Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about passing stricter Welfare and Disability laws, instead of this kind of unenforceable nonsense. What are these guys smoking, and can I have some?
So you think these idiots should be able to withdraw the full amount of their benefits for use on whatever the heck they feel like every single month? If they get $500/mo, you don't mind them spending that on frivolous and/or illegal things? Okay....
I’m sorry, these idiots? At least you can hide behind teh internets and go demonstrating your personality and attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Yeah, the same government that doesn't blink an eye at confiscating the wages of the working people.
If you want to see micro-managing, check out the IRS where all this money to pay for the idle class must come.
Oh, I do. How do you pay the landlord? Or the co-pay at the doctor's office? Not everyone accepts debit cards.
How about we leave those alone who are truly disabled, and those who receive short-term cash assistance ("safety net"), and concentrate on clearing the system of abusers?
I can see where the landlord issue may be a reasonable, but I don't agree with cash benefits except for those who are 100% disabled. Perhaps a dual system might be more feasible - to where 100% disabled individuals do not have limits.
Those with temporary "cash assistance" would be limited except in cases of special need.
As for the doctor's office, I'd have to see the statistics on what percentage of people on cash assistance (in Minnesota) have Medicaid before I could answer. If it's like Virginia, to where only the "under-18 children", elderly, disabled, or pregnant are eligible for Medicaid - then I would hope the state sets up to where those with cash assistance will be able to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Why is that not a problem? This is government micro-managing at its best.
If the government is footing the bill, why shouldn't they be able to make sure the money is being put to proper use?
I don't see any reason for the welfare types to have any cash. The government pays for all their needs, and for toothpaste, soap and so on, they should allow the food stamp card for those.
Obviously the cash can go for cigarettes, whisky, drugs of every kind and so shouldn't be given.
Well, I looked up and found the actual proposal. Here's the link.
The article in the OP makes it sound like they are preventing poor people from having more than $20 period... when in fact, it just limits the amount of ATM-style withdrawal from their "cash" benefits to $20/month. I don't see a problem with that.
Maybe we need a thread about deliberately misleading articles from the Mainstream Media. Between bad writing by idiots and deliberate , agenda-based distortions, MSM reporting is becoming an anti-product. Thank you for clarifying this issue.
If the government is footing the bill, why shouldn't they be able to make sure the money is being put to proper use?
End of discussion. These people need to come to the realization that they are not being forced to take the money. If they don't like the terms, don't take the assistance.
If the government is footing the bill, why shouldn't they be able to make sure the money is being put to proper use?
That wasn't the point. But then, I disagree with you on that too and will save that aspect of the discussion for another topic. Going back to the idea that limiting anybody to $20/month is a great one... how so? You're like the many around who assume ALL people on government assistance are there by choice, should be hated, are idiots, must be managed with suspicion and be micro-managed down to limiting that they can only withdraw $20/month.
If your bank limited your ATM withdrawal to some impractical low amount, say $40/month, because they can, would you be just fine with it because you can use the card anyway?
If your bank limited your ATM withdrawal to some impractical low amount, say $40/month, because they can, would you be just fine with it because you can use the card anyway?
Seriously? That's the best you could come up with?
Seriously? That's the best you could come up with?
There was more to it, I guess you chose to skip it. Perhaps you couldn't handle it? But let us ignore that, and focus on just this. What do you think?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
