House passes bill to ban welfare in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores

[PeshakJang]

If states are getting welfare from the federal government, why should it be left to the states what they can do with that money? The federal government should get to dictate what the states can and can't do with that welfare.

That's exactly what the bill says, and what I support. How they enforce it is still left to them, since each system is set up differently.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet you continue to avoid answering it. You claim money is fungible, so this bill doesn't matter. You claim we shouldn't try to control how public money is spent by private entities since it isn't 100% sourced from the public. The exact same situation can be applied to taxpayer bailouts of private companies. It's public welfare. If a company makes $20,000,000, then gets $100 million from the government to avoid going under, and then pays out $20 million in bonuses to the top executives, would you claim that since money is fungible, it doesn't matter?

So I ask you again, do you have a problem with a private company paying bonuses to executives after receiving a taxpayer funded bailout?

Jesus Christ, you seriously have a reading comprehension problem.

You could absolutely ban big bonuses for banks if you wished, but you cannot ban liquor/stripper expenditures for TANF people. Why you ask? Because (prohibition problems aside) you are not banning the purchase of liquor/strippers/etc for these people, you are just banning their purchase of it using one portion of a fungible resource. ie: they can get around it insanely easily, making it pointless.

With banks on the other hand, it would have been fairly simple to limit those bonuses. First, you can put an outright prohibition on that activity, rendering the fungibility of funds meaningless. Second, there are a lot fewer big bonus bankers than there are TANF recipients, making compliance costs much lower.

I don't actually support either TANF people buying strippers with government cash or banks showing tons of cash on incompetent executives with government money. The difference is that the one you're talking about in this thread has nearly insurmountable compliance issues, making it a total waste of time.

All of this was readily apparent from my previous posts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Must be a slow outrage day, and the desires of conservatives to pose & posture in faux moral superiority must be sustained, therefore we have the bill & the topic at hand.

It's Terri Schiavo & Elian Gonzales all over again. Outrage! Outrage!

 

[PeshakJang]

Jesus Christ, you seriously have a reading comprehension problem.

You could absolutely ban big bonuses for banks if you wished, but you cannot ban liquor/stripper expenditures for TANF people. Why you ask? Because (prohibition problems aside) you are not banning the purchase of liquor/strippers/etc for these people, you are just banning their purchase of it using one portion of a fungible resource. ie: they can get around it insanely easily, making it pointless.

With banks on the other hand, it would have been fairly simple to limit those bonuses. First, you can put an outright prohibition on that activity, rendering the fungibility of funds meaningless. Second, there are a lot fewer big bonus bankers than there are TANF recipients, making compliance costs much lower.

I don't actually support either TANF people buying strippers with government cash or banks showing tons of cash on incompetent executives with government money. The difference is that the one you're talking about in this thread has nearly insurmountable compliance issues, making it a total waste of time.

All of this was readily apparent from my previous posts.

So your stance is that unless you can make something impossible, it is pointless to enforce?

You seem to agree that we should not be allowing people to use their benefits in such a way, yet you believe it is too difficult to enforce, so it should be allowed, right? And you argue that people would be using their own cash in place of these cards anyway... so why aren't they doing that now? What are they spending their own cash on? You think they go spend their own cash on food, then go to the casino with their card? How would that be any easier for them?

If they want to go to a casino, force them to use their own money. Take away the option. It's a lot harder to spend what you perceive as your own money than to spend somebody else's money, and a lot harder to spend cash than the use a card. These are facts that have been shown to be true. The money may be fungible from an accounting point of view, but to somebody sitting at home with a pile of cash and a food stamp card, there is a very big difference in behavior, that's indisputable.

 

[PeshakJang]

Must be a slow outrage day, and the desires of conservatives to pose & posture in faux moral superiority must be sustained, therefore we have the bill & the topic at hand.

It's Terri Schiavo & Elian Gonzales all over again. Outrage! Outrage!

Why can't you tell me if you oppose the bill or not?

 

[JS80]

Nope and in California these welfare 'debit cards' were lawfully used in strip clubs, vegas casinos, liquor stores, and Caribbean cruises.

loliberals being loliberally

 

[fskimospy]

So your stance is that unless you can make something impossible, it is pointless to enforce?

You seem to agree that we should not be allowing people to use their benefits in such a way, yet you believe it is too difficult to enforce, so it should be allowed, right? And you argue that people would be using their own cash in place of these cards anyway... so why aren't they doing that now? What are they spending their own cash on? You think they go spend their own cash on food, then go to the casino with their card? How would that be any easier for them?

If they want to go to a casino, force them to use their own money. Take away the option. It's a lot harder to spend what you perceive as your own money than to spend somebody else's money, and a lot harder to spend cash than the use a card. These are facts that have been shown to be true. The money may be fungible from an accounting point of view, but to somebody sitting at home with a pile of cash and a food stamp card, there is a very big difference in behavior, that's indisputable.

No, this was also readily apparent from my previous posts. Do you read? I am not at all convinced that the revenue saved will exceed compliance costs. And by the way yes, I believe that programs which cannot effectively be enforced shouldn't exist. It's a waste of time and money. I thought conservatives were against government waste?

They are spending the cards at liquor stores or whatever because it doesn't matter which place they spend their money, it's just something they don't have to think about. Do you really think it will be that difficult for people to shift the spending so they use the cards in one place specifically?

This is simply feel-good election year legislation. Keeping updated lists of what places constitute liquor stores, what businesses are grocery stores but also have liquor/beer in them, monitoring compliance, etc, etc will create significant costs. Wasteful.

 

[PeshakJang]

No, this was also readily apparent from my previous posts. Do you read? I am not at all convinced that the revenue saved will exceed compliance costs. And by the way yes, I believe that programs which cannot effectively be enforced shouldn't exist. It's a waste of time and money. I thought conservatives were against government waste?

They are spending the cards at liquor stores or whatever because it doesn't matter which place they spend their money, it's just something they don't have to think about. Do you really think it will be that difficult for people to shift the spending so they use the cards in one place specifically?

This is simply feel-good election year legislation. Keeping updated lists of what places constitute liquor stores, what businesses are grocery stores but also have liquor/beer in them, monitoring compliance, etc, etc will create significant costs. Wasteful.

You admit you have no idea of how much is spent where, and you don't know how much it will cost to enforce, yet you are convinced that the costs will outweigh the benefits. I'm curious if you at least have a ballpark. The bill puts the responsibility of implementation squarely on the States, and gives them 2 years to report on their program or face reductions in pay. Literally zero cost to the federal government.

What will be the cost to the state? How difficult of a task do you believe this will be? It's trivial legislation in the grand scheme of things... what needs to be done? Pass regulations through the state program that prohibits certain establishments from allowing state TANF funds from being redeemed within those facilities, or face fines. No new government agencies required, no new systems required. $5,000 penalty for businesses that are caught allowing the transactions, and then you simply scan records periodically for transactions that break the rules.

Or plan B, make it abundantly clear to recipients that certain businesses are prohibited from accepting these funds, and that they may have their benefits reduced if they are cause using them there. Give them several warnings if they are caught, through scanning transactions, and after maybe 3 repeat violations, reduce their benefits by 5-10%. Continue to do this until they are off the system, which they obviously don't need based on their behavior.

End result... A) Businesses implement policies to solve the problem, and people are forced to spend their own money if they really want to go there, which I guarantee will act as a disincentive, B) businesses that do not comply face the risk of fines in excess of whatever business they may have hoped to gain by avoiding the law, and C) the state collects fines from businesses that more than covers the cost of whatever work is involved, or D) people are weaned off of the system through reduced benefits that they obviously do not need. Bottom line, it forces government assistance to be used as intended.

I've laid out my case for the positives. I see no negative impact as you've described. Perhaps you can elaborate in such a manner as well.

 

[soundforbjt]

I wonder if this will turn out like the welfare drug testing in FL, where it cost more to implement then they saved.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Now if we could only ban corporate welfare, we'd be in great shape.

 

[Jhhnn]

I wonder if this will turn out like the welfare drug testing in FL, where it cost more to implement then they saved.

Yeh, but the money goes to *the right people*, so it's all good in Wingnutlandia...

Righties crave that feeling of having their panties in a knot, that good old sense of "moral superiority", of having somebody to look down upon, and this bill provides it.

Nevermind the Bailout & defense contractors gouging us for billions- It's the poor people that are the problem! And, by God, if it costs a dollar to save a dime on them, Righties are all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.

 

[fskimospy]

You admit you have no idea of how much is spent where, and you don't know how much it will cost to enforce, yet you are convinced that the costs will outweigh the benefits. I'm curious if you at least have a ballpark. The bill puts the responsibility of implementation squarely on the States, and gives them 2 years to report on their program or face reductions in pay. Literally zero cost to the federal government.

I'm not the person proposing the program. Do you have any idea how much it will cost to enforce? The burden of showing these costs and benefits is on those putting forth the legislation. I also have no idea why it matters if the states are paying vs. the feds. It is a cost to society no matter where it happens.

What will be the cost to the state? How difficult of a task do you believe this will be? It's trivial legislation in the grand scheme of things... what needs to be done? Pass regulations through the state program that prohibits certain establishments from allowing state TANF funds from being redeemed within those facilities, or face fines. No new government agencies required, no new systems required. $5,000 penalty for businesses that are caught allowing the transactions, and then you simply scan records periodically for transactions that break the rules.

I don't think you've thought this through. Liquor, beer, and gambling items are all sold through a wide variety of businesses. How are you going to audit the guy's purchase at the local deli to make sure he only bought bread and not beer? The only way you're going to make this enforceable is with vigorous (and expensive) compliance efforts.

Or plan B, make it abundantly clear to recipients that certain businesses are prohibited from accepting these funds, and that they may have their benefits reduced if they are cause using them there. Give them several warnings if they are caught, through scanning transactions, and after maybe 3 repeat violations, reduce their benefits by 5-10%. Continue to do this until they are off the system, which they obviously don't need based on their behavior.

You want to make a nationwide catalog of prohibited businesses? How would you keep up with movements, openings, closures, etc? That would be a tremendous undertaking. This is far more complicated than I think you realize.

End result... A) Businesses implement policies to solve the problem, and people are forced to spend their own money if they really want to go there, which I guarantee will act as a disincentive, B) businesses that do not comply face the risk of fines in excess of whatever business they may have hoped to gain by avoiding the law, and C) the state collects fines from businesses that more than covers the cost of whatever work is involved, or D) people are weaned off of the system through reduced benefits that they obviously do not need. Bottom line, it forces government assistance to be used as intended.

I've laid out my case for the positives. I see no negative impact as you've described. Perhaps you can elaborate in such a manner as well.

All of the regulatory problems aside, as I said initially people can just use non-government funds for such purchases without any actual change in behavior.

 

[spidey07]

Notice the mind if a liberal believes your money is ok to be spent on hookers and gambling by "the poor who need help".

This isn't cash. It's government debit cards meant to be used on necessities. I'll just swipe my ebt! My EBT!

 

[Craig234]

This is pure politics; Republicans want something they can say they passed.

Any mention of Eskimospy's point about the high costs of enforcement exceeding any benefit would be in some study well down the road reported in 'liberal media'.

This is manipulating voters, making them say 'ya, I'm against the poor getting all this excess wasting it on strip clubs! Good thing we have Republicans!'

I don't really object to it in principle, if it can be implemented affordably, it's just a phony political issue.

Republicans' real agenda is about shifting wealth from the people to the few at the top.

This is why they pass this crap - like the 're-affirming of God in the national allegiance'.

 

[Craig234]

I wonder how much money in strip clubs is collected by poor strippers with kids? Would be a logical place for them to use the card.

 

[soundforbjt]

Another fine example of repub's idea of "small/less" government?

 

[Doppel]

Guys, money is fungible.

Unless 100% of your money comes from such a program, this does nothing.

Exactly. It's completely fvcking worthless. Even if 100% of welfare recipients' benefits came via tickets usable only in certain stores on certain things, they could just sell them for money to spend at a liquor store anyway.

 

[umbrella39]

Nope and in California these welfare 'debit cards' were lawfully used in strip clubs, vegas casinos, liquor stores, and Caribbean cruises.

In Michigan you can't and never have been able to use your food only bridge card in strip clubs, casinos, or to buy liquor or cigarettes (directly). There are enough shady retailers who will give reduced cash for bridge card funds. 40% to 60% mark down. If your bridge card has $500 for food they'll cash you out for $200-$300 cash out the door. THEN go to the strip club or casino.

The old welfare checks that used to get mailed out now just go onto people's bridge cards, too. People who have welfare funds can and will simply just go to the nearest ATM and cash out their $$$ and THEN go to the strip club/casino/buy booze/drugs/cigarettes.

Not sure why anyone would think would we need an HR bill to ban something that is unenforceable.

Stupid bill for stupid people to get excited about, like drug testing welfare recipients.

 

[umbrella39]

Notice the mind if a liberal believes your money is ok to be spent on hookers and gambling by "the poor who need help".

This isn't cash. It's government debit cards meant to be used on necessities. I'll just swipe my ebt! My EBT!

How about addressing the enforcement issue instead of your usual resorting to guised personal attack blanket insults? No one in their right mind thinks you should DIRECTLY be able to do any of the things you are claiming "liberals" are co-signing here. Of course they should not be able to be used for those purposes.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't object to the idea of trying to get welfare spent on necessities, but banning these particular things sounds more like a pointless empty gesture to me...and a morality police one to boot. Not that I think welfare should be used to go to the strip club, but why be so weirdly selective? It just has the feel of symbolic gesture to me.

 

[soundforbjt]

nm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't object to the idea of trying to get welfare spent on necessities, but banning these particular things sounds more like a pointless empty gesture to me...and a morality police one to boot. Not that I think welfare should be used to go to the strip club, but why be so weirdly selective? It just has the feel of symbolic gesture to me.

A system was created which supposedly exists to provide that which is needed. There should be a lot more restrictions in place. Everything should be handled electronically and no cash at all. Like health savings cards there should be approved types of items and limits on some. Yes it will cost money but much has been spent on less useful things, and purple who work with those in the system can tell you of daily abuse. Regardless, assistance shouldn't be a lifestyle choice.

 

[Rainsford]

A system was created which supposedly exists to provide that which is needed. There should be a lot more restrictions in place. Everything should be handled electronically and no cash at all. Like health savings cards there should be approved types of items and limits on some. Yes it will cost money but much has been spent on less useful things, and purple who work with those in the system can tell you of daily abuse. Regardless, assistance shouldn't be a lifestyle choice.

That's the other part that's confusing to me. At least as far as I know, things like food stamps are already distributed in card form, not cash, and there are already limits on where the cards can be used (at least here in Maryland).

Like I said, I agree on limits in principle, this bill just seems kind of silly (and intended to get people riled up against welfare recipients). I'd much rather see a whitelist of things welfare can be used for...essentials like food, transportation, shelter, etc.

 

[GoPackGo]

Safety Nets aren't meant to be Trampolines

 

[Double Trouble]

There's one way you could really enforce this: track whatever expenditures are made at places that are not allowed, then the next month, reduce the amount of the assistance by that amount since the recipient has demonstrated that they didn't actually really need that money.

Of course, you shouldn't announce that you're going to do it, and voila, the taxpayers save a bunch of money going forward.