If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   North Carolina wants to bar the bankrupt and welfare recipients from buying lottery tickets. No jackpots for the poor   (wisconsingazette.com) divider line 300
    More: Interesting, North Carolina, welfare, bankruptcy, mess  
•       •       •

5344 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 10:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



300 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-26 07:44:09 AM  
You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 07:56:08 AM  
Some states already prohibit welfare recipients from playing the lottery.  Ending cash-equivalent or cash-convertible welfare would make the laws mostly unnecessary.
 
2013-01-26 08:07:46 AM  
I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.
 
2013-01-26 08:11:01 AM  

Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.


It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?
 
2013-01-26 08:22:58 AM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?


But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.
 
2013-01-26 08:29:32 AM  

EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"


You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.
 
2013-01-26 08:31:03 AM  

Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.


Let them play.  They just can't win.  Of course all they really have to do is find someone of age who can cash them in for them.
 
2013-01-26 08:32:44 AM  

Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.


They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".
 
2013-01-26 08:42:06 AM  

Via Infinito: I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.


The point they're trying to make is that you don't even have enough money to support yourself. STOP GAMBLING!
 
2013-01-26 08:57:02 AM  
Given that we can't seem to stop people from using public funds to buy things that are already illegal, how exactly to they propose to enforce this?

All this will accomplish is create another black market for Tide and reasonably legal people to claim payouts (and a percentage).
 
2013-01-26 09:03:42 AM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?


Why not let them win? Just make it so winning a prize over a certain amount requires them to pay a significant percentage of the winnings to the state as reimbursement for the win, up to the total amount of assistance given. For larger prizes that would cause the winner to run afoul of need-based assistance income limits in the short term, they could even reduce future payments according to the remainder of their winnings. In NC, any prize over $600 has to be claimed at the lottery headquarters or by mail ($100k+ prizes claimed only at HQ). They could lower $600 limit to something like $250 to enable enforcement.
 
2013-01-26 09:04:12 AM  
Let's ban them from high paying  jobs too. Why should they get all the good deals.

mr_a: Given that we can't seem to stop people from using public funds to buy things that are already illegal, how exactly to they propose to enforce this?


They'll create a new department staffed with a couple of dozen inspectors, vehicle fleets  etc. and have them travel around surveilling those damned poor people. It will save tons  of money.
 
2013-01-26 09:05:15 AM  
Wouldn't this eliminate just about all of the lottery playing crowd?
 
2013-01-26 09:10:50 AM  
Corporations that receive govt money should not be allow to invest in stocks. Govt money shouldn't be used for gambling right?
 
2013-01-26 09:13:48 AM  

johnryan51: Corporations that receive govt money should not be allow to invest in stocks. Govt money shouldn't be used for gambling right?


It isn't gambling when rich people do it.
 
2013-01-26 09:14:36 AM  
Keep the peasants fighting amongst themselves over pennies.
 
2013-01-26 09:22:39 AM  
How much govt money has Goldman Sachs received? No gambling there. Nope nothing. Look over there suckers.
 
2013-01-26 09:22:47 AM  
Wouldn't that lower the pot since the poor are disproportionately represented in those who buy these tickets?  (At least that is the stereotype.)
 
2013-01-26 09:23:05 AM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".


I don't agree with a law like this, but your analysis of the motive seems more mean-spirited than your attributions to the lawmaker suggesting this law.

I don't know what the right answer here is, but I can at least see this guys point: we are giving people tax dollars so that they can live with some modicum of dignity and security; perhaps we shouldn't turn a blind eye when they use that money so irresponsibly.
 
2013-01-26 09:30:53 AM  
The recipients of welfare aren't being forced to take the money. As such, it is not unreasonable that the state put a few minor stipulations on how the welfare is used. It won't be used for booze, strippers, and legal prostitution in Nevada. What's wrong with that? It's not a partisan, race or class issue.
 
2013-01-26 09:35:23 AM  
I always turn to a gay Wisconsin newspaper for my North Carolina lottery news.
 
2013-01-26 09:39:47 AM  
 Ah, dog-whislting at it's finest. Well, perhaps more along the lines of bullhorn. Are they allowed to have cheap internet to communicate assess the modern job market, or will that be deemed wasteful as well? A refrigerator? Or do those count as items welfare or SNAP recipients could be using to build the first prototype flying car that will lift them from this misery?

 Is poor Sally, who received a ton of grants for college despite there being no guarantee of it helping her also have such restrictions imposed? "Just look at her. Just look at her eating that pizza with MY tax dollarstm.Why isn't she eating Ramen for the 42nd time in a row?" Will we hear that? Of course not.

 This is old-fashioned grandstanding, designed only to light a fire under some rednceks' asses as they see a true Freedom Fighter Rallying for truth.

"Oh sh*t, Bubba, ain't we on food stamps?"
 
2013-01-26 09:45:19 AM  
Demonize the poor.  Ignore the real problems that underlie poverty.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.
 
2013-01-26 09:47:35 AM  

dickfreckle:  Ah, dog-whislting at it's finest. Well, perhaps more along the lines of bullhorn. Are they allowed to have cheap internet to communicate assess the modern job market, or will that be deemed wasteful as well? A refrigerator? Or do those count as items welfare or SNAP recipients could be using to build the first prototype flying car that will lift them from this misery?

 Is poor Sally, who received a ton of grants for college despite there being no guarantee of it helping her also have such restrictions imposed? "Just look at her. Just look at her eating that pizza with MY tax dollarstm.Why isn't she eating Ramen for the 42nd time in a row?" Will we hear that? Of course not.

 This is old-fashioned grandstanding, designed only to light a fire under some rednceks' asses as they see a true Freedom Fighter Rallying for truth.

"Oh sh*t, Bubba, ain't we on food stamps?"


You call it "grandstanding", and maybe it is.. I don't know this guy's motives, but I am willing to bet neither do you. Maybe he is looking for solutions to what is, without argument (IMO) a waste of taxpayer dollars. At the very least, assuming he is the hate-mongerer you would have him be, then he is communicating with civility and tact. It's a page you may want to steal from his book.
 
2013-01-26 10:07:38 AM  

Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.


What vice? A state-sponsored method of funding education is a vice?
 
2013-01-26 10:07:54 AM  

Lucky LaRue: dickfreckle:  Ah, dog-whislting at it's finest. Well, perhaps more along the lines of bullhorn. Are they allowed to have cheap internet to communicate assess the modern job market, or will that be deemed wasteful as well? A refrigerator? Or do those count as items welfare or SNAP recipients could be using to build the first prototype flying car that will lift them from this misery?

 Is poor Sally, who received a ton of grants for college despite there being no guarantee of it helping her also have such restrictions imposed? "Just look at her. Just look at her eating that pizza with MY tax dollarstm.Why isn't she eating Ramen for the 42nd time in a row?" Will we hear that? Of course not.

 This is old-fashioned grandstanding, designed only to light a fire under some rednceks' asses as they see a true Freedom Fighter Rallying for truth.

"Oh sh*t, Bubba, ain't we on food stamps?"

You call it "grandstanding", and maybe it is.. I don't know this guy's motives, but I am willing to bet neither do you. Maybe he is looking for solutions to what is, without argument (IMO) a waste of taxpayer dollars. At the very least, assuming he is the hate-mongerer you would have him be, then he is communicating with civility and tact. It's a page you may want to steal from his book.


Bullshiat.
 
2013-01-26 10:08:02 AM  
I bet if they do win the lottery they find a job within 2 minutes in order to claim the ticket.
 
2013-01-26 10:08:56 AM  

EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"


It's not really moralizing so much as people shouldn't be pissing away state funds. Granted, the money does go right back TO the state, but it's quite inefficient.
 
Xai
2013-01-26 10:10:51 AM  
the state lottery jackpot this week, after the new law passed banning desperate people from playing, is a whopping $12.50!
 
GBB
2013-01-26 10:11:14 AM  

Giltric: I bet if they do win the lottery they find a job within 2 minutes in order to claim the ticket.


I'll hire them in exchage for 10% of their winnings.
 
2013-01-26 10:12:26 AM  
I agree. Now add drug testing, and not allowing them to buy cigarettes, tattoos would make it all perfect.
 
2013-01-26 10:12:52 AM  

Via Infinito: But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.


If you have been dealt such a bad hand you would be better off saving any found money instead of spending it on frivolity.
 
2013-01-26 10:14:58 AM  
2 weeks from now-

Official Press Release
RE: North Carolina State Lottery
SUBJ: We Farked up

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. Basically the reason we called this Press conference is to publicly announce how retarded we are. And it's a lot. like, "that ugly dude from the goonies" retarded. Oh, and we're bankrupt. so, if everyone could just leave quickly, i'll uh...snag those lights there...just yeah....ok. bye
 
2013-01-26 10:15:14 AM  
I don't get it. Is he saying that playing the lottery isn't worth it?

color me shocked.
 
2013-01-26 10:16:07 AM  

jack_sawyer75: I agree. Now add drug testing, and not allowing them to buy cigarettes, tattoos would make it all perfect.


lol. Drug testing. I see you're in favor of corporate welfare, at least.
 
2013-01-26 10:16:21 AM  

cmunic8r99: Just make it so winning a prize over a certain amount requires them to pay a significant percentage of the winnings to the state as reimbursement for the win


Significant like the 1/3 to even 1/2 that is paid in taxes by every lottery winner, ever? How much more would you have them pay?
 
2013-01-26 10:16:26 AM  
I sometimes think GOP politicians must lie awake almost every night staring at the ceiling, trying desperately to think up new ways to make life just a little more miserable for the poor.
 
2013-01-26 10:17:24 AM  

MmmmBacon: They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP)


Sorry, bud, but there are quite a few welfare queens. Sure, they're in the minority, but saying that they don't exist is naive. I have personal experience with them.
 
2013-01-26 10:17:44 AM  

dickfreckle: Ah, dog-whislting at it's finest. Well, perhaps more along the lines of bullhorn. Are they allowed to have cheap internet to communicate assess the modern job market, or will that be deemed wasteful as well? A refrigerator? Or do those count as items welfare or SNAP recipients could be using to build the first prototype flying car that will lift them from this misery?


Look, I'm a liberal democrat, but how the fark are those even remotely comparable? This is about the same thing as prohibiting SNAP from being used to buy soda, not keeping people from having access to modern communication networks. Which is something a lot of liberals have been clamoring for, I might add.

A lottery ticket offers exactly no utility. It's not ramen vs a deli sandwich. Buying a lottery ticket is buying a piece of paper not even useful for wiping your ass, and a lot of poor people do buy them in the hopes that they'll strike it rich, and lotteries market to that hope. They make a lot of money marketing to the despair of the poor, and the poor lose a lot of money with misbegotten hope in a system where they're pretty much guaranteed to lose money. Hell, you could even call this consumer protection.

Now, I didn't RTFA, so I can't comment on implementation. Obviously, the devil's in the details, and if they're doing something like taking their money for the ticket but refusing to pay out, that's wrong, and probably illegal. I very much doubt that they'd try something like that though. But the general concept is nowhere near as odious as you're making it out to be.
 
2013-01-26 10:18:48 AM  
The poor can buy lottery tickets: "OMG TAX ON THE POOR."

The poor can't buy lottery tickets: "OMG THEY'RE BEING OPPRESSED."

/Make up your minds.
 
2013-01-26 10:21:07 AM  

EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"


Right.
So what your saying is that we should protect them from their own mistakes or bad luck by sending the govt checks, but then allow them to spend those checks on idiotic pursuits.

People on the dole should know it.
If you are on welfare you should be trying to get off welfare. People on welfare are like the kid who got held back 2 grades in school. That's how other people look at you if you are able-bodied.
 
2013-01-26 10:21:24 AM  
This will become law, of that I have no doubt. The repugs own Raleigh, and they're mostly just one step away from being tea baggers.

/Welcome to North Carolina.
//Please set your watches back 200 years.
 
2013-01-26 10:22:13 AM  

ghare: Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.

What vice? A state-sponsored method of funding education is a vice?


Yes
 
2013-01-26 10:23:17 AM  
Ah yes - the "NC education lottery" - marketed to the good folks under the premise that proceeds would go towards schools, etc.

Years later it ended up with the same reputation as the tobacco settlement - meant to go towards covering costs of tobacco marked substances...

NONE of it goes where it's 'supposed to'. It's all a multi-billion dollar shell game.

/Central NC resident.
 
2013-01-26 10:23:58 AM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".


farm9.staticflickr.com
The term "Welfare Queen" comes from Democrats in Chicago not the GOP and calling an able-bodied person with 6 kids on welfare a "welfare queen" isn't racist.

/not everyone on welfare is black
 
2013-01-26 10:24:52 AM  
Sounds good to me. If you have money to gamble you should not be taking money from the state. If you're bankrupt and have money to gamble you should spend it paying your freaking debts.
 
2013-01-26 10:25:11 AM  

Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.


That they hate the poor?
 
2013-01-26 10:25:59 AM  
I recall a twin billboard on the way into Winston-Salem - one side reading "Let's Keep NC Drug Free" & the other reading "Winstons - No Bull".

Even all those years ago - the irony does not escape me...
 
2013-01-26 10:27:04 AM  
Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.
 
2013-01-26 10:28:20 AM  
Government bans private gambling. Uses monopoly on gambling to collect taxes. It's good to be King.
 
2013-01-26 10:30:14 AM  

Riche: I sometimes think GOP democratic politicians must lie awake almost every night staring at the ceiling, trying desperately to think up new ways to make life just a little more miserable for the poor take more money out of my paycheck and tell me it's for my own good because they care about me.


Both parties can go EABOD. I've learned how to use the write-in line on my ballot and walk out of the voting booth with a clear conscience.
 
2013-01-26 10:30:30 AM  
This would actually create a market.

The poor who win jackpots but realize they would be fully claimed by the welfare agency could now sell them for cash (at a discount) to someone who could claim them without the levy.

So that million dollar ticket that the state would fully garnish? Well, I'll buy it off you for $400k, and when I cash it in I'm in the clear. Figure the prize taxes come out to half, and I've got a $100k profit.

/I wonder if a ticket could be claimed by a corporation?
//One located in Belize
 
2013-01-26 10:30:47 AM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: This will become law, of that I have no doubt. The repugs own Raleigh, and they're mostly just one step away from being tea baggers.

/Welcome to North Carolina.
//Please set your watches back 200 years.


There is a bright side: you could be stuck in your neighbor to the south.

/Alvin Greene, please call your office...
 
2013-01-26 10:32:07 AM  
First, make all those publicly elected take a weekly drug test, with the result publicly posted online.
 
2013-01-26 10:32:13 AM  
What's with all these ridiculous unnecessary proposed bills of late? It seems like there's even more than usual lately.
 
2013-01-26 10:32:37 AM  

Howie Spankowitz: Demonize the poor.  Ignore the real problems that underlie poverty.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.


One of the things that leads to poverty is a willing acceptance of it. People sink into bad habits rather than making the changes needed to get out of the slums and into a more productive way of life.

Welfare should be viewed as a leg up or a loan more than just another entitlement. Putting a few rules on these folks, so we get the most effect from the money, is not unreasonable.

/No drugs, no smoking, no drinking, no gambling, no whores, no frivolities.
/get your ass to job training, counseling, therapy or whatever it takes to straighten you out.
/want to play the lotto? Do it on your own dime or pay Uncle Sam the winnings.
 
2013-01-26 10:33:25 AM  

MmmmBacon: It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?


So, instead they sell it to the friendly neighborhood lottery broker for a cut.
 
2013-01-26 10:33:28 AM  
The people in bankruptcy, if they win, they're required to spend the money paying their bad debts, right?
The people on welfare, if they win, they might not qualify for welfare anymore, right?
Anyone, if they lose, the money supposedly goes to "education" yes?
Isn't it supposed to be stupidity tax, and super-awesome for state funding?

Some legislators are just looking for excuses to make more laws.
 
2013-01-26 10:36:05 AM  
Can we add social security to the list of things that should not be spent on gambling? Indian casinos are a sad sight.
 
2013-01-26 10:36:46 AM  

Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.


IANAL, but I think the transaction you just described is a crime. :(
 
2013-01-26 10:37:01 AM  
Well we all know that poor people aren't really. . . people, so we should be able to take away their rights with impunity.
 
2013-01-26 10:40:10 AM  

Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.


I think the point is that if you are on welfare, use the money for food and clothes, especially if you have kids. If welfare pays so much thst you have disposable income, then it pays to much...
 
2013-01-26 10:40:12 AM  
The mush brained liberalism in this thread is at epic levels. Seriously you guys can find better targets to defend than people who waste government handouts on lottery tickets.

Oh but I forgot, everyone who disagrees with you is a 'racist' or 'mean spirited' or some other kind of monster. Must be great to be so deluded that you claim the moral high ground no matter how indefensible the behavior.
 
2013-01-26 10:40:42 AM  

cptjeff: dickfreckle: Ah, dog-whislting at it's finest. Well, perhaps more along the lines of bullhorn. Are they allowed to have cheap internet to communicate assess the modern job market, or will that be deemed wasteful as well? A refrigerator? Or do those count as items welfare or SNAP recipients could be using to build the first prototype flying car that will lift them from this misery?

A lottery ticket offers exactly no utility. It's not ramen vs a deli sandwich. Buying a lottery ticket is buying a piece of paper not even useful for wiping your ass, and a lot of poor people do buy them in the hopes that they'll strike it rich, and lotteries market to that hope. They make a lot of money marketing to the despair of the poor, and the poor lose a lot of money with misbegotten hope in a system where they're pretty much guaranteed to lose money. Hell, you could even call this consumer protection.


Every time I buy a $2 lottery ticket, I am certain that it's my winning ticket. For the next five days I imagine all the things I would do with my money, despite the fact that I know that I probably won't win, there is a tiny chance and that's all I need. There aren't a lot of places where I get that much excitement (even with the incredible odds) for $2. Are we really willing to wring out every bit of hope and optimism from people for such a small amount of money?
 
2013-01-26 10:40:46 AM  

StrangeQ: cmunic8r99: Just make it so winning a prize over a certain amount requires them to pay a significant percentage of the winnings to the state as reimbursement for the win

Significant like the 1/3 to even 1/2 that is paid in taxes by every lottery winner, ever? How much more would you have them pay?


15-25 percent of after-tax amount would work.
 
2013-01-26 10:40:49 AM  

MmmmBacon: They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are.


I know a number of people who have significant family support (basically trust fund kids) who live in Section 8 housing and/or are on SSDI who have serious gambling problems that they feed with their benefits. Their parents have the money to lawyer up and get them declared disabled even though they managed to get multiple college degrees because of psychological issues. Like, for example their problem with gambling.

Maybe it's just a Portland thing. I'm sure they're statistically rare but to imply that nobody milks the systems seems fairly shortsighted. It may also not help that there are video poker machines in 90% of the bars in town.
 
2013-01-26 10:41:10 AM  

Lucky LaRue: I don't know what the right answer here is, but I can at least see this guys point: we are giving people tax dollars so that they can live with some modicum of dignity and security; perhaps we shouldn't turn a blind eye when they use that money so irresponsibly.


Trying to pass laws to dictate the choices people can make with their money? How perfectly typical of a Democrat-controlled legislature.

Oh, wait...
 
2013-01-26 10:41:23 AM  

E5bie: Some legislators are just looking for excuses to make more laws.


Exactly what I was trying to say up there. It's like now more than in recent memory they're trying to justify their existence by passing or at least proposing all these frivolous laws, whether it be about rape babies or video games or whatever. We don't need more laws. We don't even enforce the ones we have properly.

TheDirtyNacho: Indian casinos are a sad sight.


It's okay. I lost big at blackjack recently (I never lose at blackjack). I left a blanket at the owner's office door.
 
2013-01-26 10:41:45 AM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-01-26 10:41:51 AM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?


See, If I ran the lottery, I'd make it so that the welfare winner would have to pay back all that they had taken out in welfare from their lottery winnings before they get to take any home. You know, kinda like they take out the welfare from my paycheck each week before I get to take my share home.

At least with the lottery I can choose to fund that system or not.
 
2013-01-26 10:41:53 AM  
How does it feel to stomp on the last shred of hope a human may have? These lawmakers will probably end up like kaddafy, dragged through the streets with their orifices violated.
 
2013-01-26 10:42:12 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: Sounds good to me. If you have money to gamble you should not be taking money from the state. If you're bankrupt and have money to gamble you should spend it paying your freaking debts.


If someone is thousands in debt, the few dollars they spend on lotto tickets Isn't going to help them.

The creditors aren't even interested in it. They want EVERYTHING NOW.
 
2013-01-26 10:42:30 AM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".


Ever been to an NC convenience store or Wal-Mart on a Friday night?
 
2013-01-26 10:43:39 AM  
It's irrational to play the lottery because odds of winning are practically zero. If you get anything in exchange for your money, it's moments of imagination that you might win.

However, I oppose the premise that if you receive money from the government, the government should be able to regulate not only the spending of that money but of ALL your money on the theory that the government money frees up your other money to be spent in a way the government might disapprove of. That way lies authoritarian control, because EVERYONE receives some kind of government benefit or service. The idea that you have freedom, but only if you don't "voluntarily" give up your freedom in exchange for contact with the government, is, to quote a curiously fish-like space admiral, A TRAP. And of course the control will be applied selectively to those who have not bought their freedom from it.

I'm okay with some money being "wasted" as the price to pay to deny the legitimacy of a dangerous, authoritarian rationale.
 
2013-01-26 10:44:28 AM  

count_chimpula: The mush brained liberalism in this thread is at epic levels. Seriously you guys can find better targets to defend than people who waste government handouts on lottery tickets.


You're right, of course. The government obviously knows better than us what we should be allowed to do with our money.
 
2013-01-26 10:44:53 AM  

E5bie: Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.

IANAL, but I think the transaction you just described is a crime. :(


I'm sure that statute of limitations have past for him since the government has used a bank cards for last decade and automatically transfer funds to it once a month.
 
2013-01-26 10:46:13 AM  
Unenforceable.
 
2013-01-26 10:46:18 AM  

ghare: Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.

What vice? A state-sponsored method of funding education is a vice?


If you're so poor that you need welfare and then promptly gamble it away, it is indeed a vice.
 
2013-01-26 10:47:00 AM  

EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.   Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"


Even with opm?
 
2013-01-26 10:47:42 AM  

count_chimpula: The mush brained liberalism in this thread is at epic levels. Seriously you guys can find better targets to defend than people who waste government handouts on lottery tickets.


And you conservatives are all about less government except when it has to do with women and poor people. And don't talk to me about the poor wasting "your" precious tax dollars. You all have no problem with the obscene amount of money the gov't wastes on defense spending and various subsidies on oil, corn and everything else. None of you said anything about corporate bailouts when Bush was doing it either. So knock it off with the self righteous indignation about a few people on welfare buying a lottery ticket breaking the bank, no one's buying it.
 
2013-01-26 10:48:40 AM  

Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.


Are people really complaining about poor people taking money from the government, then immediately giving it back to the government? You people are idiots.
 
2013-01-26 10:48:42 AM  

Ms.Gradenko: Every time I buy a $2 lottery ticket, I am certain that it's my winning ticket. For the next five days I imagine all the things I would do with my money, despite the fact that I know that I probably won't win, there is a tiny chance and that's all I need. There aren't a lot of places where I get that much excitement (even with the incredible odds) for $2. Are we really willing to wring out every bit of hope and optimism from people for such a small amount of money?


If these people were only spending 2 bucks a week on it, sure, i'd say its a positive thing actually, and let it slide.

But have you ever been behind someone in the bodega\7-11\gas station who is obviously on social assistance, while they play the lottery? Trust me most of them are spending a ton more than $2 a week.
 
2013-01-26 10:48:59 AM  
How is this even legal?
 
2013-01-26 10:49:11 AM  
If my tax dollars are paying for their ticket, then I get the money if they win, right?
 
2013-01-26 10:49:41 AM  
Lotteries are an ingenious way to tax the poor and stupid. The bigger question is why would any Republican want to stop taxing poor people?
 
2013-01-26 10:49:44 AM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: This will become law, of that I have no doubt. The repugs own Raleigh, and they're mostly just one step away from being tea baggers.

/Welcome to North Carolina.
//Please set your watches back 200 years.


You don't like it? Feel free to stay away...really, we won't mind.
 
2013-01-26 10:49:50 AM  

Ms.Gradenko: Every time I buy a $2 lottery ticket, I am certain that it's my winning ticket. For the next five days I imagine all the things I would do with my money, despite the fact that I know that I probably won't win, there is a tiny chance and that's all I need. There aren't a lot of places where I get that much excitement (even with the incredible odds) for $2. Are we really willing to wring out every bit of hope and optimism from people for such a small amount of money?


You're not the problem. It's this guy:

i1195.photobucket.com
(original)
 
2013-01-26 10:50:55 AM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".


ummmmm...... I actually know at least 3 people who would qualify. So unless you've been on the street, please don't offer opinions that you can't support.
 
2013-01-26 10:51:15 AM  

Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.


You WERE involved with crime.
 
2013-01-26 10:52:14 AM  

Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.


The state you live in might be an exception, but most places it's illegal to buy food stamps for cash.
 
2013-01-26 10:52:41 AM  

Xai: the state lottery jackpot this week, after the new law passed banning desperate people from playing, is a whopping $12.50!


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2013-01-26 10:52:48 AM  
This "bill" will blow up in their faces when the first person on public assistance buys a ticket with cash and wins, then id denied their winnings by the state.  You can double the outrage if the winner is a white person too.
 
2013-01-26 10:52:53 AM  
Talk to a teacher who works in an area with a little economic diversity before you make your assertions.

My wife has been teaching for 15 years in 3 different districts. There are a significant number of people who take advantage of the welfare system (far beyond the original intent), and it isn't a race thing.

I'm not saying they are living like a "queen" or "king", but when you drop your child off driving a newer/nicer car, and (always) have hair and nails that are always professionally done, always have the latest cel phone, BUT your kid is dressed like a hobo and gets free lunch AND breakfast you might just be abusing welfare. This isn't one family per school per year doing this either.

Welfare should exist for those that are trying hard but need assistance, not the human trash who looks for every last way to exploit it.

Even worse? Those who abuse welfare don't seem to be the ones who usually produce independent kids who will provide a net benefit to society. The same can be said for rich brats, but at least some of those realize that you need to do *some* work if you want to stay in that 1%.

Oh, and I'll admit that I have no answers. When your teacher wife tells you that a third of her kids parents could care less about their kids schooling, let alone their mental or physical health, you start to lose faith in society.

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".

 
2013-01-26 10:52:57 AM  

sgj6936: Unenforceable.


Every state is different, but in Oregon to claim over $1000 you need to go to the state offices in Salem to collect your winnings. They could easily enforce not paying out the big tickets here.
 
2013-01-26 10:53:23 AM  

sgj6936: Unenforceable.


Sure it is. If you win any kind of jackpot over say, $20, the money is returned to the system until you have paid off what you have collected. For people who hit multi-million dollar jackpots, they will still get cash at the end of the day. For the person playing the pick-3 who scores maybe a hundred bucks here and there, they won't. Yea, people can easily find someone to cash the ticket for them and give them a cut, but so what, it will make them playing the small jackpot things a little less attractive.
 
2013-01-26 10:53:35 AM  

pearls before swine: Well we all know that poor people aren't really. . . people, so we should be able to take away their rights with impunity.


Playing the lottery is a right?
 
2013-01-26 10:55:19 AM  

dickfreckle: Ah, dog-whislting at it's finest. Well, perhaps more along the lines of bullhorn. Are they allowed to have cheap internet to communicate assess the modern job market, or will that be deemed wasteful as well? A refrigerator? Or do those count as items welfare or SNAP recipients could be using to build the first prototype flying car that will lift them from this misery?

 Is poor Sally, who received a ton of grants for college despite there being no guarantee of it helping her also have such restrictions imposed? "Just look at her. Just look at her eating that pizza with MY tax dollarstm.Why isn't she eating Ramen for the 42nd time in a row?" Will we hear that? Of course not.

 This is old-fashioned grandstanding, designed only to light a fire under some rednceks' asses as they see a true Freedom Fighter Rallying for truth.

"Oh sh*t, Bubba, ain't we on food stamps?"


So let's see.... You carry on about stereotyping and demonizing the poor by..... stereotyping and demonizing the people who are complaining about the poor?

yeah, that makes sense.
 
2013-01-26 10:55:32 AM  
Sounds like a good rule to me. People who are on welfare need that money to live, right? Not play games. Therefore, they should use that money to live and not play games. Playing the lottery is not a right.

If they win, they forfeit the money to the state and the taxpayers who have been subsidizing them.

Wanna play the lottery? Get off your ass and earn the privilege.
 
2013-01-26 10:55:49 AM  

MmmmBacon
[

Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".


Kinda stupid aren't you.

The mythic welfare queen? Really. You try to smear repubs are racitsts for saying they are trying to keep the poor from the American Dream but the fact that you equate a poor person as a welfare queen with 12 children indicates that you are the one who is racist.

It it weren't for poor people playing the lottery, there would be no lottery.

Income tax is a tax on success, Lottery is a tax on stupid.

Yes most poor people are stupid.
 
2013-01-26 10:56:19 AM  
Surprisingly, the dude sponsoring this legislation isn't being a dick about it. He seems to be more anti- gambling than anything. He wants to remove the word "education" from "N.C. Education lottery," and refers to the lottery as a "scam," as well. He also frames his proposal along the lines of "the State taking away the assistance it gives to those who have fallen on hard times" as opposed to using the "lazy welfare queen" line. I, for one, am impressed. Granted, he could be moderating his language intentionally, but this is North Carolina. I don't think that using the harsher language would necessarily be seen as a bad thing. Combined with his anti- lottery statements, I think he's just trying to reduce problem gambling. (one of the symptoms of gambling addiction is gambling when you don't really have the money for it.)
 
2013-01-26 10:56:51 AM  

RichMeatyTaste: Oh, and I'll admit that I have no answers. When your teacher wife tells you that a third of her kids parents could care less about their kids schooling, let alone their mental or physical health, you start to lose faith in society.


My parents were both teachers and I have no faith whatsoever in society. I think you might be onto something.
 
2013-01-26 10:57:09 AM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

See, If I ran the lottery, I'd make it so that the welfare winner would have to pay back all that they had taken out in welfare from their lottery winnings before they get to take any home. You know, kinda like they take out the welfare from my paycheck each week before I get to take my share home.

At least with the lottery I can choose to fund that system or not.


I guess I see your point, but welfare is funded by taxes and lottery winners are heavily taxed before they can take their winnings home.
 
2013-01-26 10:57:12 AM  

way south: Howie Spankowitz: Demonize the poor.  Ignore the real problems that underlie poverty.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

One of the things that leads to poverty is a willing acceptance of it. People sink into bad habits rather than making the changes needed to get out of the slums and into a more productive way of life.

Welfare should be viewed as a leg up or a loan more than just another entitlement. Putting a few rules on these folks, so we get the most effect from the money, is not unreasonable.

/No drugs, no smoking, no drinking, no gambling, no whores, no frivolities.
/get your ass to job training, counseling, therapy or whatever it takes to straighten you out.
/want to play the lotto? Do it on your own dime or pay Uncle Sam the winnings.


WTF? Really? You think people are poor because they're not trying? If they all just got "straightened out" that somehow tens of millions of good jobs would suddenly materialize for them to take?

Of course, there are people who fail because they're messed up, but to imply that huge swaths of the population are poor because of bad habits is, frankly, disgusting.
 
2013-01-26 10:57:15 AM  

Shae123: pearls before swine: Well we all know that poor people aren't really. . . people, so we should be able to take away their rights with impunity.

Playing the lottery is a right?


Probably so, commerce clause and such, or something. Receiving free money from the government isn't a right though, so you'd just have to address it from that end.
 
2013-01-26 10:57:21 AM  

Phoenix_M: /not everyone on welfare is black


But do you see how often they presume that as they're trying to 'stick it to the mean Republicans?' I wonder what that says about their view of the world. Oh wait, I don't wonder at all. Exactly like their mouth-foaming on the immigration debate - "why do you hate Mexicans?"
 
2013-01-26 10:57:22 AM  

Mugato: count_chimpula: The mush brained liberalism in this thread is at epic levels. Seriously you guys can find better targets to defend than people who waste government handouts on lottery tickets.

And you conservatives are all about less government except when it has to do with women and poor people. And don't talk to me about the poor wasting "your" precious tax dollars. You all have no problem with the obscene amount of money the gov't wastes on defense spending and various subsidies on oil, corn and everything else. None of you said anything about corporate bailouts when Bush was doing it either. So knock it off with the self righteous indignation about a few people on welfare buying a lottery ticket breaking the bank, no one's buying it.


People that spend more than $2 on the lottery a week, these are the real terrorists!
 
2013-01-26 10:57:25 AM  

Lucky LaRue: dickfreckle:  Ah, dog-whislting at it's finest. Well, perhaps more along the lines of bullhorn. Are they allowed to have cheap internet to communicate assess the modern job market, or will that be deemed wasteful as well? A refrigerator? Or do those count as items welfare or SNAP recipients could be using to build the first prototype flying car that will lift them from this misery?

 Is poor Sally, who received a ton of grants for college despite there being no guarantee of it helping her also have such restrictions imposed? "Just look at her. Just look at her eating that pizza with MY tax dollarstm.Why isn't she eating Ramen for the 42nd time in a row?" Will we hear that? Of course not.

 This is old-fashioned grandstanding, designed only to light a fire under some rednceks' asses as they see a true Freedom Fighter Rallying for truth.

"Oh sh*t, Bubba, ain't we on food stamps?"

You call it "grandstanding", and maybe it is.. I don't know this guy's motives, but I am willing to bet neither do you. Maybe he is looking for solutions to what is, without argument (IMO) a waste of taxpayer dollars. At the very least, assuming he is the hate-mongerer you would have him be, then he is communicating with civility and tact. It's a page you may want to steal from his book.


Your opinion is wrong.
 
2013-01-26 10:57:52 AM  

GilRuiz1: You're not the problem. It's this guy:


If "heavy" saved and invested that money he could retire at 40. He'd be dead at 45 from complications of type II diabetes but it would be a nice 5 years.
 
2013-01-26 10:58:46 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.

You WERE involved with crime.


yes, he was. but he's white and male and the crime was victimless so........ doesn't count.
 
2013-01-26 11:00:19 AM  

Mister Peejay: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

It's not really moralizing so much as people shouldn't be pissing away state funds. Granted, the money does go right back TO the state, but it's quite inefficient.


There are way better examples of this than a couple of bucks spent by a "welfare queen". When you justify your bias by concentrating on one (contentious) examples, while ignoring all the myriad examples around you, then it IS moralizing.
 
2013-01-26 11:00:29 AM  

Greek: Surprisingly, the dude sponsoring this legislation isn't being a dick about it. He seems to be more anti- gambling than anything. He wants to remove the word "education" from "N.C. Education lottery," and refers to the lottery as a "scam," as well. He also frames his proposal along the lines of "the State taking away the assistance it gives to those who have fallen on hard times" as opposed to using the "lazy welfare queen" line. I, for one, am impressed. Granted, he could be moderating his language intentionally, but this is North Carolina. I don't think that using the harsher language would necessarily be seen as a bad thing. Combined with his anti- lottery statements, I think he's just trying to reduce problem gambling. (one of the symptoms of gambling addiction is gambling when you don't really have the money for it.)


He's crazy like a fox, yes. But there are some unintended consequences to this, even though his real goal is noble. The fall out won't be worth it, for those least able to deal with the fall out.
 
2013-01-26 11:01:04 AM  
Jesus, just leave poor people alone. Why do you care how they spend their money?
 
2013-01-26 11:02:07 AM  

Ms.Gradenko: cptjeff: dickfreckle: Ah, dog-whislting at it's finest. Well, perhaps more along the lines of bullhorn. Are they allowed to have cheap internet to communicate assess the modern job market, or will that be deemed wasteful as well? A refrigerator? Or do those count as items welfare or SNAP recipients could be using to build the first prototype flying car that will lift them from this misery?

A lottery ticket offers exactly no utility. It's not ramen vs a deli sandwich. Buying a lottery ticket is buying a piece of paper not even useful for wiping your ass, and a lot of poor people do buy them in the hopes that they'll strike it rich, and lotteries market to that hope. They make a lot of money marketing to the despair of the poor, and the poor lose a lot of money with misbegotten hope in a system where they're pretty much guaranteed to lose money. Hell, you could even call this consumer protection.

Every time I buy a $2 lottery ticket, I am certain that it's my winning ticket. For the next five days I imagine all the things I would do with my money, despite the fact that I know that I probably won't win, there is a tiny chance and that's all I need. There aren't a lot of places where I get that much excitement (even with the incredible odds) for $2. Are we really willing to wring out every bit of hope and optimism from people for such a small amount of money?


That's not how poor people are buying these things. They're going down the line with 10, 20 tickets, scratching them in store, cursing when they inevitably lose, and walking out. It's not about fun- it's not entertainment, it's a desperate waste of money in the hopes of striking it rich.

I'm not against playing the lottery. What you're doing is fine, but I'm presuming you have some disposable cash and know that you have absolutely no chance of actually striking it rich. It's fantasy, and you know that, not a realistic route to getting rich. A lot of poor people treat it as if it is a realistic route to getting rich.

As for wringing out hope and whatever other crap, we already govern stuff like food stamp money in a lot of ways. Can't spend it on alcohol, for instance. The same argument could apply, but most everybody seems to be okay with that. We're giving people money for basic necessity. If they save a little money on the side, I'm perfectly fine with them spending their hard earned cash on whatever they like. But I'd really prefer that they not throw the money they get from taxpayers in the garbage, for both their good and for collective society's vis a vis the government's budget.
 
2013-01-26 11:03:10 AM  

doczoidberg: Feral_and_Preposterous: Sounds good to me. If you have money to gamble you should not be taking money from the state. If you're bankrupt and have money to gamble you should spend it paying your freaking debts.

If someone is thousands in debt, the few dollars they spend on lotto tickets Isn't going to help them.

The creditors aren't even interested in it. They want EVERYTHING NOW.


It's the principle of the thing. If you owe so much money you can't afford to pay your bills you don't need to be BURNING MONEY. If you're bankrupt YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY. (I know, you might.) This is why we are in such a hole economically. You out of money? THEN STOP BLOWING MORE OF IT ON STUPID CRAP!

I'm in a situation where my employer owes me more than five grand. I might not have a job next month from the looks of things. I have stopped going out, eating out, buying coffee at the coffee shop, and I'm damn sure not going to waste money on Lotto.
 
2013-01-26 11:03:31 AM  
Let them play the stinkin' lottery. Ever since Clinton signed that welfare reform act back in the 90's, any cash aid is a loan anyway. You loan someone money and will garnish their wages when they do start working (or take their tax returns, etc) you really don't have much room to talk about how they spend that loan. If your state isn't collecting the money back when they do start working, that's not on the recipient, that's on the state.

How would a clerk even know if someone was on welfare or in bankruptcy anyway? Even my stupid butt knows how to use an ATM and I'm sure if I were on welfare I'd know how to get cash back from the market or use an ATM just as well. It's just a bunch of "you're filthy poors, now go away" legislation designed to make the self righteous feel even more self righteous.

Heh. For some odd reason, this reminds me of a story from some years back about abortion and birth control. Forget which state it was, but one of them wanted to make abortion illegal unless the preggers chick had used birth control and it had failed. How would they even prove if someone had used a condom or not? Hide a DA under every bed in the state? Man, sometimes I wonder about the lack of thought processes some people display. At least it makes me feel smarter than I really am, I guess.
 
2013-01-26 11:03:37 AM  

Animatronik: People on the dole should know it.
If you are on welfare you should be trying to get off welfare. People on welfare are like the kid who got held back 2 grades in school. That's how other people look at you if you are able-bodied.


If you're able-bodied, pretty much any "dole" you could qualify to receive, would require that you've been employed recently.
 
2013-01-26 11:05:19 AM  

Shae123: pearls before swine: Well we all know that poor people aren't really. . . people, so we should be able to take away their rights with impunity.

Playing the lottery is a right?


Yes, self determination is a right. Spending your money as you wish is a right.
 
2013-01-26 11:06:27 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Feral_and_Preposterous: Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.

You WERE involved with crime.

yes, he was. but he's white and male and the crime was victimless so........ doesn't count.


Oh yeah, heh, missed that part. My bad...
 
2013-01-26 11:06:40 AM  

Mugato: So knock it off with the self righteous indignation about a few people on welfare buying a lottery ticket breaking the bank, no one's buying it.


Maybe you live in a state with limited gambling, but in Oregon we have video poker/slots in almost every bar in town. I've watched co-workers, dates, neighbors, and random strangers put hundreds of dollars in a night into them. This includes people on SSDI, living in S8 housing, using food stamps, etc. When I worked at a gas station in Western NY I had customers who were using food stamps to pay for food spend $40/day on lottery tickets.

Just because you personally haven't seen people who can't afford to waste massive amounts of money on state-sponsored gambling doesn't mean it isn't happening. I dated a girl whose parents bought her things like her PS3, her laptop, her 52" TV, etc, but relied on food stamps and S8 to cover shelter and nutrition. The final straw was when I found out she was selling her EBT card with $40-50 on it to put it into video poker.

I'm sure nobody commits fraud in your sheltered life, but it does happen.
 
2013-01-26 11:06:46 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Maybe he is looking for solutions to what is, without argument (IMO) a waste of taxpayer dollars.


They don't get reimbursed for the ticket by some other government agency. Where's the waste? It's not like they mail the dollar back if they don't spend it on lottery tickets.

Besides, lottery money goes back to the state anyway. Even the store where they buy it is taxed on the profits.

Lastly, how much money could we possibly be talking about here? A couple hundred thou a week? Not even worth getting worked up about.

In short: grandstanding.
 
2013-01-26 11:08:29 AM  

pearls before swine: Shae123: pearls before swine: Well we all know that poor people aren't really. . . people, so we should be able to take away their rights with impunity.

Playing the lottery is a right?

Yes, self determination is a right. Spending your money as you wish is a right.


They're free to spend their money, then. But when somebody gives you money, they're also free to attach stipulations to how you spend their money.

If you want to scrape together money from your couch cushions and buy a lottery ticket, feel free. Want to use your food stamps? Yeah, the people paying for those food stamps are gonna have a problem with it.
 
2013-01-26 11:09:01 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: GilRuiz1: You're not the problem. It's this guy:

If "heavy" saved and invested that money he could retire at 40. He'd be dead at 45 from complications of type II diabetes but it would be a nice 5 years.


$30 * 7 days = $210 a week
$210 week * 4 weeks = $840 a month

Invest $840 monthly for the next 30 years at 6% = $848,011.60
 
2013-01-26 11:09:14 AM  

cptjeff: As for wringing out hope and whatever other crap, we already govern stuff like food stamp money in a lot of ways. Can't spend it on alcohol, for instance.


Interesting detail I learned recently: In Oregon if you're over 65 and qualify for food stamps you can get beer with them, but only at stores licensed to sell it to go. You can't go to a bar, but you can get a 6 pack at 7/11 with food stamps. Weird, right?
 
2013-01-26 11:11:20 AM  

davidphogan: cptjeff: As for wringing out hope and whatever other crap, we already govern stuff like food stamp money in a lot of ways. Can't spend it on alcohol, for instance.

Interesting detail I learned recently: In Oregon if you're over 65 and qualify for food stamps you can get beer with them, but only at stores licensed to sell it to go. You can't go to a bar, but you can get a 6 pack at 7/11 with food stamps. Weird, right?


Not really. Beer in a bottle is a hell of a lot cheaper than beer at a bar. Not to mention that going to a bar is entertainment, beer in a bottle is grocery.
 
2013-01-26 11:11:31 AM  

cptjeff: A lottery ticket offers exactly no utility.


Worse than that, they are a tax on people that are bad at math. Now if it is someone who has money, who plays it just for fun, ok fine, no big deal. Waste of money but then we all waste money on things. The problem is that when people are in a bad financial situation, they don't buy them for fun, they buy them because they really believe it is a way out. Well, it isn't. Your odd suck, if they didn't suck it wouldn't be sustainable.

Also the less you have, the more of a problem it is to waste what you do. People talk about it being expensive to be poor because of fees, but they hit precisely because of shiat like this. Someone will have very little in their bank account, say $20 but decide to blow it on lottery tickets. They'll reason that they are bound to win at least something so it'll be ok. They don't, and then get nailed with an overdraft fee and a bounced check. Now suddenly they went from $20 to -$50 or more because they made a really bad choice.

Gambling really is something that only people with money can afford to do. If you are poor, you want to protect what little you have, not give it to someone else to get nothing in return.
 
2013-01-26 11:13:47 AM  
It would make more sense to bar them from buying cigarettes: it's a useless expenditure AND endangers their health, making it more expensive for the state to care for them.
 
2013-01-26 11:13:49 AM  

mccallcl: Lastly, how much money could we possibly be talking about here? A couple hundred thou a week? Not even worth getting worked up about.


Oregon, which has 3.9 million people has a state lottery system sold over $700 million in fiscal year 2011. Not all those 3.9 million people are old enough to play, and not all choose to either. Yet they made $700 million.

I think you have no idea how much some people gamble.
 
2013-01-26 11:14:31 AM  

cptjeff: davidphogan: cptjeff: As for wringing out hope and whatever other crap, we already govern stuff like food stamp money in a lot of ways. Can't spend it on alcohol, for instance.

Interesting detail I learned recently: In Oregon if you're over 65 and qualify for food stamps you can get beer with them, but only at stores licensed to sell it to go. You can't go to a bar, but you can get a 6 pack at 7/11 with food stamps. Weird, right?

Not really. Beer in a bottle is a hell of a lot cheaper than beer at a bar. Not to mention that going to a bar is entertainment, beer in a bottle is grocery.


I just thought it was strange that it's okay for seniors, but not for anyone else.
 
2013-01-26 11:14:31 AM  

cptjeff: pearls before swine: Shae123: pearls before swine: Well we all know that poor people aren't really. . . people, so we should be able to take away their rights with impunity.

Playing the lottery is a right?

Yes, self determination is a right. Spending your money as you wish is a right.

They're free to spend their money, then. But when somebody gives you money, they're also free to attach stipulations to how you spend their money.

If you want to scrape together money from your couch cushions and buy a lottery ticket, feel free. Want to use your food stamps? Yeah, the people paying for those food stamps are gonna have a problem with it.


And here lies the problem with most people's opinion on the subject. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY. It is money that you paid as taxes, but at this point the only claim you have over it is as one of many constituents of one of many representatives. To claim that these people are spending "My Money" is ridiculous.
 
2013-01-26 11:14:33 AM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".


25 years ago I worked at a store that sold lottery. There were a number of regulars who bought food with food stamps but spent $50 a day on lottery tickets 6 days a week. The odds, payouts, and probability dictate that these people would lose about $8,000 a year to the state. At the time the cut off to recieve food stamps was $16,000 income. These people were losing at a minimum half their income to the state lottery.

When I was about 10, my grand mother would give me a dollar every day. I had to take this dollar to "uncle Tommie" down at the corner bar and say "364 straight" he would give me a paper that I would take back to her. Every once in a while she would give me the paper to take back to him, and he would give me $800. Uncle Tommie I found out later worked for the local mafia.

My point is this. The casino industry makes billions with a less than 2% advantage in odds. The mafia is happy with a 20% advantage. The state payout is at most, 50% of the odds. It is really sad that the government screws people over far worse than either private industry or organized crime, especially since most of the money comes from the poor, at least in my experience.
 
2013-01-26 11:15:10 AM  
 
2013-01-26 11:15:27 AM  

cptjeff: If you want to scrape together money from your couch cushions and buy a lottery ticket, feel free. Want to use your food stamps? Yeah, the people paying for those food stamps are gonna have a problem with it.


You can't buy lottery tickets with foodstamps.
 
2013-01-26 11:15:49 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Feral_and_Preposterous: Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.

You WERE involved with crime.

yes, he was. but he's white and male and the crime was victimless so........ doesn't count.

Oh yeah, heh, missed that part. My bad...


I don't think he even meant anything ill by what he was saying. He just didn't realize the full impact of what he said. Which is a nice part of the basic invisible knapsack package.

/no harm, no foul because he's not intentionally trying to be a dick on this one
//but now he knows, and knows better, and that's a win win
///hopefully
 
2013-01-26 11:16:16 AM  

Mugato: count_chimpula: The mush brained liberalism in this thread is at epic levels. Seriously you guys can find better targets to defend than people who waste government handouts on lottery tickets.

And you conservatives are all about less government except when it has to do with women and poor people. And don't talk to me about the poor wasting "your" precious tax dollars. You all have no problem with the obscene amount of money the gov't wastes on defense spending and various subsidies on oil, corn and everything else. None of you said anything about corporate bailouts when Bush was doing it either. So knock it off with the self righteous indignation about a few people on welfare buying a lottery ticket breaking the bank, no one's buying it.


How do you know what "I" have a problem with? Oh right, you're just projecting your own biases and bigotry onto other people..Must be great to be able to construct a straw man every time you try to defend indefensible behavior,

Thanks for proving my point.
 
2013-01-26 11:16:27 AM  

Omnivorous: It would make more sense to bar them from buying cigarettes: it's a useless expenditure AND endangers their health, making it more expensive for the state to care for them.


Sounds good to me. Probably doesn't sound so good to the massive tobacco lobby in NC- despite efforts to transition farmers to new crops, NC still grows a shiatload of tobacco.
 
2013-01-26 11:16:38 AM  

EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"


You mean, like subsidizing tobacco growers, and at the same time telling everyone how evil tobacco is?

/amidoingitright?
 
2013-01-26 11:17:19 AM  

davidphogan: I'm sure nobody commits fraud in your sheltered life, but it does happen.


If you had read more than the last sentence in my post you'd see that I'm not arguing that people don't spend money they don't have on gambling. I was referring to people's disproportionate concern with a few welfare recipients spending their money in less than judicious ways when the government spends a shiatton more money on things like corporate welfare, wasteful defense spending, subsidies and so on. And the typical response to that is, "Well we're mad about that too", except they're not nearly as loud about it.

Cute little dig about my "sheltered life", nice touch. No, I'm not exposed to the horrors of the war torn public school system. I hope you all don't have PTSD.
 
2013-01-26 11:18:29 AM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Some states are trying to encourage this - and get their buddies rich in the process.
/Rob the poor to feed the rich!


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-26 11:19:22 AM  

Mugato: No, I'm not exposed to the horrors of the war torn public school system. I hope you all don't have PTSD.


Oh you weren't the school teacher one. Scratch that last sentence.
 
2013-01-26 11:22:10 AM  

pearls before swine: Shae123: pearls before swine: Well we all know that poor people aren't really. . . people, so we should be able to take away their rights with impunity.

Playing the lottery is a right?

Yes, self determination is a right. Spending your money as you wish is a right.


I'm printing that out and sending it to the IRS this year instead of a check.
 
2013-01-26 11:22:26 AM  

kid_icarus: Wouldn't this eliminate just about all of the lottery playing crowd?


No shiat. I live in one of the top ten most affluent counties in the country, and the only time I've ever seen someone who looked middle-class or affluent buying a lottery ticket was when the jackpot gets so outrageously huge that it's publicized all of the news. Otherwise, never.

So, yeah, good luck when all of that revenue dries up.
 
2013-01-26 11:22:39 AM  

count_chimpula: How do you know what "I" have a problem with? Oh right, you're just projecting your own biases and bigotry onto other people..Must be great to be able to construct a straw man every time you try to defend indefensible behavior,

Thanks for proving my point.


I was basing that assumption on every single conservative I've ever spoken to, which are a lot. So you tell me. Are you as loud about other wasteful government spending as you are all these people living the high life on food stamps?
 
2013-01-26 11:24:13 AM  

Mugato: davidphogan: I'm sure nobody commits fraud in your sheltered life, but it does happen.

If you had read more than the last sentence in my post you'd see that I'm not arguing that people don't spend money they don't have on gambling. I was referring to people's disproportionate concern with a few welfare recipients spending their money in less than judicious ways when the government spends a shiatton more money on things like corporate welfare, wasteful defense spending, subsidies and so on. And the typical response to that is, "Well we're mad about that too", except they're not nearly as loud about it.

Cute little dig about my "sheltered life", nice touch. No, I'm not exposed to the horrors of the war torn public school system. I hope you all don't have PTSD.


Maybe it helps that I'm not very conservative, but I'm just sick of people defending waste because it's not as bad as some other kind of waste. How about we get all of it under control, or at least admit that our state lotteries might be a great way to fund parks and schools and stuff, but might have negative consequences that we all pay for in some way?
 
2013-01-26 11:24:48 AM  

impaler: cptjeff: If you want to scrape together money from your couch cushions and buy a lottery ticket, feel free. Want to use your food stamps? Yeah, the people paying for those food stamps are gonna have a problem with it.

You can't buy lottery tickets with foodstamps.


And the exact same logic applies here.

machodonkeywrestler: And here lies the problem with most people's opinion on the subject. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY. It is money that you paid as taxes, but at this point the only claim you have over it is as one of many constituents of one of many representatives. To claim that these people are spending "My Money" is ridiculous.


It's the government's money. The government represents me, and acts on my behalf. The government is perfectly within its rights to insist that that money be used in certain ways, and they do that on behalf of the wider society, myself included.

The trouble arises when you insist that it's you, as an individual, have the right to dictate to the collective. When I say it's my money, I'm speaking as part of a collective. When the people you're thinking of insist that it's their money (and I do know the type), they're speaking as individuals.
 
2013-01-26 11:26:32 AM  

Huggermugger: kid_icarus: Wouldn't this eliminate just about all of the lottery playing crowd?

No shiat. I live in one of the top ten most affluent counties in the country, and the only time I've ever seen someone who looked middle-class or affluent buying a lottery ticket was when the jackpot gets so outrageously huge that it's publicized all of the news. Otherwise, never.



My parents bought a few for myself and each of my siblings as a gift for going off to college.
 
2013-01-26 11:26:52 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: When I was about 10, my grand mother would give me a dollar every day. I had to take this dollar to "uncle Tommie" down at the corner bar and say "364 straight" he would give me a paper that I would take back to her. Every once in a while she would give me the paper to take back to him, and he would give me $800. Uncle Tommie I found out later worked for the local mafia.


My grandparents never pulled that crap on us. The numbers dude (who was about my grandparents' age) would go door to door in the Old Neighborhood, though, to collect slip info. The Numbers at your doorstep, great service.

I'd never trust younger cats with a job like that, but a respected middle aged/older dude? sure. Between Bingo at the Catholic church basement/rec room, and the Numbers, who needed state lotteries?

I feel you on the State taking a deeper cut and not paying out to the players as much as the 'illegal' games. You say, in your 10th year, your grandmother would occasionally get $800 back? How often does that happen in these days, in a single year, that someone would get that much money back that often... and it being in those times, tack on the inflation value of the money.
 
2013-01-26 11:29:56 AM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: o that the welfare winner would have to pay back all that they had taken out in welfare from their lottery winnings before they get to take any home.


New york already does this.
 
2013-01-26 11:30:32 AM  

PanicMan: Jesus, just leave poor people alone. Why do you care how they spend their money?


Groups like the GOP and ALEC know that issues like this are guaranteed ratings gold. They rile up the rubes and distract them from real issues that can be handled in plain sight while the trailer park trash is screaming at Fox News. There's nothing better than creating racist images: the Welfare Queen is just too played out, but portraying some grizzled old black man who bought a winning lotto ticket is as good as convincing 18th century Transylvanians that the little dead blond girl was killed by a vampire.
 
2013-01-26 11:31:53 AM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Some states are trying to encourage this - and get their buddies rich in the process.
/Rob the poor to feed the rich!


Always been that way, always will.

/otherwise you have no "rich"
 
2013-01-26 11:33:04 AM  

ghare: Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.

What vice? A state-sponsored method of funding education is a vice?


As noted in the article very little of the money goes to fund education. The lottery money in North Carolina was supposed to be a supplement to the state level educational funding; instead the politicans simply reduce the general fund allotment each year by the amount of the lottery funds so there is no overall increase of educational funding in North Carolina due to the lottery.
 
2013-01-26 11:34:43 AM  
Who the fark do they think buys all the lottery tickets? Educated, affluent, employed people?

A new level of stupid: preventing the stupid from paying the stupid tax.
 
2013-01-26 11:35:39 AM  

Riche: I sometimes think GOP politicians must lie awake almost every night staring at the ceiling, trying desperately to think up new ways to make life just a little more miserable for the poor.


You mean like disabusing them of the notion that they are going to get rich playing the lottery?
You mean like trying to get them to spend that extra few dollars a week on food for their kids?

Or did you mean like trying to slow down, just a little, the stream of bad decisions that have lead them to this place? I'm not saying that all poor people are in that situation due to bad decisions, but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of poor people who play the lottery regularly are.
 
2013-01-26 11:35:47 AM  

MmmmBacon: They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP)


Define "welfare queen", and for any definition you come up with, I bet someone can give a real-life example.
 
2013-01-26 11:35:54 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: Via Infinito: But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

If you have been dealt such a bad hand you would be better off saving any found money instead of spending it on frivolity.


When did Oliver Cromwell get a Fark account?
 
2013-01-26 11:37:13 AM  

Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.


But you were involved in crime - food stamp fraud.
 
2013-01-26 11:39:00 AM  

davidphogan: Mugato: davidphogan: I'm sure nobody commits fraud in your sheltered life, but it does happen.

If you had read more than the last sentence in my post you'd see that I'm not arguing that people don't spend money they don't have on gambling. I was referring to people's disproportionate concern with a few welfare recipients spending their money in less than judicious ways when the government spends a shiatton more money on things like corporate welfare, wasteful defense spending, subsidies and so on. And the typical response to that is, "Well we're mad about that too", except they're not nearly as loud about it.

Cute little dig about my "sheltered life", nice touch. No, I'm not exposed to the horrors of the war torn public school system. I hope you all don't have PTSD.

Maybe it helps that I'm not very conservative, but I'm just sick of people defending waste because it's not as bad as some other kind of waste. How about we get all of it under control, or at least admit that our state lotteries might be a great way to fund parks and schools and stuff, but might have negative consequences that we all pay for in some way?


Because there's no such thing as a complex system that is perfect.

It's an issue of resource allocation. Do you think we should spend a ton of money preventing the incredibly small amount of welfare fraud, or would we get more benefit from spending that money on something else? that's the only pertinent question.
 
2013-01-26 11:39:23 AM  
i1125.photobucket.com

/So much bootstrappiness.
 
2013-01-26 11:40:01 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit:


Even my stupid butt knows how to use an ATM and I'm sure if I were on welfare I'd know how to get cash back from the market or use an ATM just as well.


Your butt can read braille ?
 
2013-01-26 11:40:36 AM  
As a resident of North Carolina, I am sick and tired of seeing people pay for their groceries with an EBT card (which are normally traded for drugs & alcohol within 10 minutes of leaving the store) and then paying for lottery tickets with cash in the same transaction. This law would put an end to this nonsense.
 
2013-01-26 11:41:12 AM  
Kinda chaps a lot of folks arses that the poor on welfare might be squandering their money, doesn't it? Money these folks worked hard to earn and pay in taxes.

Of course, every State Lottery was created to generate funds for the State from ticket sales, plus the government gets 60% of the winnings back on the really big draws -- though not the scratch off tickets.

During economic declines, the lotteries have historically given folks hope and helped finance government programs. This has gone on for hundreds of years. Even organized crime initiated lotteries, adjusting the payout to maximize their profits.

When the Florida Lottery was started, I noticed a whole lot of people made small wins, and it dawned on me that the system had been rigged to pay out more to get folks 'hooked'. Within a year, the frequency of wins dropped.

I understood that. Though, the lottery was approved by popular vote because the profits were to help the failing schools. Within 4 years, we found out huge amounts of the funds were going every place else as State legislators eagerly grabbed up funds from the 'unexpected' bounty, leaving the schools in nearly as bad a shape as they were before.

The lottery is gambling. When you have gambling you'll have a small number of folks who will become addicted to it and the inevitable amount who will try and cheat or who will go bankrupt trying to beat the odds.

However, the State still wins. It develops a new source for billions in additional funds. The most desperate and economically challenged will spend the most on average for a chance of a big, life changing win.

Lotteries give them hope when all other avenues have been exhausted. A series of small wins, easily set by the lottery, encourages them to keep buying.

Your middle class will buy less tickets, knowing that their chances of winning a million dollar payout come to something near the chances of a meteorite landing in their front yard. They'll play the stock market -- and as we saw in the 80's and 90's, as technology allowed everyone to become their own stock broker, screw the market up for everyone.

Others will become 'flippers', buying, repairing and selling cheap homes for a profit, which jacks up the cost of homes in the local market plus tends to increase property taxes. That damages local economies in the long run in low income neighborhoods.

BTW. The poor borrow more money. Since the cap on interest rates was voided years back, we've seen an explosion of privately owned 'Payroll Loan' places, backed by well off folks who rake in 5% on every check cashed and can charge up to 400% interest on a loan made.

Now, don't forget the booze companies who have designed 'special' brands and bottles targeting the poor. Like 40 oz beers -- which also now come in flavors. A predominate wine company which manufactures rotgut to be sold cheaply in low income neighborhoods and those products which have alcohol levels artificially increased.

Convenience stores or 'Bodega's' have popped up, dramatically increasing the cost of products designed to attract the poor.

Pretty much, if you're poor, there's a thousand ways for you to be fleeced out of your money that does not affect the upper classes. Actually, many of the upper classes profit from it.

I once tracked down the owner of a particularly decrepit series of rentals in a poor neighborhood, where the renters paid considerably more for less than I did in my nicer apartment in a better section of town. Repairs were hard to get done. The area was high crime.

The actual owner turned out to be a State Senator. He owned the places through a business he had set up, which had then invested in them. The many lawsuits from the renters never mentioned his name.

So, let the low income folks have their lottery. There's a long list of businesses set up to screw them out of their money anyhow so they deserve some hope for a better future.
 
2013-01-26 11:41:21 AM  

davidphogan: I'm just sick of people defending waste because it's not as bad as some other kind of waste


I'm not defending it. I guess I'm just suggesting people prioritize or at least get just as angry over the real government waste in this country. If these people are going to have an aneurism over a tiny portion of their taxes going to some dead beat spending a few dollars on lottery tickets, they should be infinity more pissed at the real things the government blows their tax dollars on. But it's easier to whine about this sort of thing and there's usually an underlying contempt for people receiving a pittance from the gov't for what they think is being lazy (and sometimes is). But it's a drop in the ocean towards the type of spending they should be crying about. That's mostly what I was saying.
 
2013-01-26 11:44:00 AM  

leevis: Riche: I sometimes think GOP democratic politicians must lie awake almost every night staring at the ceiling, trying desperately to think up new ways to make life just a little more miserable for the poor take more money out of my paycheck and tell me it's for my own good because they care about me.

Both parties can go EABOD. I've learned how to use the write-in line on my ballot and walk out of the voting booth with a clear conscience.


Ahh, so, you're a nut. Good for you!
 
2013-01-26 11:44:26 AM  

Mugato: davidphogan: I'm just sick of people defending waste because it's not as bad as some other kind of waste

I'm not defending it. I guess I'm just suggesting people prioritize or at least get just as angry over the real government waste in this country. If these people are going to have an aneurism over a tiny portion of their taxes going to some dead beat spending a few dollars on lottery tickets, they should be infinity more pissed at the real things the government blows their tax dollars on. But it's easier to whine about this sort of thing and there's usually an underlying contempt for people receiving a pittance from the gov't for what they think is being lazy (and sometimes is). But it's a drop in the ocean towards the type of spending they should be crying about. That's mostly what I was saying.


It is called distraction.
Distract from the real gravy train and fixate fools on the chump change.
 
2013-01-26 11:44:55 AM  
Do they use food stamps to pay for the lottery tickets or something? And they act like one of these people wins the lottery every five seconds!!!
 
2013-01-26 11:45:13 AM  

space1999: MmmmBacon: They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP)

Sorry, bud, but there are quite a few welfare queens. Sure, they're in the minority, but saying that they don't exist is naive. I have personal experience with them.


I doubt it, since it's pretty much impossible now.

Given how AFDC was terminated and replaced with TANF, which has a lifetime limit on how long you can be on it.

The "Welfare Queen" is this mythic Conservative bogeyman of a woman who doesn't work and doesn't want to (maybe never even worked a day in her life) and has a group of kids which she uses to get money from the state.

She lives on the taxpayer dime, with her housing covered by taxpayer money, driving a Cadillac paid for with "welfare" money, neglecting her kids and giving them only the bare minimum to make all those welfare dollars stretch further so she can live a life of relative luxury on the taxpayer dime and never have to work a day in her life.

You know somebody like this? Now, as in right now? What freaking government programs are the on, since "welfare" as it used to be ended years ago.
 
2013-01-26 11:46:57 AM  

way south: Howie Spankowitz: Demonize the poor.  Ignore the real problems that underlie poverty.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

One of the things that leads to poverty is a willing acceptance of it. People sink into bad habits rather than making the changes needed to get out of the slums and into a more productive way of life.

Welfare should be viewed as a leg up or a loan more than just another entitlement. Putting a few rules on these folks, so we get the most effect from the money, is not unreasonable.

/No drugs, no smoking, no drinking, no gambling, no whores, no frivolities.
/get your ass to job training, counseling, therapy or whatever it takes to straighten you out.
/want to play the lotto? Do it on your own dime or pay Uncle Sam the winnings.


I get where you're going, but saying no smoking or drinking is just draconian.  You can't deny people enjoyment of life.

Drugs are already illegal, as are prostitutes in 99.9% of the country.
 
2013-01-26 11:47:06 AM  

snocone: It is called distraction.
Distract from the real gravy train and fixate fools on the chump change.


Thank you. Now I'm going to find a thread and talk about movies.

/dammit, this thing's almost done rendering I actually have to go back to work
//meh, I can do both
 
2013-01-26 11:48:10 AM  

gblive: As a resident of North Carolina, I am sick and tired of seeing people pay for their groceries with an EBT card (which are normally traded for drugs & alcohol within 10 minutes of leaving the store) and then paying for lottery tickets with cash in the same transaction. This law would put an end to this nonsense.


No, it would not.
You just don't get it.
And prolly never will.
 
2013-01-26 11:50:45 AM  

fredklein: MmmmBacon: They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP)

Define "welfare queen", and for any definition you come up with, I bet someone can give a real-life example.


I don't think the point is that there are *no* welfare queens.  Describe any type of person, and I'm sure that person exists in our 300 million population.

The issue is that some people are pushing the myth that MOST people on welfare are "welfare queens".

That's not true.
 
2013-01-26 11:51:27 AM  

RichMeatyTaste: I'm not saying they are living like a "queen" or "king", but when you drop your child off driving a newer/nicer car, and (always) have hair and nails that are always professionally done, always have the latest cel phone, BUT your kid is dressed like a hobo and gets free lunch AND breakfast you might just be abusing welfare. This isn't one family per school per year doing this either.


It's almost like some of those people might be getting income other ways, possibly by doing illegal things.

It's also possible that all those things can be explained legitimately. (Borrowed car, professional stylist friend, family member with cell phone employee discount, etc).
 
2013-01-26 11:53:07 AM  

davidphogan: society


Yeah! fark Society! Anarchy! Wooooo!

Also, McCrory wants to eliminate income tax and jack up sales tax. What class warfare?
 
2013-01-26 11:54:15 AM  

GilRuiz1: The poor can buy lottery tickets: "OMG TAX ON THE POOR."

The poor can't buy lottery tickets: "OMG THEY'RE BEING OPPRESSED."

/Make up your minds.


It's not a tax on the poor, it's a tax on people who don't understand math.
 
2013-01-26 11:58:58 AM  
I live in NC and find it amusing that the state want's to shut down slot machines in stores, but will continue to allow them to sell lottery tickets. Got to keep a tight fist on gambling profits.
 
2013-01-26 11:59:06 AM  
I spent 12 years in the rent to own industry and there are plenty of "welfare queens" and "welfare kings" too for what it's worth but you have to adjust your definition of royalty to make it work since they aren't even hitting close to a comfortable lifestyle. If your definition of royalty is $800/month and three small kids then Hail to the King! That isn't the people defrauding the welfare system but as much as people like to trumpet the few examples of people ripping the system off they are in the minority and it is rare to get away with it for long. The only frequent "fraud" I knew of is women that lived in subsidized housing but had a live in boyfriend helping to pay the bills so she'd be charged as little as $80/month for rent rather than market rates. The flipside is that if the women report the boyfriend her rates instantly jump and if he moves out they rarely went back down so she would lose her place. Living on social assistance is tough it isn't a smooth ride.
 
2013-01-26 12:00:15 PM  

cptjeff:
Yes, self determination is a right. Spending your money as you wish is a right.

They're free to spend their money, then. But when somebody gives you money, they're also free to attach stipulations to how you spend their money.


Maybe the state should just stop giving people money. Skip the middle man and just give them the items that they should have.
 
2013-01-26 12:01:54 PM  

cig-mkr: I live in NC and find it amusing that the state want's to shut down slot machines in stores, but will continue to allow them to sell lottery tickets. Got to keep a tight fist on gambling profits.


Exactly! I can only agree with you on this.
 
2013-01-26 12:04:02 PM  

Phoenix_M: not everyone on welfare is black


Well, yeah. Not everyone. There are probably one or two that actually need help (i.e. white people).

But I'm sure it's 99% are black, at least!
 
2013-01-26 12:06:06 PM  
I have no idea how they afford lotto tickets. I lost a well-paying job while in college (my 5th year) and I was an at-will employee so even with my 50 hours a week, no health care, no vacations, no paid time off and you could get fired for sick days. Because I was a bartender, unemployment was a little less than $400 every two weeks. The amount I got in food stamps was $180 per month. So on the high end, I got $980 a month. Take out rent, food, transportation, bills, I was tapped out, if not in the negative. I didn't have $2 for a breakfast burrito, let alone a lotto ticket.

I don't care whether or not other folks spend it on the lottery, but I have no idea how they do it.

/have a great job now
//subsidized my job loss with a low-paying weird job in my art department
 
2013-01-26 12:10:04 PM  

ghare: leevis: Riche: I sometimes think GOP democratic politicians must lie awake almost every night staring at the ceiling, trying desperately to think up new ways to make life just a little more miserable for the poor take more money out of my paycheck and tell me it's for my own good because they care about me.

Both parties can go EABOD. I've learned how to use the write-in line on my ballot and walk out of the voting booth with a clear conscience.

Ahh, so, you're a nut. Good for you!


And you're naive.
 
2013-01-26 12:10:09 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: [i1125.photobucket.com image 634x524]
/So much bootstrappiness.


Good call. needs more trainwreck

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-26 12:10:44 PM  
Poor people who have scratch off lottery addictions piss me off
 
2013-01-26 12:11:07 PM  
This will result in approximately 0 fewer jackpots for the poor, averaged out.
 
2013-01-26 12:11:30 PM  
I'm loving the statements about using public funds to buy lottery tickets. Mainly because it shows that the people commenting these types of things have never had to use a SNAP or TANF card.
 
2013-01-26 12:11:37 PM  

Proteios1: Being a white male with middle class parents who make enough that I couldn't qualify for food stamps, yet not enough to support me or pay tuition for college, I admit I survived in part due to people on food stamps selling me $20-$50 worth of stamps for $5 or $10 bucks because then they could buy...whatever. It bums me out my role in these people's bad choices and on the other hand, I was able to eat most days and was not involved in crime. I guess this is more of a confession and insight than a witty put down of someone else.


you were involved in crime
 
2013-01-26 12:11:47 PM  
What? And take away their retirement plan? Scoundrels.
 
2013-01-26 12:11:48 PM  
The vast majority of states, including their neighbor Virginia, don't allow them to be used for anything but food; raw food at that. You would think that a Republican state would have already made it the same way but something tells me they INTENTIONALLY left it this way so they can say, "welfare queen boogiie oogie!"
 
2013-01-26 12:11:52 PM  
And why on earth is this story slugged under LGBT News?
 
2013-01-26 12:12:14 PM  

EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"


So no state taxes on alcohol!
 
2013-01-26 12:13:13 PM  

gblive: cig-mkr: I live in NC and find it amusing that the state want's to shut down slot machines in stores, but will continue to allow them to sell lottery tickets. Got to keep a tight fist on gambling profits.

Exactly! I can only agree with you on this.


Where I get my smokes there are four slots, and every one of them has a player on it and someone waiting to play.
Most of the folks look like they really could use the money for other things, like food for one.
I wonder why the state just doesn't tax the shait out of them, and let the suckers play?
 
2013-01-26 12:14:43 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: Phoenix_M: not everyone on welfare is black

Well, yeah. Not everyone. There are probably one or two that actually need help (i.e. white people).

But I'm sure it's 99% are black, at least!


So let me get this straight: 13.6% of the people in the United States are black but 37.2% of the people on welfare are black.

Have you ever taken a statistics course that discussed populations sets, standard deviation, variance and sigma.
 
2013-01-26 12:17:08 PM  

cig-mkr: gblive: cig-mkr: I live in NC and find it amusing that the state want's to shut down slot machines in stores, but will continue to allow them to sell lottery tickets. Got to keep a tight fist on gambling profits.

Exactly! I can only agree with you on this.

Where I get my smokes there are four slots, and every one of them has a player on it and someone waiting to play.
Most of the folks look like they really could use the money for other things, like food for one.
I wonder why the state just doesn't tax the shait out of them, and let the suckers play?


They already had a pretty steep state/local tax on each machine that tax revenue was coming from. I think the decision to ban these machines is a bad one for our state,
 
2013-01-26 12:17:58 PM  
Wow, I'm sorry I entered this thread.

After reading some of your insightful comments I'm realizing that NC needs to abandon hope for the current generation. They should double down on the "education lottery" and have some small hope of teaching people that THROWING AWAY YOUR MONEY in the lottery is not a good thing.

All the people in this thread suggesting that "hope" and a "modicum of dignity"(really?!) are offered by the lottery should go back to school, or just grab a calculator and take a look at what the odds really are.

Gambling is a growing problem in this country and this thread perfectly captures why it is only going to get worse.

Sigh....
 
2013-01-26 12:18:04 PM  

jack_sawyer75: I agree. Now add drug testing, and not allowing them to buy cigarettes, tattoos would make it all perfect.


Can we do the same to all the farmers who get crop subsidies?
 
2013-01-26 12:18:43 PM  
Solution: get rid of the lottery.

Why the fark is the govt playing the business of running a numbers racket anyway?
 
2013-01-26 12:19:17 PM  
the state gives poor people welfare money, poor people give that money back to the state via the lottery

I don't see the problem here
 
2013-01-26 12:19:34 PM  
I live in North Carolina, and extra hurdles for people on welfare to purchase lottery tickets is a good idea (taking any winnings is a stupid one). No idea how they'll implement it, and chances are they won't. The bill won't pass in its present state.


Still, nothing will be done about all the farking internet "sweepstakes" places around, which is a far worse affliction.
 
2013-01-26 12:20:47 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Let them play the stinkin' lottery. Ever since Clinton signed that welfare reform act back in the 90's, any cash aid is a loan anyway. You loan someone money and will garnish their wages when they do start working (or take their tax returns, etc) you really don't have much room to talk about how they spend that loan. If your state isn't collecting the money back when they do start working, that's not on the recipient, that's on the state.

How would a clerk even know if someone was on welfare or in bankruptcy anyway? Even my stupid butt knows how to use an ATM and I'm sure if I were on welfare I'd know how to get cash back from the market or use an ATM just as well. It's just a bunch of "you're filthy poors, now go away" legislation designed to make the self righteous feel even more self righteous.

Heh. For some odd reason, this reminds me of a story from some years back about abortion and birth control. Forget which state it was, but one of them wanted to make abortion illegal unless the preggers chick had used birth control and it had failed. How would they even prove if someone had used a condom or not? Hide a DA under every bed in the state? Man, sometimes I wonder about the lack of thought processes some people display. At least it makes me feel smarter than I really am, I guess.


TANIF is a loan? (temporary assistance to needy families) I don't think so and am not interested enough to check.

Mostly I despise the 'welfare' people I meet or know about, I feel bad for the little kids though.
 
2013-01-26 12:21:40 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

So no state taxes on alcohol!


Yes, we have quite sizeable state taxes on alcohol plus all the hard liquor can only be sold legally in the state-owned ABC stores at inflated prices.

We also have the largest moonshing industry in the South, probably 1/3 of the hard liquor consumed in North Carolina is 'tax-free- from a still in the woods. Watch the show "Moonshiners" on the Discovery channel for details.
 
2013-01-26 12:23:46 PM  

NameDot: Mostly I despise the 'welfare' people I meet or know about, I feel bad for the little kids though.


You despise them, huh? I tend to reserve words like "despise" for klansmen, rapists, white power types, and abortion doctor-shooters. Not really the same league as being on welfare.
 
2013-01-26 12:23:52 PM  

Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.


I don't support gambling. However, I think a better idea would be to let them purchase the tickets and if they win they have to apply the winnings to whatever equal whatever benefits they are recieving. Trying to regulate sin just isn't a good idea...it never stops at "one" thing.
 
2013-01-26 12:24:27 PM  
Kill the lottery and impose taxes to make up for lost revenue. This would be a better idea, and shift the burden that hits the poor via lottery tickets to all instead, reducing per person cost.
 
2013-01-26 12:24:53 PM  

Mugato: count_chimpula: The mush brained liberalism in this thread is at epic levels. Seriously you guys can find better targets to defend than people who waste government handouts on lottery tickets.

And you conservatives are all about less government except when it has to do with women and poor people. And don't talk to me about the poor wasting "your" precious tax dollars. You all have no problem with the obscene amount of money the gov't wastes on defense spending and various subsidies on oil, corn and everything else. None of you said anything about corporate bailouts when Bush was doing it either. So knock it off with the self righteous indignation about a few people on welfare buying a lottery ticket breaking the bank, no one's buying it.


Some of us have problems with both.
 
2013-01-26 12:25:41 PM  

Pichu0102: Kill the lottery and impose taxes to make up for lost revenue. This would be a better idea, and shift the burden that hits the poor via lottery tickets to all instead, reducing per person cost.


Part of the reason for the NC lottery is revenues lost to the VA lottery and other nearby lotteries. You can't get that back with taxes - it has left the state.
 
2013-01-26 12:26:49 PM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: doczoidberg: Feral_and_Preposterous: This is why we are in such a hole economically. You out of money? THEN STOP BLOWING MORE OF IT ON STUPID CRAP!


According to my understanding of economics, we'd be in a much better place if people were blowing more money on stupid crap. But, then, I prefer reality to walking on the supply-side.
 
2013-01-26 12:27:55 PM  

ph0rk: I live in North Carolina, and extra hurdles for people on welfare to purchase lottery tickets is a good idea (taking any winnings is a stupid one). No idea how they'll implement it, and chances are they won't. The bill won't pass in its present state.


Still, nothing will be done about all the farking internet "sweepstakes" places around, which is a far worse affliction.


Actually the demographic for the "sweepstake" parlors is the same as people who play Bingo. Most of the players are 50 & older, lower-middle income, and not on public assistance.

Let's take a look at the two biggest groups who lobbying our state legislature to shut down the sweepstake parlors; it was the Bingo operator association (their customers are all playing sweepstakes and they want them back) and the company that runs our state lottery.

Shutting down sweepstake parlors in North Carolina was all about big business forcing out a start-up competitor - nothing more.
 
2013-01-26 12:28:05 PM  

EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"


The problem isn't "sins". The problem is that they use their welfare money, taxpayer money, to buy lottery tickets and it doesn't circulate particularly well. A bunch of it goes into the pockets of an executive board running it, thus reducing the economic flow.

As a guy who plays lots of poker, I really am okay with this.

Besides, the fact that they're poor and buy lottery tickets shows that they have lousy money management skills. This would explain why most people who win multi-million dollar lotteries go broke a few years later. And then taxpayers have to support them again. I think that if these people spend less money on the lottery, they'll have more money for basic needs and require our support less. And it's not like the state's going to see a lot of financial gratitude if they win anyway.
 
2013-01-26 12:28:42 PM  

downstairs: fredklein: MmmmBacon: They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP)

Define "welfare queen", and for any definition you come up with, I bet someone can give a real-life example.

I don't think the point is that there are *no* welfare queens.


myth·i·cal (m th -k l) also myth·ic (- k). adj. 1. Of or existing in myth: the mythical unicorn. 2. Imaginary; fictitious.

If there are some, they are not "mythic". If they are "mythic", they don't really exist.

Pick one.
 
2013-01-26 12:30:26 PM  

stappawho: Mugato: count_chimpula: The mush brained liberalism in this thread is at epic levels. Seriously you guys can find better targets to defend than people who waste government handouts on lottery tickets.

And you conservatives are all about less government except when it has to do with women and poor people. And don't talk to me about the poor wasting "your" precious tax dollars. You all have no problem with the obscene amount of money the gov't wastes on defense spending and various subsidies on oil, corn and everything else. None of you said anything about corporate bailouts when Bush was doing it either. So knock it off with the self righteous indignation about a few people on welfare buying a lottery ticket breaking the bank, no one's buying it.

Some of us have problems with both.


Like I said in another post, that's the common conservative response. The issue is, if they have problems with both, they're not nearly as loud about the bigger government waste as they are about their perceived getting ripped off for a relative pittance by the welfare recipients.

/don't know you, not referring to you personally
 
2013-01-26 12:32:55 PM  
this guy sounds at odds with the lottery and is taking the limpwristed political path instead of opppsing it outright
 
2013-01-26 12:33:12 PM  

gblive: ph0rk: I live in North Carolina, and extra hurdles for people on welfare to purchase lottery tickets is a good idea (taking any winnings is a stupid one). No idea how they'll implement it, and chances are they won't. The bill won't pass in its present state.


Still, nothing will be done about all the farking internet "sweepstakes" places around, which is a far worse affliction.

Actually the demographic for the "sweepstake" parlors is the same as people who play Bingo. Most of the players are 50 & older, lower-middle income, and not on public assistance.

Let's take a look at the two biggest groups who lobbying our state legislature to shut down the sweepstake parlors; it was the Bingo operator association (their customers are all playing sweepstakes and they want them back) and the company that runs our state lottery.

Shutting down sweepstake parlors in North Carolina was all about big business forcing out a start-up competitor - nothing more.


Ironically the primary source of all the 'government regulations' that farktards bleat on about is exactly this. Existing companies lobby government to set up regulations that create barriers to entry.
 
2013-01-26 12:33:19 PM  

Mugato: The issue is, if they have problems with both, they're not nearly as loud about the bigger government waste as they are about their perceived getting ripped off for a relative pittance by the welfare recipients.


This thread is about welfare recipients. Of course people are going to discuss... welfare recipients... more than other topics. Duh. You want to discuss "bigger government waste", go to an appropriate thread.
 
2013-01-26 12:34:30 PM  

gblive: As a resident of North Carolina, I am sick and tired of seeing people pay for their groceries with an EBT card (which are normally traded for drugs & alcohol within 10 minutes of leaving the store) and then paying for lottery tickets with cash in the same transaction. This law would put an end to this nonsense.


How do you even know how they're paying for it? It's a plastic card, so unless you peer very closely at the monitor to see how it's being being paid, it's not possible for you to discern the method of payment.
 
2013-01-26 12:36:10 PM  

space1999: MmmmBacon: They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP)

Sorry, bud, but there are quite a few welfare queens. Sure, they're in the minority, but saying that they don't exist is naive. I have personal experience with them.


I overheard a hilarious conversation yesterday while waiting for and on an elevator, woman was on the phone with a friend, it was something like;

"I know! My sister wants another baby."

"She already got 3, and she gets $300 a month for each one, thats an extra six---- i mean $900 a month."

"And that biatch works too."

"shiat, almost makes me want to vote republican."
 
2013-01-26 12:38:11 PM  
Currently, my household income has dropped below the poverty line. I am still not sure exactly how it happened, but suddenly my mailbox is full of info about programs for low income assistance. We still have our home and 2 cars, but since the cars are so old, and the mortgage payment is relatively low, the formula says we should rush right down to the county office and get not only a new cell phone for free, but reduced payments on utilities, high speed internet for $10 a month, food stamps of $295 per month, TANF, and Section 8 housing modification with my lender. Everyone immediately qualifies for Medicaid and free school meals, and the only downside is we have to allow the government to know routing information for all bank accounts. Our retirement accounts are exempted, and space is available for anyone in the house to enroll in vocational school or college, free of charge.

I have no idea how much all this largesse is worth, but I can see how someone has extra funds to spend on smokes, hair and nail extensions, rims, and lottery tickets. My peace of mind is not for sale, however. I'll just keep on scrambling for work.
 
2013-01-26 12:39:58 PM  

Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.


THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?
 
2013-01-26 12:40:58 PM  

ph0rk: Pichu0102: Kill the lottery and impose taxes to make up for lost revenue. This would be a better idea, and shift the burden that hits the poor via lottery tickets to all instead, reducing per person cost.

Part of the reason for the NC lottery is revenues lost to the VA lottery and other nearby lotteries. You can't get that back with taxes - it has left the state.


I don't know how to deal with that then. However, I'm not sure keeping a local lottery open is the best alternative. After all, it hits the poor worse than it does higher classes, and some might not travel out of state to gamble.
 
2013-01-26 12:42:46 PM  
It is not their playing the lottery we object to it is whose money they are using to play it.

If a "poor" person on welfare has the cash available to gamble it would seem to indicate that perhaps he/she does not need as much welfare from those of us paying for it.

On a related note;

$69 million in California welfare money drawn out of state Las Vegas tops the list with $11.8 million spent at casinos or taken from ATMs, but transactions in Hawaii, Miami, Guam and elsewhere also raise questions.


New York: Welfare $$ Used at Strip Clubs, Liquor Stores
 
2013-01-26 12:44:08 PM  

chewd: Solution: get rid of the lottery.

Why the fark is the govt playing the business of running a numbers racket anyway?


Because it was tired of seeing all the profits from the numbers going to the Syndicate.
 
2013-01-26 12:44:31 PM  

Huggermugger: gblive: As a resident of North Carolina, I am sick and tired of seeing people pay for their groceries with an EBT card (which are normally traded for drugs & alcohol within 10 minutes of leaving the store) and then paying for lottery tickets with cash in the same transaction. This law would put an end to this nonsense.

How do you even know how they're paying for it? It's a plastic card, so unless you peer very closely at the monitor to see how it's being being paid, it's not possible for you to discern the method of payment.


EBT cards down here look nothing like credit cards in terms of design.  Yes, same shape and size... but its very obvious.  They're blue with a huge "Louisiana EBT" or whatever logo.

Not that I care... just sayin'

Also, for some reason, it takes like 10 friggin' swipes to get the things to go through.
 
2013-01-26 12:46:35 PM  

pearls before swine: Well we all know that poor people aren't really. . . people, so we should be able to take away their rights with impunity.


That's a bit harsh. Why not agree on a compromise?

For instance, we could reach a compromise that a poor person is 3/5 of a person.
 
2013-01-26 12:46:38 PM  

Pichu0102: ph0rk: Pichu0102: Kill the lottery and impose taxes to make up for lost revenue. This would be a better idea, and shift the burden that hits the poor via lottery tickets to all instead, reducing per person cost.

Part of the reason for the NC lottery is revenues lost to the VA lottery and other nearby lotteries. You can't get that back with taxes - it has left the state.

I don't know how to deal with that then. However, I'm not sure keeping a local lottery open is the best alternative. After all, it hits the poor worse than it does higher classes, and some might not travel out of state to gamble.


there is no other way to deal with it. it is the same phenomenon as when a dry county sees all the local alcohol dollars go to neighboring counties.
 
2013-01-26 12:47:33 PM  

Huggermugger: gblive: As a resident of North Carolina, I am sick and tired of seeing people pay for their groceries with an EBT card (which are normally traded for drugs & alcohol within 10 minutes of leaving the store) and then paying for lottery tickets with cash in the same transaction. This law would put an end to this nonsense.

How do you even know how they're paying for it? It's a plastic card, so unless you peer very closely at the monitor to see how it's being being paid, it's not possible for you to discern the method of payment.


Well EBT cards are (atleast in my state) bright yellow and have the letters "EBT" printed very largely across the card. That may be how this person can tell if they're using those cards to pay for things. It's still nosy as fark though.

I honestly take more issue with the claim that the groceries are usually traded for drugs or alcohol upon leaving the store. Seriously, as someone who has had to use SNAP in the past, go take a long walk off a short pier. Not all of us are the drug using degenerates you imagine we are.
 
2013-01-26 12:47:44 PM  

dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?


Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.
 
2013-01-26 12:49:29 PM  

gblive: ph0rk: I live in North Carolina, and extra hurdles for people on welfare to purchase lottery tickets is a good idea (taking any winnings is a stupid one). No idea how they'll implement it, and chances are they won't. The bill won't pass in its present state.


Still, nothing will be done about all the farking internet "sweepstakes" places around, which is a far worse affliction.

Actually the demographic for the "sweepstake" parlors is the same as people who play Bingo. Most of the players are 50 & older, lower-middle income, and not on public assistance.

Let's take a look at the two biggest groups who lobbying our state legislature to shut down the sweepstake parlors; it was the Bingo operator association (their customers are all playing sweepstakes and they want them back) and the company that runs our state lottery.

Shutting down sweepstake parlors in North Carolina was all about big business forcing out a start-up competitor - nothing more.


I have seen more than one sweepstakes parlor next door to a payday loan place, so I am not sure I buy that. regardless, sweepstakes aren't going anywhere because there is no reason they should - same reason the lotto isn't going anywhere. people want to throw money away.
 
2013-01-26 12:51:10 PM  

MmmmBacon: They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP)


So that lady in Detroit who won the lotto and then demanded her food stamps. Thats not being a welfare queen?

RTOGUY: Living on social assistance is tough it isn't a smooth ride.


If you think living on public assistance sucks, you should try paying for your own healthcare, food, shelter, utilities and comforts as well as taxes which fund all of the previous for someone else. The next time I hear "Living on public assistance is tough" i am going to scream. It is even harder to live within ones own means and subsidize others.
 
2013-01-26 12:51:35 PM  

hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.


Says who? There's a maximum wage cap for people that receive SNAP and TANF. This means that a percentage of them do indeed have jobs. How do you know that the lotto tickets are bought with taxpayer money and not their own earnings?
 
2013-01-26 12:52:06 PM  
Why? Those are precisely the stupid people that keep the Lotto alive.
 
2013-01-26 12:57:01 PM  

DearZelda: hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.

Says who? There's a maximum wage cap for people that receive SNAP and TANF. This means that a percentage of them do indeed have jobs. How do you know that the lotto tickets are bought with taxpayer money and not their own earnings?


I think the point is that if you have enough money to provide your necessities and still play the lottery, you're receiving too much subsidization from taxpayers. That's not limited to the lottery either, but it's the topic at hand here.
 
2013-01-26 12:57:21 PM  

pearls before swine: way south: Howie Spankowitz: Demonize the poor.  Ignore the real problems that underlie poverty.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

One of the things that leads to poverty is a willing acceptance of it. People sink into bad habits rather than making the changes needed to get out of the slums and into a more productive way of life.

Welfare should be viewed as a leg up or a loan more than just another entitlement. Putting a few rules on these folks, so we get the most effect from the money, is not unreasonable.

/No drugs, no smoking, no drinking, no gambling, no whores, no frivolities.
/get your ass to job training, counseling, therapy or whatever it takes to straighten you out.
/want to play the lotto? Do it on your own dime or pay Uncle Sam the winnings.

WTF? Really? You think people are poor because they're not trying? If they all just got "straightened out" that somehow tens of millions of good jobs would suddenly materialize for them to take?

Of course, there are people who fail because they're messed up, but to imply that huge swaths of the population are poor because of bad habits is, frankly, disgusting.


Beggars don't get extra coddling just because there's lots of them around.

Do the poor need help or not?
I mean this is why we give them money, and I don't have a problem with that, but if I am helping you it's with the understanding that this is going somewhere.
I want you to get back on your feet and resolving that means doing something productive.
Get a new skill, get cured, or get out of dodge to a less farked community.

We've got to move past this idea that the poor are hostages that can't be helped.
They want a better life, welfare should be a path to making that happen.
 
2013-01-26 12:58:46 PM  

Yes please: I think the point is that if you have enough money to provide your necessities and still play the lottery, you're receiving too much subsidization from taxpayers. That's not limited to the lottery either, but it's the topic at hand here.


I don't think it is written anywhere that being on public assistance means you may no longer spend a portion of your income on entertainment. The lottery is no different than cable tv or a book.

Maybe you think it should be that way, but it isn't yet.
 
2013-01-26 01:00:23 PM  

way south: Do the poor need help or not?
I mean this is why we give them money, and I don't have a problem with that, but if I am helping you it's with the understanding that this is going somewhere.
I want you to get back on your feet and resolving that means doing something productive.
Get a new skill, get cured, or get out of dodge to a less farked community.

We've got to move past this idea that the poor are hostages that can't be helped.
They want a better life, welfare should be a path to making that happen


The awesome thing about private charity is that it usually comes with "strings attached" which requires those who take it to contribute back to the organization offering help, help others, or demonstrably show that they are using the benefits as a way of getting on their feet.

A church will take anyone in, clothe them, feed them and keep them warm for the night..but by the 3rd day, the priest or deacon will probably hand them a broom or a paintbrush.
 
2013-01-26 01:02:42 PM  

StrangeQ: cmunic8r99: Just make it so winning a prize over a certain amount requires them to pay a significant percentage of the winnings to the state as reimbursement for the win

Significant like the 1/3 to even 1/2 that is paid in taxes by every lottery winner, ever? How much more would you have them pay?


As someone who had to use welfare to survive when my kids were little, I'd be on board with paying back whatever they paid out to me, provided my prize was large enough to do that and still be able to live.
 
2013-01-26 01:04:20 PM  

rnatalie: And why on earth is this story slugged under LGBT News?


Because the proposal is super gay.
 
2013-01-26 01:04:51 PM  

ph0rk: The lottery is no different than cable tv or a book.


What a profoundly stupid remark.

To you, maybe. But all it takes is walking into a corner store in a poor part of town to see that there are people- and a lot of them- who are using the lottery not as a form of entertainment, but with a real expectation that someday it will actually come through for them. The lottery is very, very different from cable TV or a book.

\Buy my books by the pound anyway.
\\Not really, but a lot of used bookstores come close.
 
2013-01-26 01:05:39 PM  
I assume that Fox News has just changed the Government of North Carolina from (R) to (D) in its propaganda feed.

I mean, they no doubt mean well, but this kind of Nanny Statism stands in the way of two of the most important and basic Republican values:  screwing poor people and funding big government without taxation on rich people.

The stupid tax is custom made for the stupid party.

It allows the poor and the Hopey, Changey to waste their money on futile hope without any cost to those who look at a $20 million pot and say and "meh". Not enough to make it worthwhile to visit a convenience store.

Personally, I don't get out of bed for a 649 lottery pot that is less than $28 million. It's just stupid. So a stupid tax is of great personal benefit to me, even though I am not a One Percenter. But this is the wrong way to fix the Stupid Problem.

The right way is to set Republicans on fire, using a pile of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter books as fuel. There's a reason why Republicans hate the 911 firemen. They associate firemen with book-burning, and book-burning with witch hunts that can so easily be turned into rich hunts in the hands of the needy-greedy.
 
2013-01-26 01:05:39 PM  

Huggermugger: gblive: As a resident of North Carolina, I am sick and tired of seeing people pay for their groceries with an EBT card (which are normally traded for drugs & alcohol within 10 minutes of leaving the store) and then paying for lottery tickets with cash in the same transaction. This law would put an end to this nonsense.

How do you even know how they're paying for it? It's a plastic card, so unless you peer very closely at the monitor to see how it's being being paid, it's not possible for you to discern the method of payment.


Because nearly each & every one at the checkout counter tries to put items on their EBT card that are not allowed such (such as beer) and the clerk has to tell them over & over again "That's not allowed on your EBT card".

There is also the requirement that the EBT card must be presented first before ringing up the items; not at the end of the transaction like a credit or debit card.
 
2013-01-26 01:06:25 PM  
The lottery isn't a tax on the poor.  It is a tax on those who are poor at math.
 
2013-01-26 01:08:51 PM  

DearZelda: hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.

Says who? There's a maximum wage cap for people that receive SNAP and TANF. This means that a percentage of them do indeed have jobs. How do you know that the lotto tickets are bought with taxpayer money and not their own earnings?


If they have enough spare cash for lottery tickets then they don't need SNAP and TANF, eh?
 
2013-01-26 01:12:22 PM  

cptjeff: As for wringing out hope and whatever other crap, we already govern stuff like food stamp money in a lot of ways. Can't spend it on alcohol, for instance. The same argument could apply, but most everybody seems to be okay with that. We're giving people money for basic necessity. If they save a little money on the side, I'm perfectly fine with them spending their hard earned cash on whatever they like. But I'd really prefer that they not throw the money they get from taxpayers in the garbage, for both their good and for collective society's vis a vis the government's budget.


dilbert.com
 
2013-01-26 01:12:30 PM  

ph0rk: Yes please: I think the point is that if you have enough money to provide your necessities and still play the lottery, you're receiving too much subsidization from taxpayers. That's not limited to the lottery either, but it's the topic at hand here.

I don't think it is written anywhere that being on public assistance means you may no longer spend a portion of your income on entertainment. The lottery is no different than cable tv or a book.

Maybe you think it should be that way, but it isn't yet.


So if the people buying lottery tickets don't have cable TV or books, and this is the substitute for those things, you might have a point. I think it's far more likely that they already have cable TV, and books, and whatever else, and they still have enough to buy lottery tickets.
 
2013-01-26 01:12:33 PM  

gblive: DearZelda: hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.

Says who? There's a maximum wage cap for people that receive SNAP and TANF. This means that a percentage of them do indeed have jobs. How do you know that the lotto tickets are bought with taxpayer money and not their own earnings?

If they have enough spare cash for lottery tickets then they don't need SNAP and TANF, eh?


Yeah because buying a random lottery ticket that costs less than $20 is totally the same as being able to afford all your food/utilities/rent/gas money/household expenses for that month on your work wages. *eyeroll*
 
2013-01-26 01:13:27 PM  

gblive: Huggermugger: gblive: As a resident of North Carolina, I am sick and tired of seeing people pay for their groceries with an EBT card (which are normally traded for drugs & alcohol within 10 minutes of leaving the store) and then paying for lottery tickets with cash in the same transaction. This law would put an end to this nonsense.

How do you even know how they're paying for it? It's a plastic card, so unless you peer very closely at the monitor to see how it's being being paid, it's not possible for you to discern the method of payment.

Because nearly each & every one at the checkout counter tries to put items on their EBT card that are not allowed such (such as beer) and the clerk has to tell them over & over again "That's not allowed on your EBT card".

There is also the requirement that the EBT card must be presented first before ringing up the items; not at the end of the transaction like a credit or debit card.


Not to mention the cards are brightly colored with the state EBT logo in huge print.
 
2013-01-26 01:14:34 PM  

DearZelda: hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.

Says who? There's a maximum wage cap for people that receive SNAP and TANF. This means that a percentage of them do indeed have jobs. How do you know that the lotto tickets are bought with taxpayer money and not their own earnings?


Wrong It is like saying no tax dollars are used for abortion. (This is not a pro or con argument on abortion but an example of funding) Lets say the Government gives X amount of dollars. to Planned Parenthood but says you cannot use it for abortions. PP says fine and puts that X amount in their non-abortion accounts (Rent , utilities, insurance condoms etc) and then takes money out of those accounts (but not the Federal money, this is separate) and transfers it over to their abortion funding account. But of course no tax payer dollars are used -right? The federal funds may be held in an entirely separate federal funding account from which no money for abortions can be drawn but federal money just freed up other funds that can be used for abortions instead of paying the rent, insurance , condoms etc.

Joe Welfare recipient gets x amount in welfare (our) money which frees up "his" money to gamble.

If he has spare money to gamble he does not need our money or at least as much of it.

Standard rule is if you do not want people/government controlling your life don't take their money. It is not unreasonable for them to want to exercise control over how it is spent.
 
2013-01-26 01:18:01 PM  

MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

They are saying that the mythic "Welfare Queen" (which doesn't really exist, other than in the minds of the GOP) shouldn't get to spend her ill-gotten stipend on a chance at getting rich like they are. She and her 12 illegitimate children might lower the values of the GOP's mansions, should WQ move into their neighborhood.

It is racism and classism, with a hint of "playing to the zealots in our base".


Wanna bet? I know a chick that has five kids with five different fathers on welfare all or at least four of the fathers have or are currently in prison she comes in bragging about her huge stack of WIC checks and the $9000 or so tax return.......
 
2013-01-26 01:18:14 PM  

fredklein: Mugato: The issue is, if they have problems with both, they're not nearly as loud about the bigger government waste as they are about their perceived getting ripped off for a relative pittance by the welfare recipients.

This thread is about welfare recipients. Of course people are going to discuss... welfare recipients... more than other topics. Duh. You want to discuss "bigger government waste", go to an appropriate thread.


Kind of the point.
 
2013-01-26 01:18:27 PM  

DearZelda: gblive: DearZelda: hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.

Says who? There's a maximum wage cap for people that receive SNAP and TANF. This means that a percentage of them do indeed have jobs. How do you know that the lotto tickets are bought with taxpayer money and not their own earnings?

If they have enough spare cash for lottery tickets then they don't need SNAP and TANF, eh?

Yeah because buying a random lottery ticket that costs less than $20 is totally the same as being able to afford all your food/utilities/rent/gas money/household expenses for that month on your work wages. *eyeroll*


So the taxpayers (meaning me) should pay for your food/utilities/rent/gas money/household expenses so you can buy lottery tickets. How about reducing your benefits by 20 bucks instead of playing the lottery for your entertainment.
 
2013-01-26 01:21:40 PM  

nunpunter: Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.

Are people really complaining about poor people taking money from the government, then immediately giving it back to the government? You people are idiots.


So, you think that for every dollar that goes toward a lottery ticket goes back into government... typically claimed to be for education?

Wow.

So... after paying out jackpots, assorted prizes, printing costs, commissions, overhead, salaries etc...

you think that 100% of that dollar goes back into the government.

Again... Wow. Maybe you could teach me how to make a dollar, minus expenses, equal a dollar.

/yeah... we're the idiots.
 
2013-01-26 01:28:37 PM  

zamboni: nunpunter: Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.

Are people really complaining about poor people taking money from the government, then immediately giving it back to the government? You people are idiots.

So, you think that for every dollar that goes toward a lottery ticket goes back into government... typically claimed to be for education?

Wow.

So... after paying out jackpots, assorted prizes, printing costs, commissions, overhead, salaries etc...

you think that 100% of that dollar goes back into the government.

Again... Wow. Maybe you could teach me how to make a dollar, minus expenses, equal a dollar.

/yeah... we're the idiots.


29% of the money collected in the North Carolina Lottery goes to education.

The North Carolina Lottery proceeds were supposed to be used to supplement the state money for education, instead the legislature has reduced to portion of the general fund dedicated to education each year by the amount of the lottery income. This has produced a situation in North Carolina where the overall funding of education has not increased due to the "Education Lottery".
 
2013-01-26 01:29:25 PM  

cptjeff: ph0rk: The lottery is no different than cable tv or a book.

What a profoundly stupid remark.

To you, maybe. But all it takes is walking into a corner store in a poor part of town to see that there are people- and a lot of them- who are using the lottery not as a form of entertainment, but with a real expectation that someday it will actually come through for them. The lottery is very, very different from cable TV or a book.

\Buy my books by the pound anyway.
\\Not really, but a lot of used bookstores come close.


That's the part that entertains.

Yes please: So if the people buying lottery tickets don't have cable TV or books, and this is the substitute for those things, you might have a point. I think it's far more likely that they already have cable TV, and books, and whatever else, and they still have enough to buy lottery tickets.


I'm not sure that taking total control of their lives (and removing all choices) is the right way to go. I'm not saying that spending their money on the lottery is the wisest thing in the long run, I think it clearly isn't. However, I don't think we as a nation are ready for full suspension of freedom to spend as they wish for people who are on economic assistance.
 
2013-01-26 01:31:28 PM  
Now if only we can ban them parasitic churches from fleecing the poor.
 
2013-01-26 01:34:26 PM  

gblive: So the taxpayers (meaning me) should pay for your food/utilities/rent/gas money/household expenses so you can buy lottery tickets. How about reducing your benefits by 20 bucks instead of playing the lottery for your entertainment.


Yes, you personally receive a line item on your taxes that says "lottery tickets for deadbeats".

You pay the same amount in taxes no matter what they spend it on. Again, you people are outraged about the wrong things the gov't does with "your" money.
 
2013-01-26 01:34:28 PM  

Mugato: fredklein: Mugato: The issue is, if they have problems with both, they're not nearly as loud about the bigger government waste as they are about their perceived getting ripped off for a relative pittance by the welfare recipients.

This thread is about welfare recipients. Of course people are going to discuss... welfare recipients... more than other topics. Duh. You want to discuss "bigger government waste", go to an appropriate thread.

Kind of the point.


That you're in the wrong thread? Agreed. Bye.
 
2013-01-26 01:35:14 PM  

ph0rk: I'm not sure that taking total control of their lives (and removing all choices) is the right way to go. I'm not saying that spending their money on the lottery is the wisest thing in the long run, I think it clearly isn't. However, I don't think we as a nation are ready for full suspension of freedom to spend as they wish for people who are on economic assistance.


No one is advocating taking away all their choices. Their burden should be proving that the need assistance, and in return, they receive it. If they are buying lottery tickets, they're actively proving they don't need assistance, or at least not as much as they're receiving.
 
2013-01-26 01:36:43 PM  

Earl of Chives: jack_sawyer75: I agree. Now add drug testing, and not allowing them to buy cigarettes, tattoos would make it all perfect.

Can we do the same to all the farmers who get crop subsidies?


Sure. Whatever saves the country's money.
 
2013-01-26 01:37:16 PM  

ph0rk: I don't think we as a nation are ready for full suspension of freedom to spend as they wish for people who are on economic assistance.


We already have that- WIC can only be spent on certain items. Food Stamps (EBT) can only be used on certain items. Etc. We take away their "freedom to spend as they wish", because it's NOT THEIR MONEY they are spending.
 
2013-01-26 01:41:59 PM  

ph0rk: Yes please: So if the people buying lottery tickets don't have cable TV or books, and this is the substitute for those things, you might have a point. I think it's far more likely that they already have cable TV, and books, and whatever else, and they still have enough to buy lottery tickets.

I'm not sure that taking total control of their lives (and removing all choices) is the right way to go. I'm not saying that spending their money on the lottery is the wisest thing in the long run, I think it clearly isn't. However, I don't think we as a nation are ready for full suspension of freedom to spend as they wish for people who are on economic assistance.


That's a fair argument, but it's not a choice between full control or no control. You can control some things, but let people have flexibility in other areas. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to put in some place some restrictions on things that provide absolutely no good. We're not talking about evaluating marginal benefits from one product providing positive value to another (like, say, prohibiting purchase of a name brand where a store brand is available), we're talking about prohibiting people from the financial equivalent of shoving cash down a garbage disposal.
 
2013-01-26 01:47:09 PM  

Mugato: fredklein: Mugato: The issue is, if they have problems with both, they're not nearly as loud about the bigger government waste as they are about their perceived getting ripped off for a relative pittance by the welfare recipients.

This thread is about welfare recipients. Of course people are going to discuss... welfare recipients... more than other topics. Duh. You want to discuss "bigger government waste", go to an appropriate thread.

Kind of the point.


Welfare is a "bigger government waste". Combined (Federal 74% and State 26%) means tested welfare spending wil exceed $1.2 trillion this year. Second behind non-means tested Social Security/MEDICARE and ahead of Defense spending. Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).

Of that $1.2 TRILLION only 30% will reach the intended recipients. 70% will go toward overhead-administration and regulation.

"The government operates over 69 means tested welfare programs:

12 programs providing food aid;
10 housing assistance programs;
10 programs funding social services;
9 educational assistance programs;
8 programs providing cash assistance;
8 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
2 child care and child development programs.

The U.S. Census Bureau, which is in charge of measuring poverty and inequality in the nation, defines a family as poor if its annual income falls below official poverty income thresholds. If total means-tested welfare spending were simply converted into cash benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $695 billion in that year.

While campaigning for the presidency, Obama lamented that "the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month." Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending
reveals that welfare cost each household $638 per month in 2010.

Although programs vary, most means-tested aid is targeted to persons with incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Thus, a more a accurate sense of average total welfare spending per recipient can be obtained, if total welfare aid is divided among all persons within this larger group. Dividing total means-tested aid by all persons with incomes below 200 percent of poverty results in average welfare spending of $7,700 per person, or around $30,000 for a family of four.

In FY 2011, total means-tested spending will be $940 billion. About half of this spending ($470 billion) will go to families with children. (Around one-third of this spending will go to medical care.)
If the $470 billion in welfare spending were divided equally among the lowest income one third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low income family with children.
In addition, most of these lower-income families have earned income. Average earnings within the whole group are typically about $16,000 per year per family, though in the midst of a recession, earnings will be lower. If average welfare aid and average earnings are combined, the total resources is likely to come to between $40,000 and $46,000 for each lower-income family with children in the U.S."
 
2013-01-26 01:51:56 PM  

nanim: If my tax dollars are paying for their ticket, then I get the money if they win, right?


It stopped being your money as soon as it came out of your paycheck. It now belongs to the gov.
 
2013-01-26 01:56:48 PM  

YakiManiac: nanim: If my tax dollars are paying for their ticket, then I get the money if they win, right?

It stopped being your money as soon as it came out of your paycheck. It now belongs to the gov.


The government? You mean the Government "of the people, by the people, for the people", of which I am a person?
 
2013-01-26 01:58:28 PM  
Now we're cherry picking stats. Ok, we've covered everything. Thanks.
 
2013-01-26 01:59:22 PM  
How much money are they spending on lottery tickets? If they are spending hundreds of dollars a month, then yeah, stop them from buying them. But, if they are only spending a couple of dollars a week, then let them. That amount of money is really nothing to worry about. They might be down and out at the moment, but that does not mean that they cannot have a little hope and joy in their lives.
 
2013-01-26 02:00:03 PM  

jack_sawyer75: Earl of Chives: jack_sawyer75: I agree. Now add drug testing, and not allowing them to buy cigarettes, tattoos would make it all perfect.

Can we do the same to all the farmers who get crop subsidies?

Sure. Whatever saves the country's money.


Agree. Of course I would prefer ending crop subsides.
 
2013-01-26 02:02:49 PM  

cptjeff: I'm not against playing the lottery. What you're doing is fine, but I'm presuming you have some disposable cash and know that you have absolutely no chance of actually striking it rich. It's fantasy, and you know that, not a realistic route to getting rich. A lot of poor people treat it as if it is a realistic route to getting rich.


Pretty much THIS. I've spent a VERY small amount of money ($1) when the national lotteries are over 100 million. Other than that, I don't gamble. I've ragged on the South for many things, but preventing poor people from essentially throwing their money away is understandable.


// reforming SNAP sounds like a good idea as well.
/// no junk food or soda...
 
2013-01-26 02:11:10 PM  

gblive: zamboni:

So, you think that for every dollar that goes toward a lottery ticket goes back into government... typically claimed to be for education?

Wow.

So... after paying out jackpots, assorted prizes, printing costs, commissions, overhead, salaries etc...

you think that 100% of that dollar goes back into the government.

Again... Wow. Maybe you could teach me how to make a dollar, minus expenses, equal a dollar.

/yeah... we're the idiots.

29% of the money collected in the North Carolina Lottery goes to education.

The North Carolina Lottery proceeds were supposed to be used to supplement the state money for education, instead the legislature has reduced to portion of the general fund dedicated to education each year by the amount of the lottery income. This has produced a situation in North Carolina where the overall funding of education has not increased due to the "Education Lottery".


I think that you're basically agreeing with me.

When I was living in Florida and they wanted to start a lottery "for education" a word came up, a word that I knew, but it became so clear with the lottery example.

That word is "fungible."

Here's how it works(I'm pulling numbers out of the air but the point's the same.):
Year -1: "We need the lottery! It will bring in 100 million and the funds will only go to education!"
Year 0: "The lottery passed! We'll put that 100 million with the 500 million we've budgeted for education! Hooray! 600 million for education!"
Year 1: "This year we got 200 million from the lottery! So we really only need 400 million from the budget for education. Hooray! 600 million for education!"
Year 5 : This year we got 300 million from the lottery! So, really we only need 200 million from the budget! 500 million for education just like in year 0! And, oh, look, we have this 300 million left over from the budget to spend on public works projects! Still no lottery money spent on public works projects, only education!"

And so on. Fungible.
 
2013-01-26 02:17:09 PM  
You just have to look at it the right way. Doesn't the state keep most of the lottery money anyway? If they want to give some of their welfare money back, let them.
 
2013-01-26 02:19:07 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Via Infinito: But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

If you have been dealt such a bad hand you would be better off saving any found money instead of spending it on frivolity.


That dollar a week is really going to add up!

/especially when you add interest
 
2013-01-26 02:26:06 PM  

gblive: DearZelda: gblive: DearZelda: hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.

Says who? There's a maximum wage cap for people that receive SNAP and TANF. This means that a percentage of them do indeed have jobs. How do you know that the lotto tickets are bought with taxpayer money and not their own earnings?

If they have enough spare cash for lottery tickets then they don't need SNAP and TANF, eh?

Yeah because buying a random lottery ticket that costs less than $20 is totally the same as being able to afford all your food/utilities/rent/gas money/household expenses for that month on your work wages. *eyeroll*

So the taxpayers (meaning me) should pay for your food/utilities/rent/gas money/household expenses so you can buy lottery tickets. How about reducing your benefits by 20 bucks instead of playing the lottery for your entertainment.


ROFL So what, you're end ideal for someone on welfare is that at the end of paying everything they have a balance of $0? That's unrealistic and a bit idiotic. If you're saying that they shouldn't be able to buy anything to do with entertainment because they're on welfare, then that's not only unrealistic and a bit idiotic, it's also douchey.
 
2013-01-26 02:29:39 PM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: I'm in a situation where my employer owes me more than five grand. I might not have a job next month from the looks of things. I have stopped going out, eating out, buying coffee at the coffee shop, and I'm damn sure not going to waste money on Lotto.


One thing dumber than playing the lottery is continuing to work for someone who doesn't pay you.
 
2013-01-26 02:37:39 PM  

Omnivorous: It would make more sense to bar them from buying cigarettes: it's a useless expenditure AND endangers their health, making it more expensive for the state to care for them.


Nah, it kills em sooner. Phillip morris got in trouble for a study they presented to Czechs supporting that fewer dollars would be paid in pensions, aid, etc and the would die faster when they fell I'll.
 
2013-01-26 02:44:23 PM  

count_chimpula: How do you know what "I" have a problem with?


Because the instant you said 'mush brained liberals' everyone with more than two neurons firing in their head just saw your past ballots as Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney. Yes, yes, I know, the brave FARK Independent(tm) who somehow always supports the Party line while going 'Libs! Libs! Libs!' You're not the first. Welcome to FARK.
 
2013-01-26 02:46:42 PM  

hasty ambush: jack_sawyer75: Earl of Chives: jack_sawyer75: I agree. Now add drug testing, and not allowing them to buy cigarettes, tattoos would make it all perfect.

Can we do the same to all the farmers who get crop subsidies?

Sure. Whatever saves the country's money.

Agree. Of course I would prefer ending crop subsides.


You'll get nothing and still vote Republican.
 
2013-01-26 02:47:01 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: count_chimpula: How do you know what "I" have a problem with?

Because the instant you said 'mush brained liberals' everyone with more than two neurons firing in their head just saw your past ballots as Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney. Yes, yes, I know, the brave FARK Independent(tm) who somehow always supports the Party line while going 'Libs! Libs! Libs!' You're not the first. Welcome to FARK.


are we sure he's old enough to vote?
 
2013-01-26 03:27:32 PM  

hasty ambush: DearZelda: hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.

Says who? There's a maximum wage cap for people that receive SNAP and TANF. This means that a percentage of them do indeed have jobs. How do you know that the lotto tickets are bought with taxpayer money and not their own earnings?

Wrong It is like saying no tax dollars are used for abortion.


Heh!  That inspires an evil thought:  no one receiving government assistance should be able to buy an abortion with her own money!
 
2013-01-26 03:30:35 PM  
If you want to do that shiat, get a job and use your own money.
 
2013-01-26 03:31:20 PM  

Revek: EvilEgg: You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.  Everyone has the right to be mindbogglingly stupid.  The state should not both sponsor and moralize against "sins"

You can stop them from using public money to pay for their vice.


Gambling is only unethical under Christian codes, not Native American (depending on region), Neo-Pagan, or atheist systems (at least, I don't know many others).

So are you really sure you want to go down that route? Because if so, let's make sure we stop you from driving a non-hybrid car, which is a vice in the eyes of an environmentalist Neo-Pagan...
 
2013-01-26 03:46:22 PM  

hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.


Maybe. Maybe not. If it is just food assistance then that money (which is "paid out" in the form of a debit card) cannot be used for anything except for food, and you cannot do a cash advance on those cards. Now, some people do get "cash" for use for other things like toiletries and such, and they could get cash off of their card and use it for lottery tickets. But, if it is only a few bucks a week then I am OK with my tax dollars being spent that way. Why? Because in the grand scheme of things it does no harm. Chances are they are using the rest of the money to buy stuff that a lot of people would disapprove of. Plenty of people would be pissed off they someone on food stamps bought name brand soda instead of generic, right? It is hard enough for those people who need assistance. Letting them spend a few bucks a week for some amount of happiness hurts no one.
 
2013-01-26 03:53:30 PM  

Mock26: hasty ambush: dopekitty74: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

THIS!

Why should they prevent the people who need the winnings the most from playing?

Because they are essentially playing with other people's (the tax payer's) money.

Maybe. Maybe not. If it is just food assistance then that money (which is "paid out" in the form of a debit card) cannot be used for anything except for food, and you cannot do a cash advance on those cards. Now, some people do get "cash" for use for other things like toiletries and such, and they could get cash off of their card and use it for lottery tickets. But, if it is only a few bucks a week then I am OK with my tax dollars being spent that way. Why? Because in the grand scheme of things it does no harm. Chances are they are using the rest of the money to buy stuff that a lot of people would disapprove of. Plenty of people would be pissed off they someone on food stamps bought name brand soda instead of generic, right? It is hard enough for those people who need assistance. Letting them spend a few bucks a week for some amount of happiness hurts no one.


Someone else who doesn't know what 'fungible' means.
 
2013-01-26 03:54:51 PM  

PsiChick: Gambling is only unethical under Christian codes, not Native American (depending on region), Neo-Pagan, or atheist systems (at least, I don't know many others).


Sorry, dear:  Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism all frown upon gambling to different degrees.
 
2013-01-26 04:10:00 PM  

o5iiawah: If you think living on public assistance sucks, you should try paying for your own healthcare, food, shelter, utilities and comforts as well as taxes which fund all of the previous for someone else. The next time I hear "Living on public assistance is tough" i am going to scream. It is even harder to live within ones own means and subsidize others.


I do and I paid my way through school as well. I just don't believe we should kick the deserving out to die in the cold because a few people abuse the system. If you don't want to subsidize a person in need that is fine and I understand and I don't want to subsidize dropping missiles on a tent on the other side of the world and the way I see it feeding people at home is a far better use of taxpayer money than killing people abroad.
 
2013-01-26 04:14:03 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: PsiChick: Gambling is only unethical under Christian codes, not Native American (depending on region), Neo-Pagan, or atheist systems (at least, I don't know many others).

Sorry, dear:  Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism all frown upon gambling to different degrees.


Native American. Neo-Pagan. Atheist.

You  cannot legislate vice because vice is a moral question. Separation of Church and State. There must be a compelling  secular need for the state to intervene.
 
2013-01-26 04:25:18 PM  
to the people who disagree with this...

you want to lend me $20 a week, for the rest of my life, so that i can buy lottery tickets, and never pay you back? it only adds up to tens of thousands per. no, you dont? then whats the problem here?

/entirely will to spend your money for you, without having to quit my job.
 
2013-01-26 04:41:46 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: hasty ambush: jack_sawyer75: Earl of Chives: jack_sawyer75: I agree. Now add drug testing, and not allowing them to buy cigarettes, tattoos would make it all perfect.

Can we do the same to all the farmers who get crop subsidies?

Sure. Whatever saves the country's money.

Agree. Of course I would prefer ending crop subsides.

You'll get nothing and still vote Republican.


If you mean I will still have crop subsides and still vote GOP (not necessarily true as I often vote 3rd party) probably but them then both parties push farm subsidies. But even if I voted Democrat (shudder) I would still have farm subsidies and energy, automobile, home buying etc, etc etc.

On the other 17 years (1995-2011) of farm subsides at $277.3 billion total is less than one year of combined means tested welfare at $942 billion in 2011 alone or the $15.9 TRILLION since the "war on poverty" began.

EWG Farm SUbsidies

$277.3 billion in subsidies 1995-2011.

$172.3 billion in commodity subsidies.

$46.6 billion in crop insurance subsidies.

$37.0 billion in conservation subsidies.

$21.4 billion in disaster subsidies.

62 percent of farms in United States did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.

Ten percent collected 75 percent of all subsidies.

Amounting to $172.2 billion over 17 years
.
Top 10%: $31,400 average per year between 1995 and 2011
.
Bottom 80%: $594 average per year between 1995 and 2011.
 
2013-01-26 06:32:45 PM  

fredklein: YakiManiac: nanim: If my tax dollars are paying for their ticket, then I get the money if they win, right?
It stopped being your money as soon as it came out of your paycheck. It now belongs to the gov.
The government? You mean the Government "of the people, by the people, for the people", of which I am a person?


You know what they say--you don't like it, go live somewhere you have none of the benefits of the money that our government spends and see how that works out for you. "The people" doesn't mean "MEMEMEMEMEMEME."

Don't feel bad, apparently many Americans have a problem with that concept.
 
2013-01-26 07:04:34 PM  

Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.


Very well stated. I believe you have something there.
 
2013-01-26 07:10:31 PM  

Kibbler: Who the fark do they think buys all the lottery tickets? Educated, affluent, employed people?

A new level of stupid: preventing the stupid from paying the stupid tax.


People from all socioeconomic backgrounds buy lottery tickets. It's just richer people don't spend as much of a percentage of their income. There was a freakonomics podcast about this when they were proposing a bank savings account tied to a lottery, and discussed how the state-run lottery liked the idea so much the wanted to stomp the shiat out of any competition.
 
2013-01-26 07:31:01 PM  
Mehh, since I just won my trip to The Island, I am getting a kick out of,,,
 
2013-01-26 07:37:20 PM  

PanicMan: Jesus, just leave poor people alone. Why do you care how they spend their money?


Because it came from my paycheck. Involuntarily.
 
2013-01-26 07:43:23 PM  

shotglasss: PanicMan: Jesus, just leave poor people alone. Why do you care how they spend their money?

Because it came from my paycheck. Involuntarily.


Yes, but is it more productive to worry about how the 7% that made it to a recipient was wasted, or the 93% that remained in government hands?
 
2013-01-26 08:06:01 PM  

untaken_name: shotglasss: PanicMan: Jesus, just leave poor people alone. Why do you care how they spend their money?

Because it came from my paycheck. Involuntarily.

Yes, but is it more productive to worry about how the 7% that made it to a recipient was wasted, or the 93% that remained in government hands?


Luckily the government is planning to fix their crooked game by keeping 99% of the money.

"Draw a circle on the ground, whatever the poor catch, they keep!"
 
2013-01-26 08:34:31 PM  

Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.


Might have been already said but at least in CA if you win over a certain amount via lottery or casinos, it's automatically reported to the state and/or IRS. It's taxable income on your part. I know of several people that have had benefits and other types of aid reduced, or forced to repay due to winnings they chose not to report, thinking they got away with something from "da man".

In fairness I think winnings under $500 should be given a pass, so long as it's only say one or two a year, rather than an outright ban. Beyond that, then you're likely blowing $5000 of aid money just to win back that $500. There has to be a cut off somewhere, especially if certain people are getting aid and have dependent children that go hungry because mommy needs her scratchers and a carton of Camels.

But then it's taxpayer money, hand out by the government, then given right back to the government. So who wins really?
 
2013-01-26 08:42:00 PM  
I have a question. If they were so concerned about our tax money being wasted, why do they take so much from us?
 
2013-01-26 08:49:43 PM  

cryinoutloud: fredklein: YakiManiac: nanim: If my tax dollars are paying for their ticket, then I get the money if they win, right?
It stopped being your money as soon as it came out of your paycheck. It now belongs to the gov.
The government? You mean the Government "of the people, by the people, for the people", of which I am a person?

You know what they say--you don't like it, go live somewhere you have none of the benefits of the money that our government spends and see how that works out for you. "The people" doesn't mean "MEMEMEMEMEMEME."

Don't feel bad, apparently many Americans have a problem with that concept.


Ah, the old 'America, love it or leave it' argument. Never mind trying to fix the System, just go along with it or get out.

Nice attitude.
 
2013-01-26 09:13:00 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: Via Infinito: MmmmBacon: Via Infinito: I can see them not accepting EBT to pay for the lottery tickets, but prohibiting welfare recipients from playing at all seems crappy.

It probably doesn't stop them from playing, but prevents them from winning. So when these desperate Welfare recipients buy a lottery ticket and lose, that's just more money in the system. But if they lose? "Sorry, you're on welfare, therefore you are not eligible for this prize". I doubt it would go back into the pool for the next week, though... Maybe their winnings will go to fund some "state project", instead?

But that's even crappier, isn't it? Letting them spending that dollar they found under the cushions on a lottery ticket, but not letting them have the prize when they win? I don't think lottery winners should be allowed to STAY on welfare when they win, but making people ineligible for the prize because they've been dealt a seriously shiatty hand at life just seems incredibly mean-spirited. I'm not sure what kind of point they're trying to make here.

Might have been already said but at least in CA if you win over a certain amount via lottery or casinos, it's automatically reported to the state and/or IRS. It's taxable income on your part. I know of several people that have had benefits and other types of aid reduced, or forced to repay due to winnings they chose not to report, thinking they got away with something from "da man".

In fairness I think winnings under $500 should be given a pass, so long as it's only say one or two a year, rather than an outright ban. Beyond that, then you're likely blowing $5000 of aid money just to win back that $500. There has to be a cut off somewhere, especially if certain people are getting aid and have dependent children that go hungry because mommy needs her scratchers and a carton of Camels.

But then it's taxpayer money, hand out by the government, then given right back to the government. So who wins really?


Over 70% of lottery money does not go to the government. It is re-distributed as prizes or kept as profit by the private company that runs the lottery,
 
2013-01-26 09:29:37 PM  

gblive: Have you ever taken a statistics course that discussed populations sets, standard deviation, variance and sigma.


No, but I have taken an English course that discusses ending an interrogative with a question mark.

But nice way to dodge the "majority of people on welfare are black" lie.
 
2013-01-27 12:53:21 AM  

Ms.Gradenko: Are we really willing to wring out every bit of hope and optimism from people for such a small amount of money?


Yes. Yes they are. The idea here is that for less that the price of a candy bar, these people - who don't have anything anyway - can imagine themselves never having to worry about money again. It's a fantasy, a game, a brief escape from the sh*thole they probably live in... even if only for a few hours, and only inside their heads.

And those who are against these people spending a whole $1 once a week or so have no problem with stealing these dreams. Don't you dare be happy while collecting public assistance! No smiling!
 
2013-01-27 03:28:54 AM  
Hey, NC. Your scheme to rip off the ignorant is conflicting with your hatred of the poor. Choose your priorities already.
 
2013-01-27 11:00:55 AM  
"Alice Garland, executive director of the lottery, said last week that she believed taking "education" out of the title would cut into lottery sales."

Well, yes. Isn't that kind of the point?

Why is the state trying so hard to persuade people to gamble anyway?
 
2013-01-27 11:33:04 AM  

Worldwalker: "Alice Garland, executive director of the lottery, said last week that she believed taking "education" out of the title would cut into lottery sales."

Well, yes. Isn't that kind of the point?

Why is the state trying so hard to persuade people to gamble anyway?


Just working the system.
America has two huge, reliable profit centers; stupidity and suffering.

Come and get 'em, bootstrappy fortunes to be made!
 
2013-01-27 08:24:07 PM  

rewind2846: And those who are against these people spending a whole $1 once a week or so have no problem with stealing these dreams.


Yeah, because they only spend $1. ::rolleyes::
 
2013-01-28 12:08:45 PM  
So, in other words, only the rich can play?
This is where I came in, I have seen this part.
 
Displayed 300 of 300 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report