It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House GOP seeks to bar the use of welfare funds at strip clubs

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
IMO the government needs to get that money back.
Just take it back.

That way establishments won't accept that stuff again.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer
 


There are probably many places where I would agree with you. We actually need to get rid of a LOT of laws. But some laws are necessary.

It's only right (IMO) that funds from the government designed to help people with the basic needs of life, be spent on the basic needs of life. I'm not saying we should go into these people's houses to search for Twinkies or do drug testing to make sure they're clean, but if there's something to be done about people who abuse the system (and I consider this abuse of the system), without invading anyone's privacy, then I'm all for that.


You bring up a good point.

Where do we draw th line?
If we're giving them (basically) OUR money, do we put strings attached?
Drug tests? Invasive.
Strip bars? *meh* kay.

I mean, why have one and not the other?

Or just have neither. They are adults. If they want to go hungry, not pay bills, drink, gamble, then let 'em!

Just don't have them crying for more!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Drug testing is more cost than it is worth. The states that have it are already showing that the amount that fail it are miniscule. Strip clubs, casinos, massage parlors, liquor stores and other things are fairly easy to do, because it just requires a new machine on the premises that is incapable of dispensing cash from assistance cards. Or different cards that can only be used in certain places. As someone has already said someone will always find a way to game the system. That is human nature whether you are poor, rich or somewhere in between. The key is to minimize the methods in which abuse can occur. And it is time that law makers start looking into ways to stem the abuse so those assistance dollars can be focused on those willing to make the most of them.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


This is a slippery slope and no-one really sees it.

Welfare, is now an allowance. Government (papa) says here's money. DO this, DO that, DON'T do this though, or THAT!

And here we sit and argue the smaller points while ignoring the big picture.

I don't agree with the welfare system as it stands now. Period. I'm all for personal responsibility.
But lets get past that for a moment.

Now we have government providing funds to ADULTS for their "lifestyle" Yet we have the same government restricting certain freedoms and liberties when they provide these funds.

And people here are for it.

It's akin to slavery but people are going to it willingly!

If people are truly free, then any assistance given to them by MY respresentatives, should be without strings attached.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Meekbot2000
 



It is a credit/debit type card. While a good idea in theory, it's easier especially for people who don't have bank accounts to cash checks, what makes is good, in essence, also makes it bad. What to do...what to do




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Maybe the answer is to eliminate all direct welfare completely.

No food stamps, no cash welfare, no unemployment, etc.

Most recipients are able to work.

Most cities have plenty of unattended projects that need labor that the cities don't have the money for.

If the governments set up work details instead of welfare offices, and pay local minimum wages, that would solve the problem.

Even if people only work a few hours a day, that would equal the welfare amounts.

Of course, this would only apply to people who are not disabled or handicapped.
(probably the majority of recipients)

Then they could do whatever they want with the money.

It could be tax free money too, just like most of the welfare.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Maybe the answer is to eliminate all direct welfare completely.

No food stamps, no cash welfare, no unemployment, etc.

Most recipients are able to work.

Most cities have plenty of unattended projects that need labor that the cities don't have the money for.

If the governments set up work details instead of welfare offices, and pay local minimum wages, that would solve the problem.

Even if people only work a few hours a day, that would equal the welfare amounts.

Of course, this would only apply to people who are not disabled or handicapped.
(probably the majority of recipients)

Then they could do whatever they want with the money.

It could be tax free money too, just like most of the welfare.





Isn't a welfare check just a payment for doing nothing? (or just looking for work?)

If you CAN'T find a private sector job but WANT to work, then pay for work done is a practical solution.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I see this article in a few different ways. People that are living on those programs have in their neighborhood strip clubs and casinos. Middle class and rich hardly ever live near those facilities. So if the only place you can withdraw money at an ATM is at your local casino, which is in walking distance to your house then you might just use that ATM.

I think the lady in the article who states this is a smoke screen for the real issues has a point. Every place I have ever lived which was in the Ghetto had a strip club or a casino nearby.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




Isn't a welfare check just a payment for doing nothing? (or just looking for work?)

If you CAN'T find a private sector job but WANT to work, then pay for work done is a practical solution.


It would be better for the taxpayers.

And, the streets would be clean all the time, and maybe even stay in good repair.

And, the public areas would stay in good condition at all times.

This could actually cost less, and get some real work done that always seems to be ignored.

This would be a good opportunity for many who seek "meaningful" careers.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I see this article in a few different ways. People that are living on those programs have in their neighborhood strip clubs and casinos. Middle class and rich hardly ever live near those facilities. So if the only place you can withdraw money at an ATM is at your local casino, which is in walking distance to your house then you might just use that ATM.

I think the lady in the article who states this is a smoke screen for the real issues has a point. Every place I have ever lived which was in the Ghetto had a strip club or a casino nearby.


Good Point.

We need to remember that all Federal legislation comes from Washington and the Lobbyists are always involved somewhere.

There is always an underlying agenda.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I don't have a particular problem with people spending money how they choose to spend it. I'm not for testing welfare recipients, it is cost ineffective. And don't really see the point in adjusting ATM machines in casinos, strip clubs and what have you as a solution either because they will simply just withdraw the money and go there anyway. I do advocate that if you are on the assistance rolls and have no job, that community service should be required. If you are depending on the community to help you , there is no reason you cannot provide some kind of service to the community. And who knows maybe that service will lead to you finding a decent job.

My problem is there are plenty of areas of assistance that can be improved the Pell Grants being one of them. There are plenty of people that don't qualify for the assistance that would appreciate it. And far too many that qualify enroll and then drop out once they get the money. This is an occurrence I have seen first hand, and the reason it happens is because it is far too easy to do. I do love the idea of helping single mothers, and the less fortunate get an education but for the love of God let's make it so if you don't carry a C average you lose your eligibility for the next quarter or so. Whether or not you like the idea of assistance, the least we can agree on is working to ensure that it gets to the hands of people to do what it is supposed to do.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Drug tests? Invasive.
Strip bars? *meh* kay.

I mean, why have one and not the other?


Because one violates the recipient's person and the other doesn't.

reply to post by beezzer
 




Now we have government providing funds to ADULTS for their "lifestyle"


Welfare is not for a "lifestyle". Welfare is to assist individuals in NEED. Not to support a style of living. It's for survival. The basics.



It's akin to slavery but people are going to it willingly!


Oh. Hyperbole. Being on welfare is slavery. Sheesh!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
This is pretty disgusting to say the least. To think that something is in place to help people and there are some who use said help to indulge in less than necessary things (to put it lightly) is a slap in the face.

Although I totally agree with the idea that welfare funds should only be used to pay for necessities, how would you be able to enforce this across the board?

People do drugs. people do hedonistic things. It's human nature to indulge. Anything other than doing away with welfare altogether is simply an exercise is futility. Welfare exists for a reason. There are many who rely on welfare to feed their children and keep the lights and heat on. This is just a fact. Welfare in large in not a lifestyle choice and something on which people rely on as not to work. The facts are that welfare recipients do work and are poor. Working poor is something which is convenietly overlooked. This country has a lack of decent paying jobs. Welfare enables those who work lowest paying jobs to stay alive.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Take welfare out of the hands of the feds, put it back in the hands of States. They could easily expand the same system that States use for parolees in working off jail time. Implement pay for work programs with time limits on how long the recipients could qualify. Also, such programs are in essence paid work training programs.

It would be difficult at first. Once the permanent verified recipients have been identified, the free loaders could be put on work for pay assistance programs. jmoho



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


WOW!!! I am just in awe of this. I guess so called poor people need semi happy endings of a different kind...........LOL. This is funny, confusing and awful all in one swoop.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I believe in that whole heartedly. About a year ago I had to get temp assistance for like 6 months. It was something I should have done 9 months earlier than that but I let pride get me. Anyways, I asked if there was a work for food program where I could do community service since I am a tax payer I don't want to be a burden on other tax payers and the lady just laughed at me. It is too damn easy to get assistance. It's like taking candy from a baby. If a person is capable of working for those supplements then they should be forced to in order to get that assistance.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join