The_Sponge: ph0rk: The_Sponge: brantgoose: You're an adult and if not acting like an adult is what makes you happy, and it hurts no children or other third parties, then you have the right to be a dumbass.


You have that right.....just don't do it on my dime.

Move to a country without a safety net.


The concept of a safety net is to make sure people have the basic necessities. Please explain to me how going to strip clubs is a need and not a want.

How about you ask someone on welfare that question.

In person.

actualhuman: You could if you spent millions of dollars building and maintain your own payment processing network!

Or maintain the status quo and spend billions.

/ah fiscal liberalism

Remember folks, abusing government programs is only an outrage if you're poor. If you're a huge corporation or part of the military industrial complex you're just supporting freedom.

What should I be using welfare money for?

ph0rk: How about you ask someone on welfare that question.

In person.


Oh for fark's sake.

The_Sponge: ph0rk: How about you ask someone on welfare that question.

In person.


Oh for fark's sake.

Further, AFAIK they can have other small-time sources of income (occasional work, day labor, etc) without losing benefits.

Presumably they are still eating, so maybe they buy that food in cash and use the welfare card at a strip club. I'm having trouble getting bent out of shape at a potential misappropriation of $240.

Why are you so bent out of shape over it?

The_Sponge: ph0rk: The_Sponge: brantgoose: You're an adult and if not acting like an adult is what makes you happy, and it hurts no children or other third parties, then you have the right to be a dumbass.


You have that right.....just don't do it on my dime.

Move to a country without a safety net.


The concept of a safety net is to make sure people have the basic necessities. Please explain to me how going to strip clubs is a need and not a want.


You're confusing the argument. Yes, the money would ideally be spent on neccesities. Yes, there are people who try to abuse the system. NO, we should not treat EVERY person who needs assistance as a potential abuser.

No one said a strip club is a need. What I believe he's saying is, if you don't want a small portion of your taxes to go towards helping people because a few people will not use your help as intended, then move to another country.

bars and liquor stores employ workers and pay taxes. close the loop by legalizing pot and prostitution then that money will be part of the employment and taxation system as well.

GoldSpider: Welfare programs are intended for people who cannot afford the basic necessities like food and shelter on their own. When people accept welfare and spend the money on things like hookers and booze, they are stealing from people who actually do need the assistance.


Bingo!

And if you're spending welfare money on strippers and booze, it sounds like you have all your basics covered, so you don't need welfare any more, right?

We could just completely get rid of welfare, throw people out on the street, take away their food stamps and welfare checks. We'd force those poor lazy bastards to make money the old fashioned way: burglary, mugging, shoplifting, theft, drugs. And then when they are caught, we'll send them to prison which costs the taxpayer an average of $50k a year per inmate.

ph0rk: theBigBigEye: Huh. People actually advocating the abuse of welfare money?

/not surprised

How is it abuse?

Freakin' chicken crackers, are you actually asking that seriously?

FTA:
FOLLICK: Well again, we do not set the law, we only administer the program here.

REPORTER: Let me translate, that's just a fancy way to say, "Not it." DCF says it only hands out your cash, but doesn't have the authority to tell people what to do with it.

Fark you, "REPORTER." It's actually a fancy way of saying, "we're stuck with the situation as well, thanks to the law," you idiot. If they don't have the authority to do something, they're not allowed to do something - no translation needed.

DROxINxTHExWIND: No one said a strip club is a need. What I believe he's saying is, if you don't want a small portion of your taxes to go towards helping people because a few people will not use your help as intended, then move to another country.

This is more or less in line with what I believe.

I wouldn't be opposed to most of that money being re-allocated to subsidizing milk bars too, come to think of it.

/No, not the Korova milk bar.

bdub77: We could just completely get rid of welfare, throw people out on the street, take away their food stamps and welfare checks. We'd force those poor lazy bastards to make money the old fashioned way: burglary, mugging, shoplifting, theft, drugs. And then when they are caught, we'll send them to prison which costs the taxpayer an average of $50k a year per inmate.

Your entry for 2012 Strawman of the Year?

ph0rk: Why are you so bent out of shape over it?


Because people are gaming the system....and add in the fact that I was turned down for unemployment back in 2001 because I was 40 hours shy of reaching the minimum. Never mind the fact that I was laid off because of 9/11, never mind the fact that I had been earning paychecks since 1996. And even though I was screwed out of unemployment, I never went on welfare.

In other words, I'm pissed because decent people get farked over and scumbags get to work the system.

GoldSpider: The Jami Turman Fan Club: They're stimulating the local economy, and not committing crimes. What's the problem?

Welfare programs are intended for people who cannot afford the basic necessities like food and shelter on their own. When people accept welfare and spend the money on things like hookers and booze, they are stealing from people who actually do need the assistance.

If you qualify, you will receive welfare. I have never heard of any place that has a cap on the number of people receiving assistance. I understand your intent, but I do not think your statement is correct. No one has their benefits reduced because of what someone else receives.

And yes, I do realize that tracking down all the abuses will probably not be cost efficient. But that doesn't mean I still should not be pissed at people who do this.

The_Sponge: ph0rk: Why are you so bent out of shape over it?


Because people are gaming the system....and add in the fact that I was turned down for unemployment back in 2001 because I was 40 hours shy of reaching the minimum. Never mind the fact that I was laid off because of 9/11, never mind the fact that I had been earning paychecks since 1996. And even though I was screwed out of unemployment, I never went on welfare.

In other words, I'm pissed because decent people get farked over and scumbags get to work the system.

Were you this angry at Goldman Sachs? I believe they took a little more than $600.

Dancin_In_Anson: Here's an idea.

Why not set up state run stores where these cards will only be valid? The can be stocked with only items approved by the welfare program guidelines.

Take it a step further: set up the stores like a small grocery or convenience store in every decent sized community that has a high number of welfare recipients (so obviously not hamlets of 50 people, etc, since one assumes they already travel 'into town' for stuff). Those on welfare can choose off a list of groceries and goods, not to include junk food unless it's the ingredients to make their own (flour, chocolate chips, cheese, that sort of thing), and they put in their order for every week or welfare payment period. The money stays as store credit, they get the food and consumer goods they need rather than blowing it on 'whatever'.

In the town I live in, ~10,000 people, you could run a store like that with 3 people probably. It would provide a few low level jobs, and stop a lot of the fraud. Issue the folks a basic photo ID card to prove who they are at the store; in small communities especially, they'd quickly be known as regulars so it would be hard to pass off to another person in exchange for cash. Also those who really wanted to get off of welfare might feel more of a push to do so once the clerk starts calling them by name.

I'm sure there would still be people who'd figure out how to game the system but to me it seems like a way to cut down a lot of fraud.

theBigBigEye: ph0rk: theBigBigEye: Huh. People actually advocating the abuse of welfare money?

/not surprised

How is it abuse?

Freakin' chicken crackers, are you actually asking that seriously?

Ok, how is it abuse worth getting riled up over? How is it an Indictment of the system? How is it even remotely in the top 20 bad decisions this person has made?

Hell, even entering a strip club is just plain stupid.

All that said - I'm sure other people spend welfare funds on cable, internet, magazines (incl. pron), booze. All sorts of forms of entertainment. So?

DROxINxTHExWIND: I understand your intent, but I do not think your statement is correct. No one has their benefits reduced because of what someone else receives.

That may be true; I'm not sure how rigid state budgets are, but IIRC they are constitutionally obligated (at least my state is) to pass a balanced budget each year. As far as I understand, there is no unlimited pot of money for public assistance.

The_Sponge: ph0rk: Why are you so bent out of shape over it?


Because people are gaming the system....and add in the fact that I was turned down for unemployment back in 2001 because I was 40 hours shy of reaching the minimum. Never mind the fact that I was laid off because of 9/11, never mind the fact that I had been earning paychecks since 1996. And even though I was screwed out of unemployment, I never went on welfare.

In other words, I'm pissed because decent people get farked over and scumbags get to work the system.

unemployment != welfare, at least in this state.

And if that pisses you off, there are plenty of fatter cats to be mad at than some poor fark who blows his $240 in a strip club.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Were you this angry at Goldman Sachs? I believe they took a little more than $600.

Like them.

The_Sponge: If you guys are fine with this, then it would be totally cool if the government sent me $1,000 to use towards my next Vegas trip, right?

Did you get a tax refund? Someone should be watching you to make sure you don't blow it on drugs and booze. It's not like it is your money, it's borrowed from China and taxpayers are on the hook to pay it back with interest.

ph0rk: All that said - I'm sure other people spend welfare funds on cable, internet, magazines (incl. pron), booze. All sorts of forms of entertainment. So?


So how about I receive some government money for my cable bill, booze, internet, etc.?

ph0rk: And if that pisses you off, there are plenty of fatter cats to be mad at than some poor fark who blows his $240 in a strip club.


True, but this thread isn't about them.

The_Sponge: ph0rk: All that said - I'm sure other people spend welfare funds on cable, internet, magazines (incl. pron), booze. All sorts of forms of entertainment. So?


So how about I receive some government money for my cable bill, booze, internet, etc.?

So go qualify for it. If you can't, quit biatching - you obviously have plenty of money.

Why is the dumbass reporter grilling someone who administers the program? How many times did the guy really need to tell her "we don't write the god damned laws?" I'm no fan of government agencies, but this reporter really ought to be asking the state legislator's why this is allowed, not the communications director just doing what the lawmakers are telling him to do.

vpb: Did you get a tax refund? Someone should be watching you to make sure you don't blow it on drugs and booze. It's not like it is your money, it's borrowed from China and taxpayers are on the hook to pay it back with interest.


The hell it isn't my money...especially when you consider the fact that the $900 I received was an interest-free loan to the federal government.

The_Sponge: And yes, I do realize that tracking down all the abuses will probably not be cost efficient. But that doesn't mean I still should not be pissed at people who do this.

Then why not go with the most cost efficient scenario? Wouldn't that be better use of government money?

GoldSpider: Your entry for 2012 Strawman of the Year?

It's a bit of a strawman, I admit. But there are plenty of advocates of getting rid of welfare, which is really what we're arguing about.

I think most people would agree that the people who actually abuse welfare already do not have a high moral compass. Are they more likely to commit criminal acts? Possibly. Some of them might just live a shiatty existence and want some occasional comforts.

And people will always find ways to abuse items that can be traded. For example, if you bought diapers with welfare money, and then you sat outside and sold the same diapers at a slight discount for cash, you'd have the good you need to go to the strip club, right? How are you going to stop that kind of abuse? With a 'welfare store'? No.

In the end, the money goes back into the system, regardless of whether the welfare recipient is abusing it. And the costs involved to investigate every instance of welfare fraud or even to incarcerate people would be silly. Again, the money goes back into the system, regardless of how it is being used.

I also think that welfare fraud is not as abused as people think. I'm fine with a social safety net.

the only ppl "they" are stealing from is themselves.

fuk it, let em eat cake....cake cake cake cake

JBangworthy: How many times did the guy really need to tell her "we don't write the god damned laws?"

ding ding ding.

Some loss/shrinkage/whatever is bound to happen, and bound to happen in places exactly like this.

It would cost far more than the "misappropriation" to police against it. Besides, entertainment is what keeps the unemployed generally sated and not mugging people, so I'm pretty ok with that.

/I still think a strip club is a waste of money, though.

bdub77: We could just completely get rid of welfare, throw people out on the street, take away their food stamps and welfare checks. We'd force those poor lazy bastards to make money the old fashioned way: burglary, mugging, shoplifting, theft, drugs. And then when they are caught, we'll send them to prison which costs the taxpayer an average of $50k a year per inmate.


Ah, the old hostage argument. We have to give them something so they don't take more. This is a standard liberal stance which demonstrates just how much faith and belief in humanity the liberal actually has. I think if you take away welfare, a few people might turn to illegal means to get by, but the vast majority would just do something legal and productive. Kind of like the rest of the world that doesn't have extensive social welfare.

ph0rk: theBigBigEye: ph0rk: theBigBigEye: Huh. People actually advocating the abuse of welfare money?

/not surprised

How is it abuse?

Freakin' chicken crackers, are you actually asking that seriously?

Ok, how is it abuse worth getting riled up over? How is it an Indictment of the system? How is it even remotely in the top 20 bad decisions this person has made?

Hell, even entering a strip club is just plain stupid.

All that said - I'm sure other people spend welfare funds on cable, internet, magazines (incl. pron), booze. All sorts of forms of entertainment. So?

Remember, it's *our* money that we are giving him (through our taxes) that this dork in TFA, and others like him, are abusing. As mentioned by a few posters above, welfare money is supposed to help cover the most basic necessities such as food, toiletries and other living expenses that are classified as an essential need for a period of time.

Needless to say, anyone is able to survive without alcohol, lapdances, internet, cable/satellite, etc.

The_Sponge: ph0rk: And if that pisses you off, there are plenty of fatter cats to be mad at than some poor fark who blows his $240 in a strip club.


True, but this thread isn't about them.

I'm guessing you're not as loud about them.

And as far as the big picture goes, encouraging a "gimme gimme" culture is not a good thing.

bdub77: I also think that welfare fraud is not as abused as people think.

And we can thank these types of articles. The outrage to abuse ratio is very skewed.

theBigBigEye: Remember, it's *our* money that we are giving him (through our taxes) that this dork in TFA, and others like him, are abusing. As mentioned by a few posters above, welfare money is supposed to help cover the most basic necessities such as food, toiletries and other living expenses that are classified as an essential need for a period of time.

Needless to say, anyone is able to survive without alcohol, lapdances, internet, cable/satellite, etc.

It costs more to police its use - to make sure they don't spend it how you don't like.

It costs me nothing to ignore them, which is what I'm pretty sure you do when you aren't mad at them taking your money, anyway.

The_Sponge: And as far as the big picture goes, encouraging a "gimme gimme" culture is not a good thing.

If one is old enough to collect welfare, any "culture" is more or less immutable.

JBangworthy: I think if you take away welfare, a few people might turn to illegal means to get by, but the vast majority would just do something legal and productive.

What, by getting jobs? hah!

I suppose this guy's data means shiat to some people?

Fraud is down to 1 percent - or a penny on the dollar - in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the food-stamp program, Kevin Concannon, undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services at the Agriculture Department, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Granted, that 1% is still $753 million dollars, but holy shiat, 1%. That's pretty farking good for government work.

ladyfortuna: Dancin_In_Anson: Here's an idea.

Why not set up state run stores where these cards will only be valid? The can be stocked with only items approved by the welfare program guidelines.

Take it a step further: set up the stores like a small grocery or convenience store in every decent sized community that has a high number of welfare recipients (so obviously not hamlets of 50 people, etc, since one assumes they already travel 'into town' for stuff). Those on welfare can choose off a list of groceries and goods, not to include junk food unless it's the ingredients to make their own (flour, chocolate chips, cheese, that sort of thing), and they put in their order for every week or welfare payment period. The money stays as store credit, they get the food and consumer goods they need rather than blowing it on 'whatever'.

In the town I live in, ~10,000 people, you could run a store like that with 3 people probably. It would provide a few low level jobs, and stop a lot of the fraud. Issue the folks a basic photo ID card to prove who they are at the store; in small communities especially, they'd quickly be known as regulars so it would be hard to pass off to another person in exchange for cash. Also those who really wanted to get off of welfare might feel more of a push to do so once the clerk starts calling them by name.

I'm sure there would still be people who'd figure out how to game the system but to me it seems like a way to cut down a lot of fraud.

You could make them all wear an identifying armband, or perhaps a letter on their forehead.

The_Sponge: And as far as the big picture goes, encouraging a "gimme gimme" culture is not a good thing.

I'd rather have the "gimmie gimmie" culture, as you put it, instead of the "fark you [poor, old, disabled people, etc], I got mine" culture.

Fano: actualhuman: Darth_Lukecash: Dancin_In_Anson: Gulper Eel: The problem is the cards themselves. They are commonly traded for cash, booze, smokes, etc.

Trade away. Just don't allow the card itself to be redeemed anywhere else.

You can code the cards to work only in a grocery store.

You could if you spent millions of dollars building and maintain your own payment processing network!

/Ahh, fiscal conservatism.

Eh, we already have ABC stores across the country

Because that's just exactly the same farking thing?

/And according to wiki only 19 states still have those antiquated puritan liquor monopolies.

Ha, I got "The Scarlet Letter" confused with "Red Dwarf". How does one do that?

chookbillion: You could make them all wear an identifying armband, or perhaps a letter on their forehead.

Whodowhat?

The_Sponge: And as far as the big picture goes, encouraging a "gimme gimme" culture is not a good thing.

SMH. Who is encouraged because they found out that as long as you can show you're poor, you can make $240.00/ month to take to the strip club? What the fark makes you think that even the FEW people who did use the money fraudulently want to be in that situation? The folks who cry about the misuse of welfare are normally the same folks who fight to take money out of education and try to limit the amount of public funds that go to job training and college assistance. you won't teach these people to fush, but you give them fish and get angry at the way they choose eat it. They're human beings. We need more than to be watered and fed. This isn't to say that I excuse it, but I understand it. And in the grand scheme of things to worry about it should be very low. Its just another way that those in power turn us against one another. We fight over the scraps while they eat steak.

JBangworthy: Ah, the old hostage argument. We have to give them something so they don't take more. This is a standard liberal stance which demonstrates just how much faith and belief in humanity the liberal actually has. I think if you take away welfare, a few people might turn to illegal means to get by, but the vast majority would just do something legal and productive. Kind of like the rest of the world that doesn't have extensive social welfare.

Again we're talking about the few people who actually abuse the system. The ones who don't abuse it I would argue aren't hurting anyone.

But again this is all hypothetical, since you have no numbers to prove your point. I'm sure you know "the rest of the world", your incredibly vague assumption, contains a number of undeveloped nations that have extensive human rights problems, while the ones that do have extensive social welfare tend to be, oh I don't know, prosperous developed nations?

I wish they wouldn't think of it in such a negative way. It's really just a transfer of welfare money to help support single mothers.

chookbillion: ladyfortuna: Dancin_In_Anson:

You could make them all wear an identifying armband, or perhaps a letter on their forehead.

Yes because that's exactly what I was advocating. No, wait, it was a better system of controlling how the money is used, you moron. You don't want it spent on smokes and booze? Make sure the clerk knows who they are. It apparently works for people who write bad checks, after all.

ladyfortuna: chookbillion: ladyfortuna: Dancin_In_Anson:

You could make them all wear an identifying armband, or perhaps a letter on their forehead.

Yes because that's exactly what I was advocating. No, wait, it was a better system of controlling how the money is used, you moron. You don't want it spent on smokes and booze? Make sure the clerk knows who they are. It apparently works for people who write bad checks, after all.

Unintended consequences - entering such a store will have severe negative stigma.

Unless you're ok with that, in which case: armbands.

The_Sponge: And as far as the big picture goes, encouraging a "gimme gimme" culture is not a good thing.

You're right, all those CEOs sucking on the government....oh nevermind.

The whole argument is silly. The amount of money is fixed, if someone wants to skimp of food to spend the money on something else, it's their sacrifice. It's not like they are getting extra money to give to strippers. The idea that there are hordes of people who want to live on $240 month so they don't have to work is absurd anyway.