A Republican Lawmaker in Tennessee wants to make sure that poor people who receive any kind of public assistance can't get off said public assistance by winning lotteries.

http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/most...elfare/Crx1rXfwlE6DO3ccL16O4g.cspx

Uh, I thought the GOP wanted the goverment OUT of our wallets? Or, does that only mean for the rich, who have influence. So this woman wants to legislate how people spend their money, and make sure they STAY on the public dole forever and ever Amen?

Talk about an ultimate hypocrisy.

Based on the reason he gave:

Representative Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) introduced the bill. He says, “If you can't afford the bare necessities and if you rely on the government for the bare necessities of life, you shouldn't be taking what money you do have and blowing it on the lottery."

I think he has a point.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): o this woman wants to legislate how people spend their money,

Did you read the article? Stacey is a guy.

Doesn't even bother you in the least that a conservative, who's mantra is the less goverment the better, is proposing telling people what they can make via a lottery? That they're telling you "we're gonna keep you on the public dole whether you like it or not"?

It bothers the hell out of me. Fortunately, I have a feeling this won't pass. It's absurd.

Yes, it does. However, I don't think people on government assistance should be spending taxpayer money on the lotto.

Good. If you're on the dole, you shouldn't be wasting your minimal earnings on the lottery. Two days ago, I had to go into DC for a meeting. I stopped off at a 7-11 in a relatively run-down neighborhood to buy one Powerball ticket because the jackpot was something like $140 million. The line was 10 deep to buy tickets, and people were throwing $5, $10, even $20 on tickets. Really, is that a good way to spend a welfare check?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): Doesn't even bother you in the least that a conservative, who's mantra is the less goverment the better, is proposing telling people what they can make via a lottery? That they're telling you "we're gonna keep you on the public dole whether you like it or not"?

The chances of someone winning enough money to raise them out of poverty is extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely. If you're betting on the lottery to get you out of poverty, you should probably look elsewhere, and that is being very diplomatic about it.

This isn't about conservatives wanting to place their hands in people's pockets. It's a matter of wanting taxpayer money spent responsibly.... which is something a lot of welfare recipients don't understand the concept of.

It's no different than if I purchased $20 of Powerball tickets on my company credit card.

It's a slippery slope, folks. Next, they'll say you shouldn't spend your money on cigarettes, or alcohol, or airliners.net subscription fees.  
But seriously, if this is legal, I'd be amazed.

Maybe we should just give people lotto tickets instead of food stamps. 
All joking aside, the lottery is a tax on the stupid. Maybe it seems wrong for such people to buy lotto tickets but what is next? Maybe we'll decide that they shouldn't be allowed to spend on cable or high speed internet. Or not allow them to own a car. Sure people don't always do what is prudent, but we can't idiot proof America. It just doesn't work that way.

Plus, given the stuff that the Feds are now doing, this is a really bad time for them to lecture anyone on responsible money management. Stupid financial decisions is not something isolated to the lower classes. Obama wants to toss away a trillion to God knows what and some poor people want to hit it big with the Lotto. I say they are both stupid so we'll call it a draw.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): Doesn't even bother you in the least that a conservative, who's mantra is the less goverment the better, is proposing telling people what they can make via a lottery? That they're telling you "we're gonna keep you on the public dole whether you like it or not"?

Yes, public assistance should be discontinued post haste to avoid all of the problems here (gets the government out of my wallet, out of their wallet and avoids red herrings of claiming that it's "anti-conservative" that the government would be legislating what can be done with government-sponsored lottery winnings-- in both the sponsorship of the lottery and the sponsorship of the person who is playing the lottery.

Since that ain't going to happen any time soon, if the money I earned is going to be reappropriated to another individual without my desire or consent I think it's only reasonable that you discourage people from spending other people's money on non-necessities. Ideally, the funds would be limited to basic food (no alcohol, no tobacco), clothing, and housing. But enforcing that isn't practical, at least limit the outright waste (you are aware of the odds of winning any lottery, right?)

If I were sponsoring the legislation I would probably do it as a "keep what you win after repaying the taxpayers every cent that you received while on public assistance" which seems slightly more fair to me, but hey, he's the politician.

Lincoln
(And before anyone goes misinterperting me: I am firmly against using tax dollars where those dollars only benefit a specific individual or class of individuals (Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, etc.). Unlike one of my parents, I have no objection to programs that serve the population at large and aren't only available to those who meet elegibility requirements (roads, education, public safety, arts & primary education, etc). I'm also pro-choice, pro-gun control, and on the fence about some level of basic healthcare.)

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): the less goverment the better

Well, I know you'll disagree with me, but too much government is not a good thing. If our government were to get anymore powerful, they might as well re-name the USA as "New Russia" or the "Nation of ACLU..." if you ask me anyway...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7): Stupid financial decisions is not something isolated to the lower classes. Obama wants to toss away a trillion to God knows what and some poor people want to hit it big with the Lotto. I say they are both stupid so we'll call it a draw.

   offsetting penalties then?  

How about those rich yuppies who blow $20,000 on a toilet seat made of solid gold for an example of how even the upper class can make stupid financial decisions.

Eh?  

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 9): offsetting penalties then?

How about a double technical and maybe a few ejections on both sides?   

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 4): Two days ago, I had to go into DC for a meeting. I stopped off at a 7-11 in a relatively run-down neighborhood to buy one Powerball ticket because the jackpot was something like $140 million. The line was 10 deep to buy tickets, and people were throwing $5, $10, even $20 on tickets. Really, is that a good way to spend a welfare check?

Nice train of thought there, buddy  

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 4): Good. If you're on the dole, you shouldn't be wasting your minimal earnings on the lottery.

That's not your decision though, is it, JCS? Is it a free country, or isn't it? Are only those that are already well off to be allowed to buy the lotto ticket? Do you REALLY want the government telling anyone that? Or is this just more of the same "punish the poor" BS that seems to always come from the GOP?

Maybe they shouldn't spend the money on that? Freedom IS a bitch, isn't it? "=I

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 8): If I were sponsoring the legislation I would probably do it as a "keep what you win after repaying the taxpayers every cent that you received while on public assistance"

Sorry, that's just as bad. Should we do that to the rich, who get the huge tax breaks as well? You're getting into things with that line of thought that are slippery slope, and where does it end?

Amazing. The party that wants the goverment to stay out of the wallets of the rich, now has people wanting to regulate the wallets of the poor. How ironic.

You cannot deny anyone the chance at the American dream of getting rich, when it's done legally, simply because you want to teach them some kind of perverted lesson.

Quoting Avt007 (Reply 6): It's a slippery slope, folks. Next, they'll say you shouldn't spend your money on cigarettes, or alcohol,

They already do. You can't use food stamps for alcohol or tobacco, for example.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): Doesn't even bother you in the least that a conservative, who's mantra is the less goverment the better, is proposing telling people what they can make via a lottery? That they're telling you "we're gonna keep you on the public dole whether you like it or not"?

Actually, it bothers me when liberals I know (friends and family) say they are against the lottery because poor people play it and lose too much money. I have no problem with the poor playing the lottery, if they aren't using gov. money to do it.

I fully support the measure. In fact, if there were a feasable way, I'd ban people on welfare from participating in the lotto, at all.

As a resident, I lived in Spanish Harlem at 116th and Lexington, right in the smack center of the barrio. I watched the poor, the desperate, the absolutely hopeless coming into the local convenience store night after night and spending their money on lotto tickets.

Not just a little money, either. Most of the lotto ticket buyers spent at least $2-3 a day on it. Add that up by a month and that's no small amount of money.

I think the lotto is a terrible idea. Government-monopolized gambling, nothing more. Legalize gambling and tax casinos. This is one arena where the private sector should CERTAINLY take over.

But it pisses me off to watch people take MY money and spend it on the lotto. This bill will go a long way to discouraging such behavior.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14): I'd ban people on welfare from participating in the lotto, at all.

So, you would deny someone the chance to get off the welfare roles? Why, for God's sake? In my mind, this is just punishment to keep the poor in the poorhouse. It's perverted and it's certainly not the American way, that's for sure.

Or to some of you, is it a kind of jealousy that someone who is poor, could win it all, and get out of the poor house?

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." None of us have the right to deny that to anyone. If you don't like the fact someone who is poor is buying a lottery ticket, so what? You have the same right, and the same chance to win the lottery if you want to play

I always hear so many conservatives say "the goverment shouldn't touch my money." Well, if a poor person, on welfare, spends $5 and wins the lottery, that is, legally, their money, minus the taxes, and none of us have the right to say otherwise.

Again, the only good thing is this foolishness won't pass. And, if it did, I think a court would find it Unconstitutional.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14): I fully support the measure. In fact, if there were a feasable way, I'd ban people on welfare from participating in the lotto, at all.

That is the problem. There isn't really a feasible way of enforcement. For that matter this could be a slippery slope. I like the sentiment, but we can't stupidproof the entire country.

Put the shoe on your foot. What if some politician said, "wait a minute so and so. We're going to limit to $600 the amount you can win on the lottery", and come up with some stupid reason why. If it were you, what would your response be? I know what'd it be-"screw you, goverment! I won it fair and square!"

Same here. If someone on welfare wins it, so be it. There is nothing prescribed on what the money can be spent on.

Should we pass laws that say they can't buy certain things, simply because it is welfare? I don't think so.

Again, put yourself in the other shoe, and it doesn't look like such a bright idea.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15): So, you would deny someone the chance to get off the welfare roles?

By gambling? Youbetcha. You want to gamble, you use YOUR money, not mine.

You want to get off the welfare roles by going to school and getting a job, then do so with my blessing.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): Same here. If someone on welfare wins it, so be it. There is nothing prescribed on what the money can be spent on. Should we pass laws that say they can't buy certain things, simply because it is welfare? I don't think so.

We already do. You can't use food stamps to buy tobacco or alcohol, for example. Do you think that's a bad policy?

People, you have to realize it's NOT YOUR MONEY. Once the government taxes you,, it's not yours anymore. Where does this end? Forcing them to buy condoms? Making them buy 2% milk because it's better for you than Homo? Forbidding them from buying fatty snacks, because that results in more healthcare costs? If the lottery is legal, then it should be legal for all to participate in.

Some states have laws on the books (including I believe the State of CT) that if a person on public assistance (ie: state welfare). wins a major prize in the lottery, they have to pay back from it some part of past assistance. State lotteries are notorious for having most of their revenue from the lowest income areas. Still, I do believe someone on long-term welfare should be penalized for playing the lotteries.

I am as conservative (as opposed to reactionary which, notwithstanding the attempted cramming-together done by many here, is not the same) as they come, but this is nuts.

If the legislator wants to do some good, he might try aggressive measures to reduce and, to the extent possible, eliminate cash and cash-equivalent welfare programs. They have effectively created a perpetual underclass.

I am strongly opposed to the various lotteries as well, but if you're gonna have 'em, you can't exactly limit who gets to play them, now can you?

Perhaps (one might speculate) it would be worth considering that, if someone wins the lottery and has been collecting cash or cash-equivalent from the state, they should be obligated to pay it back from their lotto proceeds...

Eek, DocLightning and I agree.

In my opinion, the government should issue debit cards to welfare recipients (not unlike food stamps).This debit card works only at approved vendors, and will not allow for the purchases of cigarettes, booze, lottery tickets, etc. At the end of the transaction a simple receipt should be printed saying how much money is left on the card, so that no one can go return goods for money. I'm sure Joe Welfare could find a way around it, I'm just presenting a rough outline.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): That's not your decision though, is it, JCS? Is it a free country, or isn't it? Are only those that are already well off to be allowed to buy the lotto ticket? Do you REALLY want the government telling anyone that? Or is this just more of the same "punish the poor" BS that seems to always come from the GOP? Maybe they shouldn't spend the money on that? Freedom IS a bitch, isn't it? "=I

The well off? This shouldn't deserve a response because it is based in class hatred.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 23): In my opinion, the government should issue debit cards to welfare recipients (not unlike food stamps).This debit card works only at approved vendors, and will not allow for the purchases of cigarettes, booze, lottery tickets, etc. At the end of the transaction a simple receipt should be printed saying how much money is left on the card, so that no one can go return goods for money. I'm sure Joe Welfare could find a way around it, I'm just presenting a rough outline.

So, what if the person on welfare took a couple dollars cash and bought a lottery ticket? They didn't buy it with the debit card....

My issue with this is mostly from the standpoint that (although perhaps unlikely) there are people who decide to play the lottery once or twice, just for the off-chance that they may win something.

So this person who doesn't have much money, but who has managed to provide him/her)self and his/her family with food and clothing, decides to play the lottery once, on the off-chance that they could quite suddenly and easily provide for their family.

And they win. It's unlikely, sure, but it can happen. And now, this person who has bought one lottery ticket in his/her whole life, and who thinks they just managed to get off the government payroll, so to speak, suddenly finds that, well, they didn't actually win anything.

I know that personally, I wouldn't be able to look them in the eye and say "sorry, you're walking out of here with nothing".

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 8): If I were sponsoring the legislation I would probably do it as a "keep what you win after repaying the taxpayers every cent that you received while on public assistance" which seems slightly more fair to me, but hey, he's the politician.

I am on board, but you can not just follow this for people who win that are currently on welfare. How about you expand it to people who were previously on welfare, how about they are required to pay back the government first as well. I would say that there needs to be a limit though. Up to 50 percent of your winnings or something like that.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15): "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." None of us have the right to deny that to anyone. If you don't like the fact someone who is poor is buying a lottery ticket, so what? You have the same right, and the same chance to win the lottery if you want to play

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 23): In my opinion, the government should issue debit cards to welfare recipients (not unlike food stamps).This debit card works only at approved vendors, and will not allow for the purchases of cigarettes, booze, lottery tickets, etc. At the end of the transaction a simple receipt should be printed saying how much money is left on the card, so that no one can go return goods for money. I'm sure Joe Welfare could find a way around it, I'm just presenting a rough outline.

I was thinking of something along the same lines of a debit card. Most people attain life, liberty and happiness by hard work.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): Amazing. The party that wants the goverment to stay out of the wallets of the rich, now has people wanting to regulate the wallets of the poor. How ironic.

Not ironic at all and you're oversimplifying.

When I earn money without the direct assistance of the Government, I don't want to Government playing Robin Hood with it. For every dollar that I earn -- through busting my ass, averaging 50 hours a week in the office, spending somewhere between 30 and 70 days per year on the road, et. al. the federal government alone re-appropriates 25%.

When someone on public assistance is given money from the government it's perfectly reasonable for the government to apply restrictions on its use.

In fact, it already happens. For example in programs I said I support: Universities that receive federal grant money are routinely given regulations on what the money can and can't be spent on--spend it on something on the "prohibited" list and your grant money (and eligibility) goes bye bye. States that receive federal road funding have to comply with, among other regulations, the DOT's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Again, don't do it-- lose the money.

Open an airport, receive federal money then decide to close it? One of the restrictions is they you have to repay the FAA all federal funds you've received in the past 20 years (IIRC)

Just like when you were 5 and your parents gave you money but told you you couldn't buy X vs. going out and earning the money mowing lawns or whatever to buy X.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): Quoting JCS17 (Reply 4): Good. If you're on the dole, you shouldn't be wasting your minimal earnings on the lottery. That's not your decision though, is it, JCS? Is it a free country, or isn't it?

I think JCS chose the wrong word there... People on public assistance (for the most part) haven't earned anything. I do object to the government telling anyone what they can do with their earnings -- i.e. those funds that come from their participation as a working, productive member of society. As loco as I think you are in the political ideology department, I'd not support anyone regulating what you or anyone else do with your paycheck--the result of you going into work however many days per week and hours per day.

On the other hand people on public assistance generally are receiving a handout: The money comes without recipient expending any effort. This is minimally different than a university receiving a grant, and I have no problem with the government telling the recipient what they may or may not spend that money on.

Quoting Avt007 (Reply 20): People, you have to realize it's NOT YOUR MONEY. Once the government taxes you,, it's not yours anymore. Where does this end? Forcing them to buy condoms?

Have you worked with a welfare population before?

If I were dictator for life, welfare would require the following:
1) Either sterilization or a form of reliable birth control (do you know how many women have babies just to increase their welfare check? This is not some Republican myth, I've seen it too many times myself.) Once you're off welfare, we'll even pay for you to have whatever you did reversed.
2) A limit on "vice" items. No booze, no tobacco, no lotto.
3) A requirement that your children attend school and all recommended doctor appointments.

If you'd seen the rampant abuse of the welfare system that I've seen, you would understand.

Classic example: Mom comes to the emergency room by EMS because her 18-mo has a cold. She's on Medicaid so the EMS trip is free. When I call her, she is not in the waiting room. 20 minutes later, I call her and she shows up at the door, reeking of cigarettes. I examine the child and ask her what she thinks her child has: "A cold."
"And why did you choose to call EMS?"
"Because I didn't have any transportation."
"And why did you feel that a cold needed to be seen in an emergency room by EMS at 10:30 PM?"
"Because she has a fever."
"OK, did you try giving her Tylenol?"
"I don't have any. It's expensive."

So she came into the ER by EMS (total cost $600 billed to Medicaid) to get a free bottle of Tylenol. A $600 bottle of Tylenol.

And, meanwhile, she is wearing a pink Lacoste shirt with matching Converse sneakers and h as a matching Motorola RAZR phone (this was 2005 when those were brand new), about a half mile thick of makeup, designer-brand jeans, and press-on nails. But she can't afford a bottle of Tylenol for her kid.

You think this is just an example of a bad apple. But I saw thousands of these people. They view welfare as their entitlement, their main source of income. Get pregnant at 15, have the baby. Then another. Then another. I saw one woman with 9 kids, all on welfare.

Quoting Avt007 (Reply 20): People, you have to realize it's NOT YOUR MONEY.

But yes it is. It's the government's money, and thus, it's mine. And this woman and those like her are taking the hard-earned money that I made and abusing it.

The current system encourages abuse. It encourages generations and generations to stay on welfare. And it has to stop. Public Assistance, in spite of the popular misreading of the Preamble to the Constitution, is not a fundamental right. Nobody is forcing you to use it. My view is that being on welfare should be very unpleasant as a strong incentive to get off of it.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): A Republican Lawmaker in Tennessee wants to make sure that poor people who receive any kind of public assistance can't get off said public assistance by winning lotteries.

And how does this solve the pressing problems that face America?

This is little more than fiddling while Rome burns. The idea is well founded enough - but even though I love blackjack, baccarat and poker - I'd like to see lotteries and gambling (they are the same thing) banned completely.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 23): The well off? This shouldn't deserve a response because it is based in class hatred.

And a punative, nearly 100% tax against those on welfare isn't, JCS? To deny ONE GROUP the chance to get off the dole, isn't class hatred? This bill is simply retribution based on stereotype, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess nothing says America as much as "Sorry, welfare guy, but that $90 million you just won? You don't deserve it. You get to stay on welfare."

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29): (do you know how many women have babies just to increase their welfare check?

This is not possible in some states, where welfare payments are not increased for additional children.


It seems some people think that the welfare recipients will be prohibited from playing the lottery per this bill. That is not the case..they can still win up to $600.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 32): It seems some people think that the welfare recipients will be prohibited from playing the lottery per this bill. That is not the case..they can still win up to $600.

Not too bad if they win $1000. But what if it's a jackpot of $92 million, as the current MegaMillions Jackpot is? You think it's FAIR that someone, just because they're on welfare, is to be denied that if they hit the winning number, and be given $600? And you can say that to me with a straight face?

Sorry, if I am allowed to win the grand total, and you are, then they should be allowed. And no amount of stereotypical hatred toward those on welfare should change that.

The irony to me, is that, by supporting this, you simply want to keep them in the poor house, when they could get out of that vicious cycle forever. If that isn't punative, and if that isn't class hatred, I don't know what it.

It's not up to you or me how they spend that $5 or whatever to play the lottery. And it shouldn't be up to the goverment how much they win.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 33): Not too bad if they win $1000. But what if it's a jackpot of $92 million, as the current MegaMillions Jackpot is? You think it's FAIR that someone, just because they're on welfare, is to be denied that if they hit the winning number, and be given $600? And you can say that to me with a straight face?

I think it's unfair that they get to keep even $600. And I have no problem telling that to you with a straight face. I'll even do it in person if you'd like.

Afterall the taxpayers are the ones who ultimately "invested" in that ticket are they not? Were it not for the generosity of the taxpayer, the ticket would have never been purchased. When the investment of a corporation ultimately pays off the benefit ultimately inures to the shareholders. Why should this be any different? If my tax dolars were spent, why shouldn't I ultimately receive some benefit from the result through, for example, increased school funding (which AFAIK, is what the "unclaimed prize money" and a % of the take from ticket sales in most lotteries go to)

New biz for the pushers, "I´m not on welfare and can buy your lottery ticket". Should be good biz.

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 34): Afterall the taxpayers are the ones who ultimately "invested" in that ticket are they not?

If they did, give the taxpayers back the cost of the ticket, Lincoln. But if you and I are allowed to keep the winnings, everyone is allowed to keep the winnings. What good does it do to keep someone in the poor house like that? It does not good. It's simply vindictive.

As long as there is welfare, there will be welfare abuses. The only way to stop it is to scrap welfare completely. Of course that isn't going to happen and doing so would create more problems than it would solve. Many of these people really do need the help, but many others are just playing the system and will continue to do so as long as there is a system.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 36): If they did, give the taxpayers back the cost of the ticket, Lincoln. But if you and I are allowed to keep the winnings

I say reimburse the entire amount of public assistance that said person has received no matter how long. Plus a penalty for using said funds to purchase lottery tickets and allow them to keep the rest.

So if an individual was one of the 600,000 Americans who lost their job in January and is claiming welfare, they are only entitled $600 out of a X million dollar jackpot because the State has given them a few thousand? Seems pretty harsh to me.

What if a working relative bought their unemployed son/daughter etc. a winning ticket and busted the odds? you can have no claim on the winnings as it wasn't bought with 'your' money, right?

Quoting Sccutler (Reply 22): I am strongly opposed to the various lotteries as well, but if you're gonna have 'em, you can't exactly limit who gets to play them, now can you?

  

Next thing the Republicans will be snatching prizes out of the boxes of Cracker Jacks if the kids parents are on welfare.
Why not just brand welfare recipients with tattoos and make them wear arm bands identifying them as welfare recipients?
This is just disgusting.

Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 38): I say reimburse the entire amount of public assistance that said person has received no matter how long. Plus a penalty for using said funds to purchase lottery tickets and allow them to keep the rest.

And what about the others? A lot of welfare money gets spent on lotto tickets. I think the aim of discouraging this behavior is what the bill is about.

But I think a better idea is to simply stop giving people money for welfare and instead give them vouchers that can only be spent on certain things, like rent, utilities, food (not booze or tobacco), clothes, etc. Welfare should be a last-resort as needed for survival, not something to be spent on frivolities like gambling and drugs (booze and tobacco).

If you're at the point where you need welfare, you've just abrogated your responsibility as a productive, tax-paying citizen. Your responsibility is to get off the welfare roles ASAP. Making it a less rewarding system would encourage this.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41): And what about the others? A lot of welfare money gets spent on lotto tickets. I think the aim of discouraging this behavior is what the bill is about. But I think a better idea is to simply stop giving people money for welfare and instead give them vouchers that can only be spent on certain things, like rent, utilities, food (not booze or tobacco), clothes, etc. Welfare should be a last-resort as needed for survival, not something to be spent on frivolities like gambling and drugs (booze and tobacco). If you're at the point where you need welfare, you've just abrogated your responsibility as a productive, tax-paying citizen. Your responsibility is to get off the welfare roles ASAP. Making it a less rewarding system would encourage this.

It is not going to get there with the liberals running things that is for sure.

Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 38): I say reimburse the entire amount of public assistance that said person has received no matter how long.

I say if someone wants to buy a lottery ticket, it's a free freaking nation, and they're allowed to do so. And, if they win the big jackpot, it's theirs to keep, no one elses.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41): I think the aim of discouraging this behavior is what the bill is about.

It's simply a punative measure aimed, as I said, at a stereotype, and nothing more. This legislator-and most of you-probably don't know the first thing about most people on welfare, and are going by stereotpyes, nothing else.

If you want to get rid of this type of behavior, get rid of lotteries, but you simly cannot say a certain group of Americans isn't allowed to collect the winnings because you don't like the way they live.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): Talk about an ultimate hypocrisy.

Yeah, I agree. So much for limited government, right?

But hey, once everything is in government hands, they'll start banning things left and right to "cut costs". A matter of time before health-check ups are mandatory. Cue in images of women screaming and kicking while police hold her down for a colon check. Isn't this what John Edwards wanted?

And hey2, it's not like anyone collects a whole lot from lottery tickets anyways. . . have you seen the taxes you pay on it? Since lotteries tend to be run by the government and you will never get the number that says on the ticket, you could argue they amount to fraudulent advertising.

[Edited 2009-04-11 16:23:30]

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 44): Yeah, I agree. So much for limited government, right?

Republicans love to talk the "limited government" tag line but advocate some of the most intrusive government ideas.



Also, what if someone on welfare sold a bunch of old compact disc & records on ebay or to a used record store and bought their lottery ticket that way? What if they sold their car and bought a lottery ticket that way?
What if their lottery ticket was purchased with money they received as a birthday or Christmas gift?
Should they be penalized if they bought the winning ticket with money that did not come from the government?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43): It's simply a punative measure aimed, as I said, at a stereotype, and nothing more. This legislator-and most of you-probably don't know the first thing about most people on welfare, and are going by stereotpyes, nothing else.

I worked at a Medicaid-only hospital in the Bronx for three years. I lived in Spanish Harlem. I was one of only a few people in my neighborhood who WASN'T on welfare. I think I know plenty about people on welfare.

And I know that the people on welfare who gamble with their welfare checks are behaving irresponsibly. The people on welfare who are using their money to buy necessities while trying their damnedest to get off welfare wouldn't be affected by this policy.

Quote: If you want to get rid of this type of behavior, get rid of lotteries, but you simly cannot say a certain group of Americans isn't allowed to collect the winnings because you don't like the way they live.

If my tax dollars are funding their lifestyle, then I think I should have a say in how they live.

Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 42): It is not going to get there with the liberals running things that is for sure.

Funny, most folks on A.net consider me a liberal and yet I fully support this and any other measure to encourage people on welfare to get off of it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 46): I worked at a Medicaid-only hospital in the Bronx for three years. I lived in Spanish Harlem. I was one of only a few people in my neighborhood who WASN'T on welfare. I think I know plenty about people on welfare.

I am sure there were plenty of people in your old neighborhood that were on welfare that woke up early every morning doing everything they could to get off welfare. I am sure they didn't make waves and probably were none of your patients.

I don't see how buying a lottery ticket can be related to over indulgence on alcohol and tobacco.
Should welfare recipients be banned from playing bingo at their Church?
Should a welfare recipient be prohibited from being a contestant on a game show?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43): It's simply a punative measure aimed, as I said, at a stereotype, and nothing more.

  
People and their elitist attitude is sickening.
Elitist can be found all across the political spectrum.

[Edited 2009-04-11 17:52:21]

Why should the government have lotteries at all? Even worse, why should the state hypocritically restrict gambling and yet have $140 million jackpots in the biggest gambling schemes of them all?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43): I say if someone wants to buy a lottery ticket, it's a free freaking nation, and they're allowed to do so. And, if they win the big jackpot, it's theirs to keep, no one elses

Yeah it's a free freaking nation but don't cry poor saying you can't afford to feed your family than live off the government cheese using it to buy lottery tix.

Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 49): it's a free freaking nation but don't cry poor saying you can't afford to feed your family than live off the government cheese using it to buy lottery tix.

Again, you're going off of a stereotype there, nothing more, nothing less. You do not know if someone is not feeding their family by buying a lottery ticket, do you? If it's like I do-$5 a week, that usually won't break anyone's bank.

And, either way, it is no one's business, is it? There's no law that says they can't spend that moeny in trying to win the lottery, is there?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 46): If my tax dollars are funding their lifestyle, then I think I should have a say in how they live.

My taxes could help fund your street projects; building things in your city and state. Maybe I should have a say so in that? What will you say? "Bull, your tax dollars don't affect that." Well, your tax dollars probably don't fund their lifestyle either, or even worse, fund the stereotypical lifestyle that you believe they lead, which leads to such vindictiveness against such people. They have as much right to win that money as you. If they don't have the right, why should you have the right?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 46): The people on welfare who are using their money to buy necessities while trying their damnedest to get off welfare wouldn't be affected by this policy.

  

Why wouldn't they be? If they buy a lottery ticket, and win, and they only get $600. then they're affected.

You ever bought a lottery ticket, Doc? If you haven't, you're a rarity. If you have, why do you do it? To try and hit it big, so you can maybe retire, or quit your job-to make life better for yourself, right? But you would arrogantly deny that to someone else, because they don't live in a way you approve of?

You can look in the dictionary for what that would make you, my friend.

It's too bad a poor person from Tennessee who wins the lottery won't be able to buy this:


or this:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 50): Why wouldn't they be? If they buy a lottery ticket, and win, and they only get $600. then they're affected. You ever bought a lottery ticket, Doc? If you haven't, you're a rarity. If you have, why do you do it? To try and hit it big, so you can maybe retire, or quit your job-to make life better for yourself, right? But you would arrogantly deny that to someone else, because they don't live in a way you approve of?

Let me re-iterate. The lotto is GAMBLING. The fact that it's run by the government doesn't change that.

You wanna gamble, I'm not gonna stop you. Unless my tax dollars are funding your gambling habit. Then I want you to stop. You needed my money so badly to "get back on your feet?" Gambling isn't the solution. It never is. It has nothing to do with how they live or my approval. It has to do with the fact that they're living on MY MONEY. You keep on ignoring that fact.

And, for the record, I have never bought a lotto ticket.