Chicken dinner.

Bob we have a winner!

Splendid.

Food Stamps or Beer and Wine?

No sex clubs or casinos for them either.

He had no bank account.

Does this legislation mean that welfare recipients would have to open bank accounts in order to "access their payments?"

I'm confused...

but they can't have too much in there or it will look like they're saving... but if they don't keep $1500 in it they will have to pay $10 in fees to the bank...

So what this is really about is squeezing another $10 a month out of people on welfare?

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I wondered that too. Like my employer's HSA ("Health Savings Account&quot , just introduced in the last year or so. We have had "Flexible Benefits Accounts" that we can use starting with the new calendar year. I use it for copays for my medicines and doctor's visits.

But the FBAs are good starting with January 1. The allowable balance is automatically deposited. HSAs have to "build up" (combination payroll deduction and matching employer funds) so if I need emergency services on January 2, I pay out of pocket until my balance will cover the initial expense. Then I can withdraw the amount I spent earlier (yeah, like I have the money to pay for an emergency room visit, specialists, labs, etc., the 2nd day of January). It would probably be midyear before the balance was built up to cover such an event. All the time I'd be fighting off collection agencies and the like!

HSAs are handled by a local bank. It sounded like another scheme to divert monies to the banks.

Maybe, as some have suggested before, the post office should become a low cost check cashing center.

are handed by the Post Office, iirc. Might be a good model for the USPS to look into!

And for a mere 10% service charge, they can walk out with cash in hand. Maybe you'd like a payday loan while you're here?...

Seriously it is one month into the year and this is the first thing the Republican house works on. A bill that is highly likely to have zero positive impact to society but sounds and feels good to conservative voters. It's crap like this that I find so insulting about Republican legislative goals.

There has to be some implementation cost to this right? The government needs to somehow create and maintain a list of ATMs and point of sale terminals that are in such establishments then make the programming changes needed to reject any payment requests.

They'll have to come up with definitions of "strip club", "casino", and "liquor store". Will people be able to use their welfare and "food stamp" cards in supermarkets that sell liquor?

it's no different than drug testing welfare people. There is no savings after administrative costs come in. Wouldn't REAL conservatives wait for real evidence of real savings and real positive impact before expanding government to look at you pee? or where you spend money? Republicans are not fiscal conservative. Why democratic candidates do not attack this over and over is beyond me. There are lots of socially liberal, fiscal conservative people in the US. These people vote Republican based mostly on myths about their fiscal restraint.

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a contract that can be handed to the (cough)biggest contributor(/cough) lowest bidder.

Since it will be handled by someone who is not "the government", it just HAS to be more efficient than anything those (ptui!) bureaucrats could come up with! It's what Ronald Reagan did, by God! That's why we don't have Welfare anymore....

The best way of countering faux outrage by these demagogue douchebags is to loudly express real outrage at them for wasting time.

Here's the talking point: "if someone is smart enough to stretch their welfare check so far that they can provide for their food, shelter, and transportation, and still have enough left over to visit a strip club, then we need to vote them into office since they clearly know a lot more about budgeting than dumb Republican motherfuckers who think the best way to balance a budget is to cut taxes on the wealthy and spend hundreds of millions invading other countries on false pretenses."

I guess the Useless Dick Brigade must have a lot of Democrats among its members.

But fuck, who can blame them. The stupid fucks are incapable of solving real problems, so it's natural they'll make up fake ones to look like they're doing something.

That's about as bipartisan as it gets.

While I have my reservations about people on assistance buying booze or gambling, sometimes when you're down and out, it's probably a positive motivator to go to a strip club. Rather than wallowing in intoxication or throwing your money away on gambling, you might get the sense that 'if I did good for myself, I might not have to pay a woman like this to dance for me.'

Just a thought.

Amash (only Republican)
Bass (CA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Edwards
Ellison
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Holt
Honda
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lee (CA)
Markey
McGovern
Nadler
Olver
Payne
Rush
Sánchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Stark
Waters
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll020.xml

Boehner stated upon swearing in that he would only propose legislation that was constitutional and would cite where his authority is given.

I am curious to know the cost of this new endeavor?

`(A) IN GENERAL- A State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall maintain policies and practices as necessary to prevent assistance provided under the State program funded under this part from being used in any transaction in--

`(i) any liquor store;

`(ii) any casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment; or

`(iii) any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment.

`(B) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of subparagraph (A)--

`(i) LIQUOR STORE- The term `liquor store' means any retail establishment which sells exclusively or primarily intoxicating liquor. Such term does not include a grocery store which sells both intoxicating liquor and groceries including staple foods (within the meaning of section 3(r) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(r))).

`(ii) CASINO, GAMBLING CASINO, OR GAMING ESTABLISHMENT- The terms `casino', `gambling casino', and `gaming establishment' do not include a grocery store which sells groceries including such staple foods and which also offers, or is located within the same building or complex as, casino, gambling, or gaming activities.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3567:

While it looks like liquor stores and casinos can evade the restriction by selling groceries, the idea of a strip grocery store is right out.

And what about "strip malls"?

I mean are welfare recipients given a debit card of sorts? Or are they cash disbursements? I honestly have no idea.

I certainly don't think someone on welfare should be spending money on the above mentioned stuff, but this attempt might cost more than it saves, like drug testing welfare recipients.

Another issue is that in some states, grocery stores also sell liquor. Either way, this just seems like a waste of time. But what else would you expect from a GOP congress. It's certainly easier passing garbage like this during an election year than trying to work on a jobs bill...This is clearly done for political purposes. And of course, they'll attach some other rider making this legislation even more unacceptable and if the president threatens to veto it, they can say "look, the president wants people on the dole to go and spend your money on strippers and booze!".

Read the text just a little bit above your post; the bill specifically states that a store that sells "foods including staple foods" is not either a liquor store (if it sells intoxicating beverages, and most of them sell SOMETHING you can get drunk on) or a casino (if it has gambling, which means lottery tickets most places and slot machines in Nevada) for the purposes of this bullshit legislation.

Seriously, how can people oppose not allowing people to use ATM's in strip clubs or casinos to access government money?

Enquiring minds want to know..

if not the economy in some way.

Banksters will no longer be permitted to spend their bonus money on strippers and liquor? How will they entertain their congressional serfs?

this fall by GOP 'congressman votes to allow welfare recepiants to spend your tax dollars in strip clubs and gambling houses!'

The vote would probably flip 180 degrees.