|Quoting Superfly (Reply 52):|
These conservative would snatch candy from a baby's mouth.
I'm throwing the flag on you, here, Supe- you know as well as anyone that this is not an act which would mesh in any rational way with a true conservative person's value systems. You're better than this.
Back on point: It is ridiculous to suggest that there should not be restrictions (and, I'd suggest, substantial ones) on how money received from the public coffers is used.
Concurrently, it is bordering on hateful to suggest that, if someone on public assistance were to win the lotto, they should be disqualified from collecting the winnings. As suggested above, however, it should offend no one if a portion of those winnings were reserved for repayment of the public assistance money previously received.
One of the painful ironies: while winning the lottery is a wonder windfall, many who win end up squandering the winnings anyway. I can speak (in very general terms, to protect the shattered dignity of the participants) of a particular case. Husband and wife, of very modest means, win a substantial lottery drawing, one which vests upon them the right to receive annual checks.
Immediately, living large becomes the order of the day, and each check distribution is followed by a spending frenzy- cars, trucks, show horses, that sort of thing. Friends and neighbors learn quickly that the best way to get a real bargain on something these "winners" have is to wait until about six months after the annual payment, when the bargain-basement sell-off begins, with ever-more-desperate sales leading up to the next big day, when...
....the next check arrives. And the cycle restarts.
Ultimately, they sold their cash flow to one of many finance companies (I consider them vultures, but suppose that they are no worse than any other businesses of opportunity) which pay a discounted amount, today, for the balance of the annual payments. The last, biggest spend-fest ensued, followed (inevitably) by bankruptcy, and then divorce.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...