You gotta hand it to politicians in 2011 - as far as shock value is concerned they make Marilyn Manson look like Donny Osmond. After all when was the last time that satanic freak did anything this outrageous or sinister:
St. Paul, MN – Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more than $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all...
House File 171 would make it so that families on MFIP - and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid - could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card.
(For those of you who actually give a shit, here's a link to the proposed legislation. If you're going to read it I recommend blasting a couple bumps of meth beforehand, as this is the only way to avoid having your body shut down from total boredom)
So far the reaction to this proposed legislation has been fairly consistent across the internet. This woman's article is typical of most opinions in that it's strongly disapproving. Reading between the lines of her post you can sense there's something explicit she wants to say that goes beyond what is ostensibly presented in her writing, something she can only allude to so as to not compromise the appearance of professionalism her website is trying to maintain.
Not so here at Street Carnage! We wade deep into the seas of hyperbole and conjecture; as such allow me to say what Susie Madrak and so many other writers only wish their editor had the balls to allow them to say:
Republicans in Minnesota think that people on welfare are irresponsible, Michael Jordan worshipping Niggers.
When they close their eyes to mentally visualize what a recipient of public assistance looks like, they see all five members of Bone Thugs N Harmony bouncin' a whip on 22's singing the Welfare Anthem while a benevolent white politician rains tax payer dollars down upon their BBQ cookout. Rims! Malt liquor! Basketball!
What responsible politician could allow such niggerish tomfoolery at the expense of white tax payers? And that's why we have this proposed legislation. Or at least that's part of the angle most writers seem to be suggesting.
Do I personally think this has anything to do with race? Not really. As this census table reveals there are about 5 black people living in Minnesota, and I'm pretty sure these figures were released prior to the Kevin Garnett trade. Of the remaining 4 blacks, one of them is Prince and the other 3 play for the Vikings.
Don't get me wrong, it's possible that the politicians in Minnesota are racist as fuck, but the statistics suggest that there are probably more poor white people in that state than there are poor black people.
So while the race angle certainly lends an exaggerated claim to outrage, it seems once again this is just a simple case of rich people despising poor people.
My question is this: What are these politicians hoping to accomplish with this kind of legislation besides antagonizing a class war?
One of my friends came up with a couple plausible answers:
1. Statistics show that people on welfare are also more likely to be crackheads with substance abuse issues*. Giving them a debit card prevents them from keeping their pipe lit and forces them to buy things they actually need (but would probably not suck a dick for).
2. Some of the people who collect public assistance don't really need it. They work under the table jobs and use welfare as a way to subsidize their incomes. By adopting a debit card system people who are defrauding public assistance will be less inclined to do so because it no longer means having access to real cash.
I still think it's all a load of unreasonable bullshit that is practically unenforceable in the real world, but who gives a fuck about what I think. What do you think?
4 comments:
There's also a section of the legislation which makes it illegal for welfare recipients to spend money on alcohol or tobacco products. You know, because poor people are poor because they're chain-smoking alcoholics.
You can take the Minnesota out of that title and it still fits.
Uh...I'm not sure how many poor people you've been around but quite a few of them are chain-smoking alcoholics. I am not saying that rich people can't be chain-smoking alcoholics but I *am* saying that it's legitimate to tell someone 'if you want free money because you're so poor, it is not too much to stipulate that we aren't buying you smokes and beer'. I don't see how that's racist.
@ last commenter
I don't either. That's why I say this isn't about race it's about class and the way the government treats poor people vs. how they treat rich people.
I think it's hypocritical that the people who support this legislation also (most likely, I don't know for sure) supported a 700 billion dollar taxpayer handout to Wall St. with NO OVERSIGHT, and are now making a big deal about knowing exactly how poor people spend their welfare check.
How can you justify handing money to those who are already rich with no strings attached while also demanding that the poor be restricted and monitored in the way they spend the money they're given without being prejudicial?
Post a Comment