Wait, seriously? This isn't a law already?!

People still get welfare benefits? I thought we "reformed" them out of existence.

I'd have assumed that was already a given.

I wonder what percentage of welfare and child support payments actually go to alcohol purchases at this time. Is it actually that big of a problem?

This question was mentioned in the article, and apparently no statistics have been compiled.

SpinStopper: This question was mentioned in the article, and apparently no statistics have been compiled.

that's because nobody wants to really find out if it's happening or not.

What about medicinal alcohol?

Weaver95: SpinStopper: This question was mentioned in the article, and apparently no statistics have been compiled.

that's because nobody wants to really find out if it's happening or not.

Yep. It's easier to shoot now and ... shoot 'em some more ;)

Weaver95: SpinStopper: This question was mentioned in the article, and apparently no statistics have been compiled.

that's because nobody wants to really find out if it's happening or not.

FTA: State store clerks are already supposed to turn away such cards under an agreement between the department and liquor board, but the bill would put the force of law behind the agreement.

So who has been the enabler in this situation? The State or the free markets? Too bad the state has to step in once again. Anytime some businesses are given an inch they find a way to take a mile.

Exodus2001: So who has been the enabler in this situation? The State or the free markets? Too bad the state has to step in once again. Anytime some businesses are given an inch they find a way to take a mile.

you've never been to Pennsylvannia, have you?

There *IS* no 'free market' for liquor in this state. In fact, private sales of beer and liquor is highly illegal. there is a state mandated monopoly on the sale and distribution on all alchoholic beverages and the state is very very protective of said monopoly.

so there's no 'small business' trying to 'take advantage' here. this is ALL state run/state controlled agencies we're talking about.

SpinStopper: I wonder what percentage of welfare and child support payments actually go to alcohol purchases at this time. Is it actually that big of a problem?

This question was mentioned in the article, and apparently no statistics have been compiled.

Well, here's a simple way to analyze your question: how many welfare dollars would be acceptably spent on alcohol? My answer would be zero; what's yours?

If you're like me and believe no welfare should go to alcohol, then the existence of any welfare recipient buying alcohol is a problem. It's not at all necessarily a problem worth a new law, but it's at least a problem (we obviously don't tackle every problem with a new law).

Now, you're right: we should see some statistics on this problem before we do anything else. But it's obviously a problem of some degree.

mattharvest: If you're like me and believe no welfare should go to alcohol, then the existence of any welfare recipient buying alcohol is a problem.

What about the numerous studies that say a glass or two of wine or beer each day actually improves health? Why do you assume anyone buying alcohol is going to abuse it? Why wouldn't you also prevent them from buying soda? Or junk food? Are you saying you know what's best for them?

/devil's advocate
//the law is a waste of time because the cards can be used to get cash, which can then be used to buy whatever they want

skinnycatullus: mattharvest: If you're like me and believe no welfare should go to alcohol, then the existence of any welfare recipient buying alcohol is a problem.

What about the numerous studies that say a glass or two of wine or beer each day actually improves health? Why do you assume anyone buying alcohol is going to abuse it? Why wouldn't you also prevent them from buying soda? Or junk food? Are you saying you know what's best for them?

/devil's advocate
//the law is a waste of time because the cards can be used to get cash, which can then be used to buy whatever they want

Every single - literally - of those studies only found that health benefit in people who weren't getting sufficient exercise, i.e. if I remember correctly two to four twenty minute sessions of cardiovascular exercise per week.

As to your question about paternalism, I'm sensitive to that concern. However, paternalism is only unjustified when you're not, in fact, acting as a parent. For example, it's unjustified paternalism for me to tell you - assuming you're not getting government assistance - how to live your life. Yet, where someone receives government assistance, they are asking the government to stand in as their parent (i.e. to support them). Thus, it is unreasonable for a welfare recipient to complain about government paternalism.

Basically, the need for welfare is a demonstration that, in fact, you weren't able to govern yourself well enough. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, but rather that you weren't able to stand on your own two feet. In that case, it's reasonable for the entity (person or government) helping you to attach conditions to that assistance.

Weaver95: Exodus2001: So who has been the enabler in this situation? The State or the free markets? Too bad the state has to step in once again. Anytime some businesses are given an inch they find a way to take a mile.

you've never been to Pennsylvannia, have you?

There *IS* no 'free market' for liquor in this state. In fact, private sales of beer and liquor is highly illegal. there is a state mandated monopoly on the sale and distribution on all alchoholic beverages and the state is very very protective of said monopoly.

so there's no 'small business' trying to 'take advantage' here. this is ALL state run/state controlled agencies we're talking about.

So stores don't make ANY money selling alcohol? Why the hell would a store even stock the stuff if it was a non-profit idem? You make absolutely no sense. Of coarse these small stores in the ghetto are making money off people on state assistance. The profits are going directly from the food stamp card directly into the pockets of the store owners. How can you think this isn't what's going on?

Exodus2001: So stores don't make ANY money selling alcohol? Why the hell would a store even stock the stuff if it was a non-profit idem? You make absolutely no sense.

Oh they make money alright - but it's a state owned monopoly. they set prices and directly control what gets sold, to whom and in what quantities. The state makes a killing over it.

Of coarse these small stores in the ghetto are making money off people on state assistance.

Not in this state. ALL liquor sales - as in each and every bottle of everything with any liquor content of any sort - is directly controlled by state liquor control board. they're slightly more lax on the subject of beer, but wine and distilled spirits are tightly regulated and controlled directly by the state government.

The profits are going directly from the food stamp card directly into the pockets of the store owners. How can you think this isn't what's going on?

the 'store owners' in this case is the state itself. dude - don't be a f*cking moron. The state of Pennsylvannia has a COMPLETE monopoly on the sale and distribution of all liquor. And no, i'm not making this shiat up either.

mattharvest: In that case, it's reasonable for the entity (person or government) helping you to attach conditions to that assistance.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But I think we should be honest about it. Create a master list of things people on welfare can buy. Everything else is off limits. Don't just limit it to food items, either. They shouldn't be wasting their (our) money on anything that society deems inappropriate. No unapproved books or music, for example. We should set limits on how much we will pay for clothing items. No more $80 sneakers. They are taking our money, after all, so we should be sure they spend it wisely.

Weaver95: Exodus2001: So stores don't make ANY money selling alcohol? Why the hell would a store even stock the stuff if it was a non-profit idem? You make absolutely no sense.

Oh they make money alright - but it's a state owned monopoly. they set prices and directly control what gets sold, to whom and in what quantities. The state makes a killing over it.

Of coarse these small stores in the ghetto are making money off people on state assistance.

Not in this state. ALL liquor sales - as in each and every bottle of everything with any liquor content of any sort - is directly controlled by state liquor control board. they're slightly more lax on the subject of beer, but wine and distilled spirits are tightly regulated and controlled directly by the state government.

The profits are going directly from the food stamp card directly into the pockets of the store owners. How can you think this isn't what's going on?

the 'store owners' in this case is the state itself. dude - don't be a f*cking moron. The state of Pennsylvannia has a COMPLETE monopoly on the sale and distribution of all liquor. And no, i'm not making this shiat up either.

So, if I go into Walmart and buy a case of beer, Walmart doesn't make any money? Not a dime? They won't even bother stocking it. It would cost them money to have it there. That makes no sense.

details here. Basically, the PLCB is very (one might say rabidly) defensive when it comes to protecting their monopoly.

They're also as corrupt as hell but that's a whole other discussion for later.

Exodus2001: So, if I go into Walmart and buy a case of beer, Walmart doesn't make any money? Not a dime? They won't even bother stocking it. It would cost them money to have it there. That makes no sense.

Wal-mart doesn't sell beer in this state. The majority of beer sales are done by 'beer distributors', who directly lobby (i.e. make donations to) PLCB directors to set price schedules for their product. they force out of state brewers to sell to them at a lower price if they want to sell their product here in the state. Then the PLCB 'negotiates' with the beer distributors over prices. It helps that, by law, most distributors can only sell by the case. Essentially, the monopoly allows the state to screw over suppliers AND customers by artifically setting prices and manipulating the market via price controls. The distributors themselves make money, but the profit margin isn't as high as you'd think, since the PLCB makes access to a liquor license a very expensive thing indeed.

"We are not by any means advocating that people use these funds to go to a liquor store," department spokeswoman Stacey Witalec said. "However, when should government play a role, and where is it intruding on grounds where personal responsibility should be playing a stronger role?"

The irony in that statement is so unbelievable. The government wouldn't be intruding on their grounds of personal responsibility if they weren't taking money from the taxpayer in the first place. With money from the government comes strings -- at least, that's how it works for businesses that take government funds. No reason the same shouldn't apply to individuals.

KaponoFor3: "We are not by any means advocating that people use these funds to go to a liquor store," department spokeswoman Stacey Witalec said. "However, when should government play a role, and where is it intruding on grounds where personal responsibility should be playing a stronger role?"

The irony in that statement is so unbelievable. The government wouldn't be intruding on their grounds of personal responsibility if they weren't taking money from the taxpayer in the first place. With money from the government comes strings -- at least, that's how it works for businesses that take government funds. No reason the same shouldn't apply to individuals.

it gets even more interesting when you realize that the state has a complete and total monopoly over the sale of liquor. so buying alcohol with welfare money effectively transfers money from ONE government agency (the welfare folks) to another government agency (the PLCB).

RodneyToady:

Wait, seriously? This isn't a law already?!


My reaction too. Maybe Pennsylvania is different in that regard.

DrBenway: RodneyToady:

Wait, seriously? This isn't a law already?!


My reaction too. Maybe Pennsylvania is different in that regard.

lets just say that the PLCB moves at it's own pace.

Exodus2001

Dude, you have to come to PA to believe it.

You cannot buy alcohol at Wal-Mart. You cannot buy alcohol at the grocery store. You cannot buy alcohol anywehre that you would consider a "normal" retail operation. The state of PA runs the whoole show. You have to go to the PA controlled liquor store.

Beer is a whole nother nightmare.

Marcus Aurelius: Exodus2001

Dude, you have to come to PA to believe it.

You cannot buy alcohol at Wal-Mart. You cannot buy alcohol at the grocery store. You cannot buy alcohol anywehre that you would consider a "normal" retail operation. The state of PA runs the whoole show. You have to go to the PA controlled liquor store.

Beer is a whole nother nightmare.

I think Exodus2001 really wanted to go on some sort of anti-libertarian rant about the evils of independantly owned/operated liquor stores....and in just about any other state in the union, he'd have had good grounds to make that sort of comment. But not in this place. In this part of the country, beer and liquor is controlled by a VERY iron fisted state government agency.

Marcus Aurelius: Exodus2001

Dude, you have to come to PA to believe it.

You cannot buy alcohol at Wal-Mart. You cannot buy alcohol at the grocery store. You cannot buy alcohol anywehre that you would consider a "normal" retail operation. The state of PA runs the whoole show. You have to go to the PA controlled liquor store.

Beer is a whole nother nightmare.

I know you are correct, I was wrong. Some people can admit when they made a mistake and I'm one of them.

It just seems too stupid to believe. Pennsylvania sounds like a lousy place to live. I'm glad I live in a more liberal state like Wisconsin because you can buy beer everywhere. The markets here seem to have a more balanced approach toward free markets and government over site.

Exodus2001: It just seems too stupid to believe. Pennsylvania sounds like a lousy place to live. I'm glad I live in a more liberal state like Wisconsin because you can buy beer everywhere. The markets here seem to have a more balanced approach toward free markets and government over site.

Actually, it's a rather nice place to live. I'd avoid philly and pittsburg like the plague (nice places to visit/wouldn't wanna live there/yadda yadda) but the rest of the state has some very nice places to live.

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: Exodus2001

Dude, you have to come to PA to believe it.

You cannot buy alcohol at Wal-Mart. You cannot buy alcohol at the grocery store. You cannot buy alcohol anywehre that you would consider a "normal" retail operation. The state of PA runs the whoole show. You have to go to the PA controlled liquor store.

Beer is a whole nother nightmare.

I think Exodus2001 really wanted to go on some sort of anti-libertarian rant about the evils of independantly owned/operated liquor stores....and in just about any other state in the union, he'd have had good grounds to make that sort of comment. But not in this place. In this part of the country, beer and liquor is controlled by a VERY iron fisted state government agency.

Just the opposite. I drink beer and I like it easy to find and close by. I'm all for free markets, but when a store lets somebody use a food stamp card to buy alcohol, it's time to enforce some rules. This shouldn't be allowed anywhere.

You are correct about Pennsylvania. I had no idea they had such a bazaar policy.

I'm for balanced free markets and government over seeing each other. You are for anarchy, there is a difference.

Exodus2001: I'm for balanced free markets and government over seeing each other. You are for anarchy, there is a difference.

look around some time - the PLCB is the inevitable result of government market 'balance'.

They can't stop it. All they'll do is end up pushing it a few degrees out into an illegal alcohol trade.

Weaver95: Exodus2001: I'm for balanced free markets and government over seeing each other. You are for anarchy, there is a difference.

look around some time - the PLCB is the inevitable result of government market 'balance'.

No, that is not balance. That's government take over. Do you ever see anything out side of black and white? Balance is selling alcohol in your own store and laws stopping people with food stamp cards from buying it. See, that's balance.

Exodus2001: No, that is not balance. That's government take over. Do you ever see anything out side of black and white? Balance is selling alcohol in your own store and laws stopping people with food stamp cards from buying it. See, that's balance.

I've watched the PLCB warp and distort the political process in this state all my life. They've got money, power and influence and they intend to keep it. they actively fight against 'balance'. they fight to keep things in THEIR favor.

And that is why it's a bad idea to have an industry sector run directly by a government agency.

Good.

Good. Hopefully they do that for cigs to.

Actually... just do away with most welfare programs

FTA: Others say it perpetuates a stereotype that people who receive government assistance are irresponsible.

It's adorable that the journalist wrote that without a trace of irony.

It's about farking time.

Yet when corporate welfare is spent on hookers and blow no one says a damn thing...

Wake up America.

But... I need it for muh baybayz

"The bill, however, could be circumvented if welfare recipients use their cards to withdraw cash at an ATM and use it to buy alcohol."

Oh great, now they've let the cat out of the bag!

I am more concerned that they are extending this to child support. Child support is NOT welfare.

And for example, in Texas, women do not get child support directly. Its paid to the state and then to the supporting parent. This means that the money is very often delayed. In my case, I have used up all of my funds for groceries, rent, bills, day care payments and afterschool programs for my girls out of "my own" pocket. The funds that come from their dad through the state are used to take care of other things, because of the TIMING of when they come in. Yes, this includes a few bottles of wine or some beer. And not all of it is for drinking, either. I wouldn't want to make chili without beer, or spaghetti sauce without red wine.

I can see a POSSIBLE argument for restricting the sale of "sin" items from welfare money, but child support is NOT taxpayer or state money. It is private money.

moonscatter: I can see a POSSIBLE argument for restricting the sale of "sin" items from welfare money, but child support is NOT taxpayer or state money. It is private money.

The politicians disagree. What are you going to do about it?

I've got a better idea: make it illeagal for women on welfare to use the money to purchase clothes that are four sizes too small for them when they weigh about 250 pounds. And no buying 20 inch rims for a 25 year old Chevy either

skinnycatullus: mattharvest: In that case, it's reasonable for the entity (person or government) helping you to attach conditions to that assistance.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But I think we should be honest about it. Create a master list of things people on welfare can buy. Everything else is off limits. Don't just limit it to food items, either. They shouldn't be wasting their (our) money on anything that society deems inappropriate. No unapproved books or music, for example. We should set limits on how much we will pay for clothing items. No more $80 sneakers. They are taking our money, after all, so we should be sure they spend it wisely.

What next? Are we going to start asking them to produce receipts for every purchase they make? This is beginning to sound nuts. ;)

Failing_Junk: moonscatter: I can see a POSSIBLE argument for restricting the sale of "sin" items from welfare money, but child support is NOT taxpayer or state money. It is private money.

The politicians disagree. What are you going to do about it?

Well, for once I am going to be glad I live in Texas!

I'm getting drunk on a bottle of Listerine right now, so I am really *HIC* getting a kick out of these replies.....

cmb53208: I've got a better idea: make it illeagal for women on welfare to use the money to purchase clothes that are four sizes too small for them when they weigh about 250 pounds. And no buying 20 inch rims for a 25 year old Chevy either

Can we include mandating they use real eyebrow pencils instead of sharpies?

moonscatter: I am more concerned that they are extending this to child support. Child support is NOT welfare.

Besides the fact that buying alcohol does nothing to raise a child, I also have to add that child support is indeed welfare.

cmb53208: I've got a better idea: make it illeagal for women on welfare to use the money to purchase clothes that are four sizes too small for them when they weigh about 250 pounds. And no buying 20 inch rims for a 25 year old Chevy either

What if they bought those with the income from their bathtub meth lab. What then, huh?

When I worked at a convenience store in high school, you'd have these white trash mothers come in with food stamps. This was back before ATM cards or whatever, and they'd actually get these Monopoly-like bills. We always had a supply of food stamps in various denominations ($1, $5, $10, whatever) to give "change", but there wasn't anything lower than $1. So what they'd do is buy a 16oz bottle of Pepsi with $2 in food stamps, which would cost them about $1.05 or something like that, and get 95 cents "real money" change. Rinse repeat a couple of times and you had enough for a pack of cheap cigs.

If you wanted to have some fun, you'd tell them that they had to leave the store and come back for each purchase, boy that pissed them off something fierce.

I defend the right for anyone's ability to buy alcohol with their tax cut.