Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52): 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.

Read my post 40, 45 and 47.


Keep in mind, AFDC is for a limited time and it's up to the recipient to use it wisely.
If they are foolish enough to piss that money away on lottery tickets, that is their own problem and they can't come begging for more money because they gambled it all away.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52): Let me re-iterate. The lotto is GAMBLING. The fact that it's run by the government doesn't change that.

And the fact is that there is no law, nor should there be, on who can buy one.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52): You wanna gamble, I'm not gonna stop you. Unless my tax dollars are funding your gambling habit.

I'm sure you'll miss that $5 you allegedly gave to that person.  

And, sorry, drop the holier-than-thou. That person has as much right to win the lotto as you do, if you would play. And, if you don't play, as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing to compalin about.

Like I said, the good thing is most people will see this as blatant class warfare, and it'll go the way of the dodo. If it is passed, I think you'll find some court problems with the case.

Next thing you know, the Republicans will ban children from amusement parks if their parents are receiving AFDC.
These conservative would snatch candy from a baby's mouth.

Shame!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 55): Next thing you know, the Republicans will ban children from amusement parks if their parents are receiving AFDC. These conservative would snatch candy from a baby's mouth.

Growing up with my dad as a college student my parents didn't have much money. There were times they were concerned about putting food on the table. We didn't go to amusement parks when we couldn't afford it. We didn't do a lot of things when we couldn't afford it. Instead we'd have picnics, nature walks, go to free museums, enjoy free local events and sometimes just get in the car and go for a random drive. I don't feel deprived. Those memories are some of my favorites.

Government assistance should be for getting back on your feet not to support a family indefinitely. People on government assistance should be judicious with the money they are given by other families who worked hard to pay for that assistance. Every penny should go to getting out of the hole not to frivolity.

In no way do I support that kind of restriction, but I have issue with this statement:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15): It's perverted and it's certainly not the American way

I was always under the impression that the American way was:

Work hard enough and you can achieve anything.



Buying lottery tickets is not work, nor will you achieve much.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 56): Growing up with my dad as a college student my parents didn't have much money. There were times they were concerned about putting food on the table. We didn't go to amusement parks when we couldn't afford it. We didn't do a lot of things when we couldn't afford it. Instead we'd have picnics, nature walks, go to free museums, enjoy free local events and sometimes just get in the car and go for a random drive. I don't feel deprived. Those memories are some of my favorites.

You totally missed the point.
School field trips and friends of the family may take kids and their friends to amusement parks. Many people on welfare may have friends and relatives that aren't on welfare. Sometimes friends & family may treat their friend's kids to an amusement park. They may have nieces & nephews who's parents are on hard times.
Should that kid not be allowed to be treated to an amusement park and/or be denied prizes they may have won because their parents is on AFDC?

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 56): Government assistance should be for getting back on your feet not to support a family indefinitely.

Which is NOT the main point of this thread. What you are saying is a total given.
But since you brought it up, would you freak out if a mother bought her kid a candy bar with food stamps?
Technically, that wouldn't fall in to your strict definition of " getting out of the hole"

Quoting Superfly (Reply 44): 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?

Especially since the government get part of money back (I assume that there´s tax on gambling), there´s no perfect system nor the world is perfect.
This only incourage people to either do illegal gambling or let some else do the gambling for them.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 53): Every penny should go to getting out of the hole not to frivolity.

One man's frivolity may be another man's way out of the poor house, my friend. I don't see the harm if someone spends $5 on a lottery ticket, as I do every week, for the CHANCE to forever leave that lifestyile behind, which is why the goverment cannot and should not interfere in how someone spends that money. Now, if soemone is spending hundreds of dollars on it, and is stopping their family from eating, that is another story. But, again, that's the price of freedom of choice, and while I may not agree with it, I don't think government interference or a punative tax is the answer eather.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 51): I'm sure you'll miss that $5 you allegedly gave to that person.

Do you know how many lotto tickets get sold to folks on welfare? I don't know the numbers, but I know they're high.

The government needs to get out of the gambling business. If you want to make revenue by gambling, legalize casinos and tax the private sector.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): The government needs to get out of the gambling business. If you want to make revenue by gambling, legalize casinos and tax the private sector.

That's your personal opinion, nothing else. Others have a different view on it. And, if lotteries are legal, the government can't pick and choose who is eligible to play the lottery, or say that someone can only win so much while others can win another amount.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 30): 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.

(Emphasis mine.)

Well, I'm sorry that you infer from this that I hate poor people. In fact, I spent many years tutoring a 38-year old illiterate man on welfare how to read so he could try to get a job to NOT be poor anymore.

THAT is how I help the poor. And it took a hell of a lot of my free time, and I was happy to do it.

I guess I could have just driven him to the local 711 and helped him scratch lottery tickets.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 55): you freak out if a mother bought her kid a candy bar with food stamps?

No I wouldn't freak out but I think it is a poor use of the money. Besides I don't believe you can buy candy bars with food stamps. So that means someone has already determined it is not a valid use for government funds.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 55): You totally missed the point. School field trips and friends of the family may take kids and their friends to amusement parks. Many people on welfare may have friends and relatives that aren't on welfare. Sometimes friends & family may treat their friend's kids to an amusement park. They may have nieces & nephews who's parents are on hard times. Should that kid not be allowed to be treated to an amusement park and/or be denied prizes they may have won because their parents is on AFDC?

No, I think you missed the point. A friend or relative taking a kid to to an amusement park is not spending taxpayer dollars to do so. Why should I or anyone else care?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 55): Which is NOT the main point of this thread

It may not be the main point but it is relevant to the main point which is welfare shouldn't be spent on frivolities like the lotto.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 55): What you are saying is a total given.

I wish it were a given.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 61): A friend or relative taking a kid to to an amusement park is not spending taxpayer dollars to do so. Why should I or anyone else care?

Because if the kid WON a game at an amusement park, some would say that he/she shouldn't be allowed to collect the prize.
Baring welfare recipients from earning what they won in a game is the same thing.
Should someone on welfare be denied to win a prize on the Price Is Right?
Wheel Of Fortune or any other game show?
You still haven't answered that question.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 61): I don't believe you can buy candy bars with food stamps.

Yes you can.
You can't purchase already cooked deli items, alcohol and tobacco with food stamps.

It is ironic to me that certain matters, like, or for example the fair tax, or increased cigarette taxes*, are considered actions that unfairly exploit the poor.

Yet statistics show that the lottery exploits poor people by promising riches with little chance of return for their contribution -- and that most of the money spent is by poor people (who, in Ga anyway, generally don't reap the benefits of the college education scholarships the lottery revenues provide), and this is something we should advocate?

* for the record I am supportive of the fair tax and not supportive of higher cigarette taxes. I don't believe the fair tax is exploitive of the poor because it does not tax on basic living needs.

BTW, It amazes me that a mere difference of opinion on this subject of the $600 limit has yielded some very harsh and over the line characterizations of detractors -- with words like "elitist" and "class hatred" and "sickening" being used. Wow. Just...wow. Like I pointed out above, you folks have no idea what any of us have done to help those in need. Some of us have done things that belie our views on this one issue. Look at DocLightning's career for instance as a healthcare provider.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 64): Yet statistics show that the lottery exploits poor people by promising riches with little chance of return for their contribution --

Just like a lot of Churches.   
Should we take away their tax exempt status?



I'll chime in more on this tomorrow.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 65): Just like a lot of Churches. duck Should we take away their tax exempt status?

Absolutely we should.

Although it would give them more of a "claim" that they should influence local decision, as tax payers.

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.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): Do you know how many lotto tickets get sold to folks on welfare? I don't know the numbers, but I know they're high. The government needs to get out of the gambling business. If you want to make revenue by gambling, legalize casinos and tax the private sector.

Agree with you on this one. The gov should not be in the lottery business and they shoule not have poor peoppe spending whole checks on something that they are never going to win. The lottery is a pipe dream and there welfare checks should be spent on food and their kids.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 53): Government assistance should be for getting back on your feet not to support a family indefinitely. People on government assistance should be judicious with the money they are given by other families who worked hard to pay for that assistance. Every penny should go to getting out of the hole not to frivolity.

     

Quoting Superfly (Reply 63): Should someone on welfare be denied to win a prize on the Price Is Right? Wheel Of Fortune or any other game show?

Is the government paying for them to compete on the show?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 63): ecause if the kid WON a game at an amusement park, some would say that he/she shouldn't be allowed to collect the prize.

Who would say that? If they didn't spend government welfare to win the prize who cares.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 63): Baring welfare recipients from earning what they won in a game is the same thing.

I've already stated I disagree with this scheme. I think the government needs to butt out. Less welfare and less telling us how to live our lives.

I also stated I think it is wrong for people to spend their welfare checks on frivolities like the lotto. The lotto is not a get out of poverty life plan. It is entertainment.

So while I understand where this lawmaker is comming from I don't like his proposal.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 63): Should someone on welfare be denied to win a prize on the Price Is Right? Wheel Of Fortune or any other game show? You still haven't answered that question.

I thought I did. I don't care if someone gets a windfall, bravo good for them. It doesn't cost them anything to appear on those shows.

I care that people are wasting money they have been given by taxpayers.

I also, to reiterate once again, do not like this plan.

Apparently this TN bill is not exactly novel in the US. It seems New York has had a similar theory on receiving lottery winnings while on public assistance:

"Each year, the state collects millions from lottery winners who once collected welfare.

It's called lottery intercept, and it's a way for New York to collect millions owed from those on public assistance.

It sounds like a good way to collect on debt, but our investigation has found thousands of poor people who worked for their welfare checks now having to hand over their winnings to the state.

The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance declined an interview for this story, but a spokesman there says they are just following state law, which requires that anyone who has received public assistance and wins the lottery handover half their winnings as reimbursement to the state. But some legal experts we spoke to believe the policy violates labor laws."

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...tion=news/investigators&id=5958940

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 72): I just don't think the poor should in any way be incented by the state to put their limited funds toward participating in a state-run operation that exists solely to raise money for that state.

Then the state should outlaw lotteries. But to say certain people can play, and other's can't? Sorry, I have a big problem with that.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 57): One man's frivolity may be another man's way out of the poor house, my friend.

Gambling is NEVER a valid plan for financial security. It's GAMBLING. In fact, it is mathematically proven to cost more than it gains you. That's the whole point.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 74): Gambling is NEVER a valid plan for financial security. It's GAMBLING. In fact, it is mathematically proven to cost more than it gains you. That's the whole point.

Right. If you want to spend some money playing Blackjack because that is more fun than a movie that's great. Problems occur when you begin gambling as a means of income and not entertainment.

Why shouldn't they be happy that people on welfare are returning that money to the government? For people to voluntarily decrease their own welfare payment, that seems like something republicans should love.

Quoting Avt007 (Reply 5): It's a slippery slope, folks. Next, they'll say you shouldn't spend your money on cigarettes, or alcohol

Actually they do. I don't believe you can buy those items with food stamps or WIC coupons.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6): 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.

Exactly!

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 7): But enforcing that isn't practical, at least limit the outright waste

How about instead of actual money they get issued script like soldiers in WW2 got? The store owner would know the restrictions on that script.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11): That's not your decision though, is it, JCS? Is it a free country, or isn't it?

If the State is supporting you it is absolutely our decision, or do you let your kids rummage through your wallet and take what they want for any reason they want?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14): So, you would deny someone the chance to get off the welfare roles?

You mean like banks wanting to give back their TARP money to get out from under the growing list of restrictions and yet being told they can't?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14): Again, the only good thing is this foolishness won't pass. And, if it did, I think a court would find it Unconstitutional.

Then they would have to find a whole bunch of social programs that come with restrictions Unconstitutional as well. Food stamps, WIC, Medicaid.....

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16): 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"

Then no one would play because the payoff would not be worth the risk which is different than saying you can't use welfare money to play.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17): You want to get off the welfare roles by going to school and getting a job, then do so with my blessing.

There is a God!!!!!     

Quoting Superfly (Reply 42): Should they be penalized if they bought the winning ticket with money that did not come from the government?

Nope, but as you accurately pointed out there is no way to tell which money is being used which is even more of a reason to issue script to welfare recipients.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): and make sure they STAY on the public dole forever and ever Amen?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11): 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 Falcon84 (Reply 14): 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.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14): 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?

There are really two (maybe three) issues being discussed in this thread:

1) Whether a state has the right to legislate who can participate in a state activity,
2) Whether poor people should be playing the lottery (or incented to play the lottery) as a means to a higher economic status.


As for issue #1: there are valid arguments on both sides. I happen to think that the state has a right to pursue such legislation, if it is found legal to do so. Others disagree for some very valid reasons having to do with states meddling in our lives.

However, it seems that what is really irking the OP and some of the other respondents is this erroneous idea that those of us in the "no" column feel this way because out of an evil desire to keep poor people poor.

The fact is, even advocates for the poor believe that playing the lottery is a very bad idea for poor people, as they are lured into pouring money into a black hole without really understandng how remote the odds of winning are. (Heck, I'd rather them buy alcohol with the money--at least they would get something of value out of it -- in their minds anyway.

The notion that the lottery is even a remotely viable path out of poverty is not only wrong, it is dubious and ultimately harmful.

Don't take my word for it: Here's an article where officials of the Urban League of Chicago (an organization dedicated to elevating the economic status of the poor) talk very frankly about how harmful the lottery is not only to poor individuals, but poor communities:

Street, of the Chicago Urban League, hopes that lottery players will see how much the games take away from people and their communities.

“For urban and black community residents especially, playing the Lotto is a self-defeating behavior—a form of legalized gambling that worsens the often already difficult circumstances of their neighborhoods and the city,” he said.

(The article even includes a quote from a little-known state senator named Barack Obama) :

State Sen. Barack Obama, whose 13th District includes parts of 60619, agreed that the money could be put to better use.

“The money a family spends on the lottery could be spent on a computer for a child,” he said. “There is a need for computers in the schools, and job training and substance abuse programs.”

The article also points out that residents in poor communities spent a higher portion of their incomes on the lottery than people in more affluent areas.

“I understand that people are feeling like, ‘Well, I don’t have anything now. I might as well play,’ or, ‘Maybe this dollar is an investment in making me wealthy,’” said Lyle, sighing and shaking her head.

The alderman said she is “depressed but not surprised” by the level of lottery participation in her ward, which includes about half of 60619. She believes poverty, among other things, drives lottery sales.

I didn't see anyone in the article saying they wanted to shut the Illinois Lottery down completely-- only that they were upset by the number of poor people playing.

So, if anyone wants to debate issue #1 above have at it, but please don't think that those of us who are against the idea are blocking a poor person's path to riches. The lottery just doesn't work that way.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 67): 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.

Meant to indicate 'some' conservatives.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 69): Is the government paying for them to compete on the show?

What if their welfare money went to buy gasoline to go drive to the game show?
If the recipient lives in Los Angeles, a drive to the show isn't that far. Technically they can ride the bus there too.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 70): I also stated I think it is wrong for people to spend their welfare checks on frivolities like the lotto. The lotto is not a get out of poverty life plan. It is entertainment.

We may all agree on this but this lawmaker is full if it and wasting her time with this proposal.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 64): BTW, It amazes me that a mere difference of opinion on this subject of the $600 limit has yielded some very harsh and over the line characterizations of detractors -- with words like "elitist" and "class hatred" and "sickening" being used. Wow. Just...wow. Like I pointed out above, you folks have no idea what any of us have done to help those in need. Some of us have done things that belie our views on this one issue. Look at DocLightning's career for instance as a healthcare provider.

Come on now, this is not the Olympics.
Your efforts helping the poor is wonderful and no one is attacking you personally for your opinion. At least I am not.
The anger is directed at this loony lawmaker down in Tennessee; Representative Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville)

Absolute gem of a thread Falcon94. It is a bit like watching the monkey try to get its clenched fist out of the biscuit jar.

Well done, did you have to pay Stacey very much to come up with this proposal? Anyway, it was well worth the money!!!
        

Just wait till I get to rule America we will sort out your lotteries. We will need to, otherwise I can see some of your colleagues will be down here trying to stop us betting on flies crawling up the wall.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 78): The notion that the lottery is even a remotely viable path out of poverty is not only wrong, it is dubious and ultimately harmful.

Why yes all of that, but suppose you win? It is a bit like supporting bans on mind bending substances, great logic, poor applicability to humans. That is shooting for the title of being academically irrelevant. And much more irrelevant than most academics are able to manage come to that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75): Right. If you want to spend some money playing Blackjack because that is more fun than a movie that's great. Problems occur when you begin gambling as a means of income and not entertainment.

And if you are buying a three lotto tickets every day, then it ain't entertainment anymore. It's a vain hope.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 78): The fact is, even advocates for the poor believe that playing the lottery is a very bad idea for poor people, as they are lured into pouring money into a black hole without really understandng how remote the odds of winning are.

I agree but banning AFDC recipients from collecting their winnings IF they win is ridiculous.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 78): The notion that the lottery is even a remotely viable path out of poverty is not only wrong, it is dubious and ultimately harmful.

True.
I also thing that the notion that Church is even a remotely viable path to heaven is not only wrong, it is dubious and ultimately harmful.

Of course, these laws can be circumvented. They just get a relative who is not on public assistance to cash in the ticket for them, they pay the taxes on it and give the balance to the real winner in cash.
The reason for the $600 cap is that amounts above that must be made by check and generally require reporting to the State and Federal tax authorites. I agree that anyone on welfare (not disability or social security) should be required to pay back some of those benefits or immediately suspended from benefits if they win a singinficant amount. Still it should not be half of a Million dollar prize. I also believe that any major winner be required to get financial counsuling to make sure they don't misuse their money.
Much like with alcohol advertising in certain areas, they need to curb lottery advertising spending and to make a point about responsible gaming. Right now too many states have too much incentive to make people buy tickets, more likely from the lowest income people with despiration for money and unrealistic dreams of winning. They should put into large print not only the top prize but equally the 5,000,000 to 1 or worse odds of winning that prize.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 82): True. I also thing that the notion that Church is even a remotely viable path to heaven is not only wrong, it is dubious and ultimately harmful.

What does that have to do with the lotto?

Anyway, here's a story about an old Jewish guy named Abraham. Every day, Abraham would pray to God "Lord, please let me win the lotto. I've been faithful, have followed all of your laws and faithfully obeyed your commandments. I'll give the money to charities and put it to good use."

For 30-40 years, Abraham would make this prayer every day. And one day... God spoke!

"Abraham, Abraham! Give me a chance! At least buy a ticket!"
  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49): 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?"

How about a proposition more in accord with your wishes, if you are on welfare, you are prevented from buying tobacco?

Must be a more logical ban, after all, you are never going to will a large amount of money buying tobacco whereas it is only 99.999999999999% certain for lotto.

Like the Abraham joke. And did he buy a ticket?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 85): How about a proposition more in accord with your wishes, if you are on welfare, you are prevented from buying tobacco?

Going to the movies too.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 85): How about a proposition more in accord with your wishes, if you are on welfare, you are prevented from buying tobacco?

If you recieve food stamps or WIC coupons those cannot be used to buy tobacco or alcohol. Another reason to issue script instead of a check to welfare recipients. The same restrictions could be instituted along with no lottery play as well. Another incentive to get off welfare as fast as possible.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 84): What does that have to do with the lotto?

I was using the same logic that 767Lover was using in regards to the lotto. Should we ban the poor from going to Church since they're most likely to attend and give money to their Churches?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 88): Should we ban the poor from going to Church since they're most likely to attend and give money to their Churches?

How about making the poor wear some kind of marker. That way we could see what they are buying, and we can make it a law not to sell certain items to people who wear this mark.  

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 89): How about making the poor wear some kind of marker. That way we could see what they are buying, and we can make it a law not to sell certain items to people who wear this mark.

Because as SuperFly said, and was entirely correct, what happens if they get money as a gift or by selling a personal item?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 89): How about making the poor wear some kind of marker. That way we could see what they are buying, and we can make it a law not to sell certain items to people who wear this mark. Yeah sure

Read my post #37.

Quoting DXing (Reply 90): Because as SuperFly said, and was entirely correct, what happens if they get money as a gift or by selling a personal item?

It doesnt matter. As long as they get one cent from the government they should be using that gift to buy useful things and stop leaching off hard working god fearing Americans   

Quoting Superfly (Reply 88): Should we ban the poor from going to Church since they're most likely to attend and give money to their Churches?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 88): Quoting DocLightning (Reply 84): What does that have to do with the lotto? I was using the same logic that 767Lover was using in regards to the lotto. Should we ban the poor from going to Church since they're most likely to attend and give money to their Churches?

Is the church a government sponsored organization that is luring the poor into joining and giving them money?

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 93): Is the church a government sponsored organization that is luring the poor into joining and giving them money?

They enjoy tax exempt status from the government. They are considered a non-profit / charity.