Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Anchorage
4,061 posts, read 9,864,192 times
Reputation: 2350

Advertisements

Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.

On March 15, Angel Buechner of the Welfare Rights Committee testified in front of the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee on House File 171. Buechner told committee members, “We would like to address the provision that makes it illegal for MFIP [one of Minnesota’s welfare programs] families to withdraw cash from the cash portion of the MFIP grant - and in fact, appears to make it illegal for MFIP families to have any type of money at all in their pockets. How do you expect people to take care of business like paying bills such as lights, gas, water, trash and phone?”

Moderator cut: Copyright Violation

Let me make this clear, I'm not on welfare. I'm just wondering how this sort of law could even be enforced. They are not saying let's not give assistance to the poor, but rather they are not allowed to carry any cash.

How do they propose to enforce this? Random strip searches? Cash-sniffing German Shepherds?

Minnesota Republicans say: Poor people with money should be outlaws | Fight Back!

Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 03-18-2011 at 09:03 AM.. Reason: Please post only a snippet from an article.

 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:39 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,158 posts, read 46,820,657 times
Reputation: 33986
They should be allowed to use that cash for drugs, cigs and booze if they want.
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Here
11,574 posts, read 13,923,579 times
Reputation: 6983
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobrien View Post
How do you expect people to take care of business like paying bills such as lights, gas, water, trash and phone?”
How about with YOU OWN MONEY. Stop mooching off the rest of us. For every person who truly needs public assistance (elderly and "actual" disabled) there are probably 5 more that are taking advantage of the system. The fact that your lazy ass wont get a job or that you decided to have more kids when you can't take care of yourself ain't my problem.
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Anchorage
4,061 posts, read 9,864,192 times
Reputation: 2350
Hey, I'm not the person on welfare, that's a quote from the article.
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,885 posts, read 74,952,198 times
Reputation: 66814
Big Brother rears his ugly head again: Let's monitor how those disabled folks are spending their benefits!



Quote:
Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card.
Oh, yeah, that makes all kinds of sense. First, consider the fact that many single people on disability live in SROs or other privately-rented apartments. Is the landlord going to accept those debit cards? Don't think so.

Then, the "certain businesses" must go to the added expense of being "set up." Naturally, said businesses will raise their prices a) to recover the cost of being "set up"; and b) because they are now monopolies, and as such can do anything they damn well please.

Which businesses? What happens when the state government decides it no longer wants people on assistance to buy new clothes? ZIP! There go your shopping privileges at Wal-Mart or JCPenney. The state thinks people on assistance spend too much money on prescriptions? ZAP! There goes Walgreen's.

What a ridiculous idea.
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,807 posts, read 4,265,937 times
Reputation: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake View Post
How about with YOU OWN MONEY. Stop mooching off the rest of us. For every person who truly needs public assistance (elderly and "actual" disabled) there are probably 5 more that are taking advantage of the system. The fact that your lazy ass wont get a job or that you decided to have more kids when you can't take care of yourself ain't my problem.
And people cry about budgets and not having money. The ONLY way to get budgets under control is trim back and/or eliminate entitlement programs. But the tree huggers of this country won't allow that.
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Anchorage
4,061 posts, read 9,864,192 times
Reputation: 2350
I have edited my original post to clarify that I was wanting a debate on the logistics of enforcement of such a micromanaging law, or if it goes too far.
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Here
11,574 posts, read 13,923,579 times
Reputation: 6983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
And people cry about budgets and not having money. The ONLY way to get budgets under control is trim back and/or eliminate entitlement programs. But the tree huggers of this country won't allow that.
Of course not. Nobody wants to offend a large chunk of their voter base. Keep feeding the beast while sticking it to the rest of us.
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:56 AM
 
9,848 posts, read 8,268,824 times
Reputation: 3296
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake View Post
How about with YOU OWN MONEY. Stop mooching off the rest of us. For every person who truly needs public assistance (elderly and "actual" disabled) there are probably 5 more that are taking advantage of the system. The fact that your lazy ass wont get a job or that you decided to have more kids when you can't take care of yourself ain't my problem.
There is a lot of cheating and employment not caught.
Some work careers as gardeners under the table, some sell drugs and some are sincerely in need of help.

Any time you throw something out there for free a line will GROW for it.

I would never give permanent housing to anyone who wasn't permanently disabled.

I would be harsh but fair and I would try to educate if that gets people employed but that to would be harsh yet fair (the way I'd try to do it anyway).
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,147,082 times
Reputation: 4957
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.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:00 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top