Starting tomorrow, if you’re on public assistance, you can’t wire money out of the country.

[martybegan]

Lots of people have jobs and are on food stamps. You’re saying they can’t send their wages overseas? That doesn’t accomplish what you want it to.

If you have money to send overseas, you don't need food stamps.

It's exactly what we are saying.

Why do you enjoy ripping off taxpayers?

 

[TimFitz]

Another step in regaining control.

Follow the money.

Lies.

Facist lies.

 

[Marener]

No President will. I think this will pass muster unless the judge is a lefty idiot.

So you have read the legislation in question? Quote it.

I haven’t seen the legislation or the rule making process.

The purpose of getting rid of Chevron was so your judges can let conservative presidents do whatever they want and stop liberal presidents from enjoying the same authority.

 

[citygator]

It's a step in the right direction to controlling our own government programs.

You might as well bar them from using vending machines. That will go great too. Just as effective. You all are nuts.

 

[Marener]

If you have money to send overseas, you don't need food stamps.

It's exactly what we are saying.

Why do you enjoy ripping off taxpayers?

How about if you’re on food stamps, you can’t donate to your church?

Where does the authority end

 

[Hafar1014]

How about if you’re on food stamps, you can’t donate to your church?

Where does the authority end

At our border

 

[martybegan]

I haven’t seen the legislation or the rule making process.

The purpose of getting rid of Chevron was so your judges can let conservative presidents do whatever they want and stop liberal presidents from enjoying the same authority.

And yet you ***** about it and make it a point of this thread, typical.

The purpose of getting rid of Chevron was twofold, to return the executive to the President and not unelected bureaucrats, and to make Congress do its ******* job.

Now we need to get rid of this whole "independent" executive agency bullshit and we can really get back to how the government is supposed to run vis a vis the US Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

You might as well bar them from using vending machines. That will go great too. Just as effective. You all are nuts.

Nope, we draw the line at the border, and it's a fair line.

 

[martybegan]

How about if you’re on food stamps, you can’t donate to your church?

Where does the authority end

As long as the Church is in the US, fine by me.

We draw the line at the ******* border, very easy to understand unless you are a brain dead SJW ****.

Oh, wait....

 

[Marener]

As long as the Church is in the US, fine by me.

We draw the line at the ******* border, very easy to understand unless you are a brain dead SJW ****.

Oh, wait....

But the law would also allow any future president to draw the line anywhere they want. Right?

 

[Marener]

And yet you ***** about it and make it a point of this thread, typical.

The purpose of getting rid of Chevron was twofold, to return the executive to the President and not unelected bureaucrats, and to make Congress do its ******* job.

Now we need to get rid of this whole "independent" executive agency bullshit and we can really get back to how the government is supposed to run vis a vis the US Constitution.

But you don't think Congress needs to pass a law allowing the president to stipulate conditions on public assistance.

Your first reason is gibberish. If the "unelected bureaucrat" is doing it, that's authority derived from the president. Your political theory is so incoherent. You just say shit.

 

[citygator]

Nope, we draw the line at the border, and it's a fair line.

Im just saying its unenforceable and easy to get around whatever they do... are they going to establish a data base of recipients? That sounds Orwellian.

 

[martybegan]

But the law would also allow any future president to draw the line anywhere they want. Right?

Yep.

 

[martybegan]

But you don't think Congress needs to pass a law allowing the president to stipulate conditions on public assistance.

Your first reason is gibberish. If the "unelected bureaucrat" is doing it, that's authority derived from the president. Your political theory is so incoherent. You just say shit.

They probably already did in the law that created the public assistance in the first place, by allowing the agencies to regulate it.

Not my problem you can't or won't understand things you disagree with.

 

[martybegan]

Im just saying its unenforceable and easy to get around whatever they do... are they going to establish a data base of recipients? That sounds Orwellian.

So what?

Even if we cut it at first by 50% that's 50% that wasn't staying in the country before.

You don't know what "Orwellian" means.

 

[Marener]

Yep.

So a future administration could say that you're not allowed to donate to any charities or political campaigns if you are on public assistance. They can stop you from spending your money in any way they want.

Sounds pretty ******* authoritarian to me.

 

[citygator]

So what?

Even if we cut it at first by 50% that's 50% that wasn't staying in the country before.

You don't know what "Orwellian" means.

50%? No way. Just like abortion, this will probably go UP after banning it.

Im not changing the subject just pointing out the GOP has no interest in solving problems... just care about making a commercial or talking point out of them.

Abortions in the US are on the rise three years after Roe v Wade was overturned

A growing number of abortions happen through telehealth – including for women in states with strict bans

www.theguardian.com

 

[Anathema]

If they can pull this off, it’s a great step in the right direction

I don’t like my tax dollars going for social programs. I definitely don’t want that money leaving the USA to aid sub-human scum on the other side of the world.

 

[martybegan]

So a future administration could say that you're not allowed to donate to any charities or political campaigns if you are on public assistance. They can stop you from spending your money in any way they want.

Sounds pretty ******* authoritarian to me.

That would be violating first amendment rights probably.

You don't have a first amendment right to send money overseas.

There should be restrictions on public assistance, designed to make you want to get off said assistance and run your own life.

 

[martybegan]

50%? No way. Just like abortion, this will probably go UP after banning it.

Im not changing the subject just pointing out the GOP has no interest in solving problems... just care about making a commercial or talking point out of them.

Abortions in the US are on the rise three years after Roe v Wade was overturned

A growing number of abortions happen through telehealth – including for women in states with strict bans

www.theguardian.com

This is trying to solve a problem, waste and graft in government spending.

Abortion isn't a proper comparison.