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.
I agree with most of what you say, but not that statement. Over 50 years ago my Grandmother found herself in the unenviable position of raising 4 of her Brother's children after he passed away. She simply couldn't afford it and went to the County for assistance. They gave her 'vouchers' each one labeled with what she could buy, i.e. 4 pair of boys underwear, 1 pair of jeans. I recall going to J.C. Penney with her and watched her agonize over trying to figure out exactly 'what' she was allowed and what was not permissible. When she got in the checkout line people were whispering and a few of them actually pointing at her. When we left she was so humiliated that she said cried. There is no reason to treat people like that.
The majority of people use cash benefits as intended, to care for their families. What about kids getting PELL grants? That's a form of welfare, should they be limited to buying school supplies and maybe we should only let them enroll in certain programs? Maybe they are using their PELL grant for smartphones, or for movies or milkshakes? Can't have that, after all it's OUR money they are wasting.
Treating the poor as though they are idiots serves no purpose except to make it easy for States to make severe cuts in aid so they can pocket what they don't spend.
50 years ago is a long time ago. That's not how it works today. The TANF cash benefit is supposed to be for the benefit of the children, not the adult. That TANF cash benefit can be used anywhere to buy anything is a problem. And obviously some use TANF proceeds to make inappropriate purchases that have nothing to do with the children.
What percentage of cash withdrawals are suspect? The state's have this information. Is this a relative few bad apples or is it widespread? I don't know. These new state laws seemingly are designed to prevent fraud will will do the opposite.
Seems to me that some states prefer the federal government to give them block grants for welfare programs to use as they see fit with no accountability, because after all , the states know best. These are the same states that have chosen to not better manage TANF, SNAP and other federal benefits. There is no dirtier government than state/ county/ municipal.
Another approach would be for the fed to cut off the states and cause them to use their own funds for welfare or not, as they see fit.
I have lost track of the number of posters here who use a broad brush to paint all recipients of welfare benefits the same. They seem to follow fellow customers into the parking lot as a hobby and believe all welfare recipients drive high end cars and game the system.
I suspect many who have children they cannot support have a lifetime of compounded lousy choices. Their pickers are broken. Eliminating the cash benefit creates an audit trail of expenditures. Adult use of the TANF EBT benefit to make yourself feel better is abuse. Remove the kids from the home and cut the adults off.
Your aunt was an exception and a saint. She took on the burden of 4 kids who were not her own under unfortunate circumstances.
Feeling humiliated is a choice. It's not the federal nor state government's job to tend to the emotional well being of the people.
I bet if they did research, they would find out the TANF recipients are low wage workers at these places and they are using the card to buy lunch while they are at work. Such as grounds workers, security officers, custodians, food service workers, hotel laundry workers and hotel maids.
They probably are paid such low wages that they still qualify for TANF, especially if they work part time. So if they are at work and want to grab a sandwich or even an apple from the cafeteria...then it rings up as a Hotel expenditure or casino expenditure. Lots of those jobs are very low wage and workers would be considered the 'working poor'.
Now this is something I had not considered.
TANF requires the able bodied adult parent/ guardian to work at least 20 hours a week to retain their children's TANF benefit unless the state applied for and recieved a federal waiver. Plenty of low wage part time jobs within the hospitality and gaming industries.
TANF is for the benefit of the children. That the parent chooses to use the TANF benefit to benefit themselves is problematic. Those recieving TANF also recieve SNAP. If the children are school age, they qualify for the school lunch program. Depending on the district this may include breakfast and a dinner benefit.
Is there any reason why a hospitality worker would not bring lunch from home and instead chooses to use funds intended for their children to buy costly take out from a hotel/ casino enterprise, for themselves?
I love how Republicans are like "Government is too big, there are too many regulations and administrators."
And then want to pass bills like this, that both eliminate individual freedoms and increase the size of government to monitor and maintain the rules.
Individual freedoms?
The TANF benefit is intended for the benefit of the children. No minor children- no TANF benefit.
TANF was not designed to provide entertainment for the adult or to make them feel better in the moment.
I've heard of bonehead legislation before but this takes the cake. Even if someone bought it for them and somehow they got there, would they even be able to use them on board? I thought I was reading the Onion There was a noticeable lack of outcry from the cruise lines, so I don't think it's a problem.
Reportedly, there are instances of using the onboard ATM to withdraw TANF cash benefits.
I have not come across specific state information or what percentage of cash withdrawal of the TANF benefit occurs onboard a cruise ship.
"50 years ago is a long time ago. That's not how it works today. The TANF cash benefit is supposed to be for the benefit of the children, not the adult. That TANF cash benefit can be used anywhere to buy anything is a problem. And obviously some use TANF proceeds to make inappropriate purchases that have nothing to do with the children"
I know it was 50 years ago..but some states are pushing for a return to a system where a recipient can only buy specific items- you even advocated that. My Grandmother raised 6 kids, her husband had the same job for over 50 years and she ended up raising four more kids. When people she had known all her life pointed at her struggling with the 'vouchers' she was horribly humiliated. And she did NOT need some welfare bureaucrat telling her how many pair of underpants her nephew could have, or whether her niece really needed a new jacket and that is what people here are advocating which is why I mentioned my Grandmother.
"What percentage of cash withdrawals are suspect? The state's have this information. Is this a relative few bad apples or is it widespread? I don't know. These new state laws seemingly are designed to prevent fraud will will do the opposite."
There is a big difference between "fraud" and what you might consider inappropriate use of cash benefits. IMO fraud is claiming benefits you are not entitled to a far more serious issue than buying beer with your benefits. I just don't get the outrage over 'where' or 'how' people spend these small amounts of cash. Why isn't there hand wringing over kids getting PELL grants? When did you last see a movement to restrict them from spending their money on tattoos or in casinos? It is welfare by the way...
"Another approach would be for the fed to cut off the states and cause them to use their own funds for welfare or not, as they see fit."
Seriously? Can you imagine how much the southern and midwest states would spend on welfare if they didn't get it from the feds?
"I suspect many who have children they cannot support have a lifetime of compounded lousy choices. Their pickers are broken. Eliminating the cash benefit creates an audit trail of expenditures. Adult use of the TANF EBT benefit to make yourself feel better is abuse. Remove the kids from the home and cut the adults off."
I can't even imagine taking someone's kids away because they made 'lousy choices'. It's a serious thing to take someone's kids away and whether you want to believe it or not, most poor people love their kids as dearly as the rest of us do.
"Your aunt was an exception and a saint. She took on the burden of 4 kids who were not her own under unfortunate circumstances".
It was my Grandmother, but that's ok - the problem is that according to many people and perhaps even you- if you had run across her in the store with 4 little kids at her age and her little pile of "welfare vouchers" you might have looked down your nose at her and assumed she was some kind of welfare queen having more kids than she could afford so she could suck at the Gov't teat
"Feeling humiliated is a choice. It's not the federal nor state government's job to tend to the emotional well being of the people".
No, feeling humiliated is not a choice; it's a normal reaction to being treated like a pile of steaming crap by people who usually don't even take the time to figure out who you are or how you got in your current situation
Those cruise line employees are often working poor - low wage workers. If the worker uses the TANF card to buy a bottled water during her break from cleaning bathrooms, then her bottled water is going to ring up as a cruise ship expenditure.
Most cruise ships are foreign- flagged and the overwhelming majority of the onboard crew are not US citizens. Their travel is very restricted and they do not live in the US between contracts. They certainly do not have US EBT cards with TANF benefits.
Riverboat gaming boats are not cruise ships but may carry that distinction for political sensationalism purposes. These are US flagged and therefore employ those authorized to work in the US. It's possible that some of these employees have children and recieve TANF benefits for their children.
Why would an adult use a benefit intended for their children to benefit themselves?
The issue here is the alleged use of onboard ATMs to withdraw cash TANF benefits.
If it is the intention of an adult to use benefits intended for their children to entertain themselves, none of these state laws will do anything to prevent it.
I agree with most of what you say, but not that statement. Over 50 years ago my Grandmother found herself in the unenviable position of raising 4 of her Brother's children after he passed away. She simply couldn't afford it and went to the County for assistance. They gave her 'vouchers' each one labeled with what she could buy, i.e. 4 pair of boys underwear, 1 pair of jeans. I recall going to J.C. Penney with her and watched her agonize over trying to figure out exactly 'what' she was allowed and what was not permissible. When she got in the checkout line people were whispering and a few of them actually pointing at her. When we left she was so humiliated that she said cried. There is no reason to treat people like that.
The majority of people use cash benefits as intended, to care for their families. What about kids getting PELL grants? That's a form of welfare, should they be limited to buying school supplies and maybe we should only let them enroll in certain programs? Maybe they are using their PELL grant for smartphones, or for movies or milkshakes? Can't have that, after all it's OUR money they are wasting.
Treating the poor as though they are idiots serves no purpose except to make it easy for States to make severe cuts in aid so they can pocket what they don't spend.
There are circumstanced but you don't give all information. Having 4 young kids, I'm guessing her brother was young, where was the grandmother? Why the untimely death? Is it possible your mother paid the price for her brothers bad decisions? Something's not right? I don't know.
People want to help, it feels good to help people, but no one likes being abused and we all know there are welfare abusers. When people feel they are being abused they get attitudes. Is it possible that your grandmother paid the price because of the abusers?
The TANF benefit is intended for the benefit of the children. No minor children- no TANF benefit.
TANF was not designed to provide entertainment for the adult or to make them feel better in the moment.
Not exactly..yes, TANF is restricted to adults with children, but it is a family benefit and there is no prohibition from using the benefits on things that do not directly benefit the children..yes, even welfare moms are allowed to buy shoes.
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.
These are the same states that have chosen to not better manage TANF, SNAP and other federal benefits. There is no dirtier government than state/ county/ municipal. 
