smoke too?