My new favorite (loony) politician.

[The_Animus]

If they are a welfare recipient, duly enrolled and collecting a legal benefit, it's their money. What other legal products shouldn't they buy? Bottled water? Chewing gum? Diet soda? Iceberg lettuce? Does anyone really need these things? Should they be compelled to buy only clothes that are used or on sale? Should we dictate where they can set their thermostats?

Feel free to argue the semantics of "their money" and what it can be spent on with someone else or in another thread but I'm sticking to the topic I was discussing, using welfare money to gamble. Do you honestly support taking money from people and giving it to others to gamble with? Or are you just arguing to argue? If it's the former I demand you prove it by giving me your money so I can go to the casino : )

If people on assistance stopped buying lottery tickets, it would be a net loss for the government.

Giving people welfare who don't need it so they can go buy lottery tickets is an even bigger net loss.

Plus, do you think the part the government doesn't get back disappears? It circulates. Job creation. We might not agree on basics but here are a couple of articles.


Do lotteries hurt the poor? Well, yes and no
http://news2.sanford.duke.edu/newsletters/dpn/summer00/lottery.html

Personal finance: Lottery mania hurts low-income players
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/dec/05/1205c-personal-finance-lottery-mania-hurts-low/

No, I mentioned all the non productive waste. You're touting the equivalent of digging holes and filling them back in. Sure the people hired to do it get a paycheck and spend it somewhere but you're much better off paying someone to do something productive from the start.

 

[Manopolus]

I like the mil-vets w/ guns at college. Since I am a mil. vet and licensed to carry.

I don't, and I'm a veteran as well. I would not consider my comrades in the military to have been any more qualified or moral to enable them to carry firearms in situations where others cannot.

Exactly what training did you get to think otherwise? I know I didn't get any that would suggest the distinction.

 

[Manopolus]

I assume you are joking, but just in case...

Nothing about this is efficient or responsible. It takes administration overhead to collect the taxes, to determine recipient eligibility, to give them the money, to spend the money at a gas station (which I assume gets a cut for administering the selling), to check for winners, to pay winners (including those other than the welfare recipient), and to collect taxes on those winnings.

The purpose of welfare is to permanently help those who are permanently unable to support themselves (due to disability, etc) or to temporarily help those who are temporarily unable to support themselves (medical issue, job loss, etc).

It's taking money from others so you can gamble, and most of that money is wasted on administration that produces nothing of value and the remainder is paid out to other random people as winnings.

Granted Stacey's other bills range from bad to disgusting but even a broken clock is right twice a day and as far as I can see this is one that actually makes sense. In this thread this bill was originally framed as an attack on the poor, but that seems like a partisan view to me and I'm usually far left of center.

A lottery win for such people means that we will no longer have to pay their bills. What's the problem with that? Someone's going to win, so why not somebody that eliminates future government transactions?

Seriously, how do you even know that they didn't get the ticket from a relative for Christmas or something anyway?

I don't even know if I should get into the whole money = human worth equation you seem to subscribe to. That attitude is total BS, and it's probably time your self-righteous self had someone put you in your place for it. The people that HAVE money are the people who put a high priority on money, and the people that inherited it... neither has anything to do with human worth whatsoever. Weirdly, the supposedly more "Christian" party subscribes to this notion, and yet Christianity itself considers fiscal poverty to be a virtue rather than a sin.

So... either stop feeling guilty for having more money than most, or at least stop trying to compensate by defaming the less fortunate. There is no actual worth in this opinion, and it doesn't make you look any better to anybody when you express it.

When it comes to welfare, either the money is theirs to do what they want to with, or we shouldn't give them money to begin with. Either they are as free as the next guy or we put them in concentration camps or something... or let them starve or be criminals or something. It is virtually impossible to implement anything in between. I know which I prefer.

When you GIVE something to someone it is THEIRS to do with what they wish. You do not get to dictate how they use it.

 

[RandFan]

Be nice if you ever mentioned some of the wackjob politicians on the Left. It's not like the Right has a monopoly on kookiness.

Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Rick (pray for rain) Perry, etc..

I'm sorry but the right has elevated wacjob to an art form. Fox news give them all platforms and they spew nonsense left and right. The left, try as they might with their propaganda arm, MSNBC, just cannot match the, incompetence and idiocy of the right.

 

[RandFan]

A person who spend welfare money on lottery tickets is a net loss in tax revenue because at the end of the series of transactions the gov has less than they started with.

People need to go to jail for using welfare for lottery tickets. In fact, it's against the law. Do you have statistics to show how much money is lost through welfare fraud and abuse?

Again, I'm against welfare fraud and abuse. However, on the whole welfare including SNAP and other programs are good for the economy and money well spent by govt.

Most people don't want to live on welfare and people who spend money on lottery tickets won't be able to use those resources to purchase things they need.

Any system that provides resources for the poor will have some level of inefficiency and fraud. There will always be a line at which someone will calculate that it is easier to do nothing and collect welfare than to do something. That fact however does not change the fact that civilized societies fair better to see to the most vulnerable.

 

[shemp]

You're missing a smiley.

True, with the current GOP, the local crazies tend to make it to National Crazy status (Cruz, Inhofe, Bachmann, et al) but I'm sure there are more Ralph Shorteys out there. Anyone remember State Sen. (OK) Shortey? He's the guy who introduced the Stacey-esque bill to keep human fetuses out of foodstuffs.

You have to have faith in the American system! There will always be new crazies on the rise. I think that there are a minimum of three FOTLers in the New Hampshire assembly (they'd be the ones who sponsored the bill to legitimize all future state legislation by quoting a portion of the Magna Carta).

How dare you impugn New Hampshire's reputation? There's got to be at least a couple of dozen!

 

[Minoosh]

Feel free to argue the semantics of "their money" and what it can be spent on with someone else or in another thread but I'm sticking to the topic I was discussing, using welfare money to gamble. Do you honestly support taking money from people and giving it to others to gamble with? Or are you just arguing to argue? If it's the former I demand you prove it by giving me your money so I can go to the casino : )

It's their money, which point you will not concede, so I don't think we'll ever agree. You support limiting what people on assistance can buy. I was trying to find out what other legal products you would put in that category but you chose not to answer.

The acid test is not whether I will give you money to gamble; it's whether the casinos will. And they often do, offering low-cost rooms, discount buffets and gambling tokens to entice gamblers. If the casino pays you to gamble, the casino still wins. Its built in to the business plan. If poor people didn't buy lottery tickets, lottery revenue would fall.

 

[TheSapient]

If you're taking welfare from the state, you probably shouldn't be buying lottery tickets. I for one don't support taking other peoples money so you can gamble. Trying to enforce a ban on lottery tickets or other gambling for people on welfare would be impossible but by limiting the possible winnings you remove the incentive to buy them. The 600 limit is probably because smaller winnings are common enough to place a burden on those checKing tickets and paying out winnings at gas stations and the like.

Should people who who receive welfare be allowed to see a movie? Or rent one for $1 at a Redbox? Should they be able to buy a book? Or bus fare to get to the library? Once someone accepts a welfare check, ALL of their money, welfare or not, should only be spent on bare necessities and savings?

Should that be limited to welfare? What about someone who receives other government benefits?

 

[Francesca R]

Do you honestly support taking money from people and giving it to others

Well I do

to gamble with?

Unless it is a conditional welfare payment then that is immaterial.

There is merit to many conditional transfers but absent a preference for all welfare to be conditional on what it is spent on (which would offend liberty too much IMO), some of it will be unconditional and therefore spending it on lottery tickets is not grounds for objection.

 

[Francesca R]

You support limiting what people on assistance can buy.

This is the way a lot of assistance is arranged.

Brazil's bolsa familia is a high profile example

 

[TheSapient]

Well I do

Unless it is a conditional welfare payment then that is immaterial.

There is merit to many conditional transfers but absent a preference for all welfare to be conditional on what it is spent on (which would offend liberty too much IMO), some of it will be unconditional and therefore spending it on lottery tickets is not grounds for objection.

Do you have thought on how the government would distinguish between welfare income and other sources of income if all welfare assistance was conditional?

 

[Francesca R]

Not without offending liberty way too much

 

[RandFan]

I'm still waiting for an example of a nation that provides little or no public assistance and whose GDP, Economic Freedom and or HDI are high.

 

[Francesca R]

From who?

 

[The_Animus]

Seriously, how do you even know that they didn't get the ticket from a relative for Christmas or something anyway?

This is a valid argument that I hadn't thought about. While I still don't support using welfare money for gambling, the proposed bill would; potentially punish welfare recipients who got the ticket as a gift or be an administrative nightmare if not unenforceable altogether. So unless someone can think of an efficient work around to this problem I no longer support the bill.

I don't even know if I should get into the whole money = human worth equation you seem to subscribe to. SNIPPED FOR SPACE

I don't believe any of that. If you go back through my posts I think you will find none of that applies to me.

When it comes to welfare, either the money is theirs to do what they want to with, or we shouldn't give them money to begin with. Either they are as free as the next guy or we put them in concentration camps or something... or let them starve or be criminals or something. It is virtually impossible to implement anything in between. I know which I prefer.

As RandFan mentions, welfare benefits often come with stipulations about how it can be spent and spending it on other things can be illegal. That's why I look at it more like a voucher than cash to do with as you please. If someone is trying but due to some life event they temporarily cannot make it and need food assistance I'm all for that. It's both humanitarian and beneficial to society to have such a safety net. But I'm against someone claiming they need assistance and then spending it on lottery tickets. It's an insult to the hard working people who provided that support and to the people who actually need it. If that makes me evil so be it.

People need to go to jail for using welfare for lottery tickets. In fact, it's against the law. Do you have statistics to show how much money is lost through welfare fraud and abuse?

From what I recall it's rather minor. I'm not sure about gambling related abuse specifically either but I'd imagine it's very small.

Again, I'm against welfare fraud and abuse. However, on the whole welfare including SNAP and other programs are good for the economy and money well spent by govt.

Most people don't want to live on welfare and people who spend money on lottery tickets won't be able to use those resources to purchase things they need.

Any system that provides resources for the poor will have some level of inefficiency and fraud. There will always be a line at which someone will calculate that it is easier to do nothing and collect welfare than to do something. That fact however does not change the fact that civilized societies fair better to see to the most vulnerable.

Agree completely. Further I support whatever welfare system provides the greatest benefits with the least waste even if that system still has abuse or allows people to spend the money as they wish. The basic income concept is interesting and I look forward to a country trying it out and getting data on how well it works.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm against someone claiming they need assistance and then spending it on lottery tickets.

Generally someone doesn't claim they need assistance, as in "pleading their case", they qualify for it. So you're right back to having a moral preference on what other people do with their money.

Which you and others can have, but it shouldn't lead to policy any more than you preferring what a millionaire spends their money on should lead to one.

 

[RandFan]

From who?

Anyone who has an example.

 

[RandFan]

Generally someone doesn't claim they need assistance, as in "pleading their case", they qualify for it. So you're right back to having a moral preference on what other people do with their money.

Which you and others can have, but it shouldn't lead to policy any more than you preferring what a millionaire spends their money on should lead to one.

Sounds great if we lived in a vacuum where wealth were created without any assistance from the state be it infrastructure, public education, public R&D, public consumption from other citizens or the elimination of the social contract.

Business people want consumers of their products and they want govt to protect trade secrets and to implement tariffs to ward off unfair trade practices from the competition, however, few if any really give a damn about competition. They have this delusion that consumption will exist even if they create monopolies and dominate, crush or buy out the competition.

Capitalism and the "free hand" isn't really panacea to ensure that the best ideas rise to the top and that only those who are willing to work will be rewarded.

 

[Francesca R]

Anyone who has an example.

If nobody has said there are examples (and I don't think anyone has) you might have a long wait.

 

[Francesca R]

Sounds great [ . . . ]

None of that has anything to do with what you quoted.

Why did you quote me?