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

[EagleKeeper]

Right, but when you are giving money there is no possible way to control that unless someone's monthly stripper/booze expenditures exceed their total amount of cash from other sources.

If you think that using $20 of government cash at the grocery store and then $20 of your cash at the liquor store is better than using $20 of your cash at the grocery store followed by $20 of government cash at the liquor store, uhmm... ok. To me it makes no difference, the outcome is identical.

I get the point, it seems wrong to give people money that they will use in that way. I'm just saying that it's not really possible to stop it. This is feel-good legislation that does nothing.

Government should not issue cash. Debit cards that are coded so as to not allow cash back and can not be used to pay for certain items.

 

[Patranus]

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

Yup. Everything in CA takes EBT.

Why do you think Walmart and Target are making a push into groceries?
Its because they want to tap the EBT revenue stream.

 

[fskimospy]

Government should not issue cash. Debit cards that are coded so as to not allow cash back and can not be used to pay for certain items.

As already discussed earlier in this thread, that is not a great impediment.

 

[Patranus]

Government should not issue cash. Debit cards that are coded so as to not allow cash back and can not be used to pay for certain items.

No.

There is a massive problem with people selling their EBT for pennies not eh dollar.

Government should have soup kitchens where people can get free food such as BPJ sandwiches or soup.

I should see someone use EBT to purchase a case of Fruit Rool-ups at Safeway.......not a box, a case.

 

[Zorba]

I think this bill is nothing but grandstanding, but all-in-all I agree with the concept. I don't see how enforcement would be all that hard, every business that takes credit cards reports what kind of business they are and the card administrator can just turn the cards off at certain places.

When I was in college and grad school I had a university credit card, I couldn't use it a bars, liquor stores, casinos, etc. The system was just a flag setup on the account. For example, I couldn't use my card at Pizza Hut because they had identified themselves as a Bar.

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't think in the grand scheme the amount of taxpayer money spent in the strip club etc makes any difference, it's insignificant. That said, I prefer some system where people get vouchers for specific things they need assistance with, which would not include luxury items, casino play etc. If they want to buy those things, they should get a job to make money to do so. Assistance should be for the things people actually need.

 

[cybrsage]

I think they should be allowed to use it to buy crack. They can convert it to cash to use to buy crack anyway, so might as well make it legal...

 

[Zorba]

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.

^ My feelings exactly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Much depends on state implementation. In NY there are few restrictions and one can get change bach in the form of cash. Once that happens it is too often spent on smokes and alcohol an sadly drugs. What we really need is comprehensive reform, not merely keeping people on the program or kicking them off, but work towards providing education and and accountability combined with considered policies aimed at improving job prospects.

 

[fskimospy]

I think this bill is nothing but grandstanding, but all-in-all I agree with the concept. I don't see how enforcement would be all that hard, every business that takes credit cards reports what kind of business they are and the card administrator can just turn the cards off at certain places.

When I was in college and grad school I had a university credit card, I couldn't use it a bars, liquor stores, casinos, etc. The system was just a flag setup on the account. For example, I couldn't use my card at Pizza Hut because they had identified themselves as a Bar.

How long do you think it will take people to find out what grocery stores/pharmacies/delis/etc sell beer and wine where the cards will work at, and exactly how long do you think it will take for unscrupulous businesses to change their labeling to attract more buyers?

 

[piasabird]

Just ban welfare!

Or shut down the strip club for about 3 months for taking welfare clients. Then they will self regulate. Allow people to call in complaints.

 

[Kantastic]

The Republicans are big on and or sounding like they are keeping the foot down on the poor. How big a problem is people spending welfare funds in strip clubs, casinos, etc?

Pretty big fucking problem when you see the supposedly impoverished, welfare-claiming, tax evading bastards pick up 55" Samsung LED TVs, XBox 360s, and SONY 7.1 surround sound speakers on Black Friday when, according to their tax forms, they should be living paycheck to paycheck in some government-subsidized housing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Pretty big fucking problem when you see the supposedly impoverished, welfare-claiming, tax evading bastards pick up 55" Samsung LED TVs, XBox 360s, and SONY 7.1 surround sound speakers on Black Friday when, according to their tax forms, they should be living paycheck to paycheck in some government-subsidized housing.

Ahh the Soros/ Patterson debacle.

 

[Darwin333]

I actually amended that to the fact that your expenditures on strippers and booze would need to exceed your non-government income.

I think the cost to block debit transactions from those places will be higher than you think (if you are actually interested in enforcing compliance). I am in no way convinced this will save the taxpayers a single dime.

I don't think its intended to save the tax payers a single dime. They haven't reduced the people on welfare or the welfare payments they have simply restricted a few places that they can use their welfare. I think it is perfectly reasonable bill.

 

[PeshakJang]

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.

I laid out a scenario where the costs would be negligible. The closest I have to report on the costs are articles from various states:

California:

In a recent seventh-month period $1.8 million in public assistance was withdrawn from cash machines on casino floors, according the newspaper that broke the story earlier this year.

California paid out a maximum of $704 per month in 2005 (most recent I can find). Assuming that everyone gets the maximum benefit, that's over 360 families who can't get benefits because somebody wants to gamble it away. This is only looking at casinos too, not including liquor stores and other establishments.

So why is it with liberals, that whenever you support a program, it's all about helping people no matter the cost, but when it comes to this, we are suddenly concerned about the cost of enforcement? Especially when I clearly showed that the burden of enforcement can almost completely be put on the establishments in question, why are you still so insistent that these people be allowed to steal from other needy families?

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.

OK, it makes more sense now... you didn't read the fucking bill.

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.

Typical libthought that government starts at the federal level. You don't need a nationwide anything. A state wants to receive welfare money? They need to set up the compliance program. Wanna guess how many states already have done so on the heels of recent news investigations into this? Quite a few.

Feds tell the state to do it if they want the money. The state tells the businesses that they can't accept the cards, or face fines. Random audit every month and start throwing down fines. Businesses now have a disincentive to accept the cards, and the abuse is lowered. I fail to understand how you manage to turn this simple, trivial bit of enforcement into some sort of massive, federal case, requiring billions of dollars and a new bureau of TANF enforcement.

This is what happens when you insist that government starts and ends in Washington.

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.

Then why don't they do that now? If they have cash and TANF, why are they spending cash on food, and TANF at casinos? Do you honestly think there is no difference in behavior when it comes to spending your own cash versus the government's debit card? It's not even an arguable point, it's a verifiable behavioral fact.

Secondly, if they are doing that, all it means is that they obviously don't need the TANF to support themselves. Take it the fuck away and give it to a family that truly does need it. Aren't you supposed to be all about compassion and helping the truly needy?

 

[shortylickens]

It doesnt matter. People will either flat out break the laws or find ways around them.

Yesterday saw a woman using her food stamp card (or whatever) to buy a bunch of garbage at 7-11. She used under-the-table cash from her job to buy cigarettes.
As if to drive home the point of how sad those people are, she didnt understand buying a 5-pack of Black N Milds was a better deal than buying 5 individual Black N Milds. The cashier had to explain it several times. She got tired trying to figure out the difference between 5.50 and 4.50 & just gave in.


Other regular thing is to sell your 100 dollars of food stamps for 90 bucks cash to someone else. Then buy all the cigs and beer you want.

Am thinking it would be better for the government to invest in MRE's and pass them out once a week.

 

[PeshakJang]

how long do you think it will take for unscrupulous businesses to change their labeling to attract more buyers?

So if the problem is the businesses that accept the cards in violation of the law, why don't you support cracking down on this?

There is no sense in enforcing immigration and employment laws, because unscrupulous businesses will always find a way around them, right?

Why should we allow these corporations to continue to siphon welfare money from the lower class? Why don't you want that money to go to the truly needy?

 

[Doppel]

I'm amazed that only a few of us realize how something like this cannot be enforced. Already eskimospy mentioned earlier, why are people still pretending it's enforceable? Even if everything was tracked via debit, I mean 100%, if I want my liquor I can just but not one bag, but two bags of paper towel this week and trade that with somebody for liquor who's not on welfare, it's meaningless.

 

[Doppel]

It doesnt matter. People will either flat out break the laws or find ways around them.

Yesterday saw a woman using her food stamp card (or whatever) to buy a bunch of garbage at 7-11. She used under-the-table cash from her job to buy cigarettes.
As if to drive home the point of how sad those people are, she didnt understand buying a 5-pack of Black N Milds was a better deal than buying 5 individual Black N Milds. The cashier had to explain it several times. She got tired trying to figure out the difference between 5.50 and 4.50 & just gave in.


Other regular thing is to sell your 100 dollars of food stamps for 90 bucks cash to someone else. Then buy all the cigs and beer you want.

Am thinking it would be better for the government to invest in MRE's and pass them out once a week.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-develop-growing-up-poor/

 

[PeshakJang]

I'm amazed that only a few of us realize how something like this cannot be enforced. Already eskimospy mentioned earlier, why are people still pretending it's enforceable? Even if everything was tracked via debit, I mean 100%, if I want my liquor I can just but not one bag, but two bags of paper towel this week and trade that with somebody for liquor who's not on welfare, it's meaningless.

If a kid wants booze, I guarantee he can find somebody who is 21 that will buy it for him... yet somehow we still manage to enforce underage drinking laws.

Is this really that insurmountable a concept for some people? I've already made a very concise case for how to enforce it. Put it on the business. Get caught allowing TANF withdrawals in your casino? $5,000 fine for each occurrence. It will end in 1 month, I promise you.

For something so simple, this is proving to be a pretty hard concept for some of you.

 

[Craig234]

Safety Nets aren't meant to be Trampolines

You missed the memo.

"What the poor need is a trampoline so they can spring up," he said. "So I want to replace a safety net with a trampoline."
- Newt Gingrich quoted this week

 

[Doppel]

If a kid wants booze, I guarantee he can find somebody who is 21 that will buy it for him... yet somehow we still manage to enforce underage drinking laws.

Is this really that insurmountable a concept for some people? I've already made a very concise case for how to enforce it. Put it on the business. Get caught allowing TANF withdrawals in your casino? $5,000 fine for each occurrence. It will end in 1 month, I promise you.

For something so simple, this is proving to be a pretty hard concept for some of you.

OK, it's easy to ENFORCE. However, the law's PURPOSE is not easy to achieve.

Your example of drinking age is a good one. In fact, I never when underage had a problem getting the alcohol I needed.

 

[feralkid]

How long do you think it will take people to find out what grocery stores/pharmacies/delis/etc sell beer and wine where the cards will work at, and exactly how long do you think it will take for unscrupulous businesses to change their labeling to attract more buyers?

Nanoseconds for most; about ten minutes for the slower ones.

Even if one agrees with the goals of this bill, the tactic is utterly bone-headed.

 

[Steeplerot]

Once again "small government" conservatives show their desire to socially engineer what other people they think are against them do with their money. Same old BS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8

The reactionaries will never learn it seems, regardless of stripe.

 

[fskimospy]

So if the problem is the businesses that accept the cards in violation of the law, why don't you support cracking down on this?

There is no sense in enforcing immigration and employment laws, because unscrupulous businesses will always find a way around them, right?

Why should we allow these corporations to continue to siphon welfare money from the lower class? Why don't you want that money to go to the truly needy?

This is becoming a circular argument. You were saying that compliance costs would be low because of the labeling of businesses. I just mentioned a really easy way for businesses to get around it (and there are lots more). Now you are questioning why I don't want to enforce it? Well if we do what is necessary to enforce it, now we're jacking up compliance costs. You can't have it both ways.