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  
•       •       •

5341 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.)
 
Displayed 50 of 300 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report