.

what, a poor person can't go bowling once in a while?

in any event, once it's in their hands, it's their money. that's my view.

Studies have shown that giving cash has a larger effect on quality of life in the recipient than receiving "restricted" benefits. So I'm very sympathetic to this view, that we should just implement a negative income tax and wipe our hands of over-engineering outcomes.

However, the moral justification used to support these transfer payments relies on the fact that the money should be spent to contribute to certain positive societal outcomes. It's harder to justify transfers that can be used on bowling.

And really, if the scope of the problem is so tiny (0.09%), then I don't understand why there would be opposition to a change. If it eliminates mis-informed perceptions, then it may contribute to the longer-term health of the funding.

Just a wild guess, but I'll bet someone who deals with fraud all day tends to see fraud all around, and someone who helps distribute benefits tends to focus on the need. Much like it must be hard for cops to keep a balanced view of humanity when you have to witness so much depravity firsthand.

I think it is important that attention gets paid to needs fraud, since we're dealing with limited resources and want to get it into hands of those who need it most, although I greatly doubt that virtually anyone gaming the public assistance system is well beyond the scope of needing it anyway.

swishnicholson wrote:However, as to what started the discussion, someone will have to explain to me why I should get riled up over qualified people "misusing" their public assistance. It's not like they get more. Their loss-and, yes, sadly, their kids' loss too. But I only see anger motivating these laws, not sympathy.

The money is for the children, right? And parents are using it for themselves? And it comes from all taxpayers?

In my opinion, there should be anger if parents are abusing state programs -- designed to help their kids -- and spending it on their own entertainment. And if there is a fix, I'm not sure why we'd oppose it just because some supporters may be jerks.

Im not opposed to outlawing these places from accepting the money for drugs, smokes and booze,but they already werent allowed to buy these things. Im not sure what we're doing here.

edit: is there money being allocated to hire people to check for this use?

what if the kids enjoy bowling

Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP
#BREAKING: N. Korea army says it has final approval for nuclear attack on US

is this real

Werthless wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:However, as to what started the discussion, someone will have to explain to me why I should get riled up over qualified people "misusing" their public assistance. It's not like they get more. Their loss-and, yes, sadly, their kids' loss too. But I only see anger motivating these laws, not sympathy.

The money is for the children, right? And parents are using it for themselves? And it comes from all taxpayers?

In my opinion, there should be anger if parents are abusing state programs -- designed to help their kids -- and spending it on their own entertainment. And if there is a fix, I'm not sure why we'd oppose it just because some supporters may be jerks.

edit: see my original post was mis-worded. screw it, I'm out.

Am I correct in understand we're talking about ATM transactions with the EBT cards? That is, people are getting cash, which they could do at any ATM? Isn't it possible that some of these people using ATMs at such places are not customers, but low-paid employees, getting cash at a convenient location?

TenuredVulture wrote:Am I correct in understand we're talking about ATM transactions with the EBT cards? That is, people are getting cash, which they could do at any ATM?

yes that is what i think is being discussed.

i know i've had to use an ATM in a liquor store in an emergency a couple of times. it would kinda suck to not have that option available.

i doubt it's an employee, as it's virtually impossible for someone to be working AND receiving TANF with the limits are where they are. also, food stamps would need to run by the place, so someone is ordering a burger at a strip club or something if they are using their SNAP there.

theoretically, someone could run into a liquor store and use their EBT card to withdraw their cash and hten not buy liquor, i guess.

td11 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Am I correct in understand we're talking about ATM transactions with the EBT cards? That is, people are getting cash, which they could do at any ATM?

yes that is what i think is being discussed.

i know i've had to use an ATM in a liquor store in an emergency a couple of times. it would kinda suck to not have that option available.

So then someone determined to spend their public assistance on strippers or booze can still do so, they'll just have to stop at some other ATM.

TenuredVulture wrote:

td11 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Am I correct in understand we're talking about ATM transactions with the EBT cards? That is, people are getting cash, which they could do at any ATM?

yes that is what i think is being discussed.

i know i've had to use an ATM in a liquor store in an emergency a couple of times. it would kinda suck to not have that option available.

So then someone determined to spend their public assistance on strippers or booze can still do so, they'll just have to stop at some other ATM.

yeah, pretty much

it would likely save them money, since the fees at a mac in a strip club are probably ridiculous

likely he says as if you dont know!

cballs caught that

Ari Melber joins the Cycle on MSNBC. Yay!!!!

swishnicholson wrote:

Werthless wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:However, as to what started the discussion, someone will have to explain to me why I should get riled up over qualified people "misusing" their public assistance. It's not like they get more. Their loss-and, yes, sadly, their kids' loss too. But I only see anger motivating these laws, not sympathy.

The money is for the children, right? And parents are using it for themselves? And it comes from all taxpayers?

In my opinion, there should be anger if parents are abusing state programs -- designed to help their kids -- and spending it on their own entertainment. And if there is a fix, I'm not sure why we'd oppose it just because some supporters may be jerks.

edit: see my original post was mis-worded. screw it, I'm out.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post!

pacino wrote:it would likely save them money, since the fees at a mac in a strip club are probably ridiculous

If I were creative, I would have thought of a good word to use to modify paternalism into something with your username. But I'm not, so all I can come up with is pacinalism.

td11 wrote:Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP
#BREAKING: N. Korea army says it has final approval for nuclear attack on US

is this real

I think our spy satellites would've spotted a slingshot that big.