The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Cash and the poor
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5746		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  TheRiov [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Cash and the poor
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ ... ans-want-b

Posted without commentary or fact checking at the moment

One of these days I'll have the time to check this stuff
Author:  TheRiov [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls87

This is the bill. I don't read the text of the bill the way the blogger does. It only seems to limit the person receiving assistance to getting 20$ of their assistance in cash.

Am I mising something?
Author:  Xequecal [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I can't see how even a hardcore conservative could support this. It just strengthens the welfare trap. They're seriously telling the poor people that they're not allowed to save money. What incentive is left to get any kind of job at that point?
Author:  Ienan [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Xequecal wrote:
I can't see how even a hardcore conservative could support this. It just strengthens the welfare trap. They're seriously telling the poor people that they're not allowed to save money. What incentive is left to get any kind of job at that point?

If you're saving money in a month, you don't need public assistance anymore. Public assistance is to leave you with the basic needs. What this bill is attempting to do is limit public assistance to those most in need only based on the little I read. It's also trying to curb severe fraud in the system, such as using public assistance for things like entertainment or alcohol. (edit: I typed automobiles instead of alcohol for some reason. I must have that on my mind. Don't know why.)
Author:  Screeling [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Agreed. You're not supposed to make a living on public assistance. You're just supposed to get by.

My view of the law says it prevents withdrawing funds as cash from this welfare debit card. Why should welfare recipients be allowed to pocket other citizens' taxes? You can call it heartless all you want. But staying on public assistance should be a pain in the ***. Since there's no shame in taking public assistance these days, there needs to be some disincentive to staying on it.
Author:  darksiege [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Public assistance should be a helping hand to get you through a difficult time, if you can afford an Escalade on Public assistance... you do not need the public aid.

If you can afford to walk around with $300 in cash on you... there is a good chance you can afford groceries and do not food stamps.

There is too much abuse of the system. People I know personally aroused my ire repeatedly with their attempts to abuse the federal welfare system. I would ***** at one person on a daily basis for buying pot for her hubby, while he did not have a job... and they were on food stamps.

I will also admit there are people I personally knew whom I have told not to use me as a reference on their paperwork for federal aid of that nature because I would tell anyone who asked about their refusal to look for work and their marijuana habits.
Author:  Xequecal [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
The issue is it's a welfare trap. Currently welfare pays substantially more than a minimum wage job. So someone who wants to get off welfare actually has less money when he starts working. Preventing people on assistance from saving money makes it much less likely they'll ever get off it. If you can save some money, you have enough to tide you over for the first six months to a year until you can get promoted or a little experience and can get off minimum wage.
Author:  Screeling [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Xequecal wrote:
The issue is it's a welfare trap. Currently welfare pays substantially more than a minimum wage job. So someone who wants to get off welfare actually has less money when he starts working. Preventing people on assistance from saving money makes it much less likely they'll ever get off it. If you can save some money, you have enough to tide you over for the first six months to a year until you can get promoted or a little experience and can get off minimum wage.

I think you're kidding yourself into thinking a significant portion of poor people would save the money if they have an abundance. And the fact that they make less than welfare is immaterial. If they get a job and keep a job, they will eventually make more than minimum wage. You get raises. Hell, you can get promoted to shift leader pretty easily. The only way you continue to make minimum wage is if you are utterly incompetent or continually quit your job.
Author:  darksiege [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Xequecal wrote:
The issue is it's a welfare trap. Currently welfare pays substantially more than a minimum wage job. So someone who wants to get off welfare actually has less money when he starts working. Preventing people on assistance from saving money makes it much less likely they'll ever get off it. If you can save some money, you have enough to tide you over for the first six months to a year until you can get promoted or a little experience and can get off minimum wage.


As far as I am concerned... Welfare should not be paid to the current recipients.

If you get approved for rent subsidies, the portion covered should be given direct to the landlord, if it is utilities subsidy... to the utility company directly. Food stamps are really a different animal and would need to be treated as such. No extra money should be given at all. It should be assistance, not a livable stipend.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
EDIT-Found it

I'm not understanding the exact intend of SEC 1 para C. It has to do with withdrawing cash from ATMs, which you can't do ever with an EBT card(according to paragraph A). If they are regulating the use of a separate account, then i'm not certain that's even constitutional.

If this were my state, i'd certainly want to call my rep and see what's up.
Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
1:C states: "Notwithstanding paragraph (a),..."

That means that people who receive EBT and are not in in the general assistance program and the Minnesota supplemental aid program under chapter 256D and programs under chapter 256J can get up to $20 per month from an ATM or a vendor. None of this has to do with personal, private accounts.
Author:  darksiege [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Rorinthas wrote:
EDIT-Found it

I'm not understanding the exact intend of SEC 1 para C. It has to do with withdrawing cash from ATMs, which you can't do ever with an EBT card(according to paragraph A). If they are regulating the use of a separate account, then i'm not certain that's even constitutional.

If this were my state, i'd certainly want to call my rep and see what's up.


Some programs will give rental assistance, utility assistance and in some cases even extra money above and beyond the cost of bills and utilities. It is given, in those places, as a "you need money to live, but have none... so here"

It is a shining example of robbing from those who have and giving to those who do not have. I know someone who used to receive $400 a month, above and beyond Section 8 housing, paid utilities and EBT.
Author:  Midgen [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Washington State started giving out debit cards for their welfare payments. Then they acted surprised when they found out a lot of people were using their Taxpayer Provided Funds (tm) at the local Indian Casino's.....
Author:  Wwen [ Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:07 am ]
Post subject: 
It's easy to spend other people's money.
Author:  Rynar [ Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:18 am ]
Post subject: 
If the bulk of the poorest people in America had the ability to manage and save money, then they wouldnt be the poorest people in America in the first place. You are inventing a problem that doesn't really exist, Xequecal.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Xequecal wrote:
The issue is it's a welfare trap. Currently welfare pays substantially more than a minimum wage job. So someone who wants to get off welfare actually has less money when he starts working. Preventing people on assistance from saving money makes it much less likely they'll ever get off it. If you can save some money, you have enough to tide you over for the first six months to a year until you can get promoted or a little experience and can get off minimum wage.


No, the trap is being able to save the money. If you have enough money to put some away, why get off welfare? This, of course, ignores the fact (as pointed out above) that in reality these people almost never save anyhow; extra cash is far more likely to be spent on booze, drugs, cigarettes, or "luxury" foods, or video games, or iphones, or what the **** ever.

All you're demonstrating is that welfare benefits are too good. Welfare should pay less than minimum wage.

Of course, part of the problem is that you're using minimum wage as your point of comparison, when relatively few primary wage earners (as in, well under a million nationwide) make minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are primarily second jobs, or jobs held by teenagers and college students. The typical low-income job is actually somewhat above minimum wage; $8-11 an hour jobs are quite common.
Author:  LadyKate [ Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:32 am ]
Post subject: 
I work for minimum wage. Prt-time too, since there's not enough hours to go around. It's the only job I could find after more than 2 months of searching and applying for every stinking job I could find.
Times are tough. Lucky for me, my husband does well, but with the ex-wife and the kids, money doesn't go far....Anyway...
I couldn't imagine trying to live on minimum wage without some type of assistance. It's dang near impossible. Sure, you could maybe eke by on minimum wage but no way you could save money. There are real life expenses that happen that don't fit into a budget that would knock what little savings you have away very quickly and send you spiraling into debt and living hand to mouth. That being said, are others who work harder/have better paying jobs obligated to make up the difference for these people or support them in sitting on their butts because "working for min wage just isn't worth it?" Hell naw.

Back to the OP though, I agree with it. Yeah, it's harsh, but I believe it's necessary to weed out so many people who are truly taking advantage of the system. I don't know what the statistics are, but I'm willing to bet that for every one person who is on assistance for a genuine need, there are many more who are on assistance who don't need to be.
Author:  Hannibal [ Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Well we have politicians going after "those greedy rich who get Social Security checks" but they won't put the same effort to name the hucksters who are ripping off the system on the low end. At least the "greedy rich" are putting money into the system in the first place.

As to this issue, I agree with the concept but not the wording(which seems to be the case with these things). I look at it in this light- if I loan someone money, I then have a vested interest in their habits. If you owe me 300 bucks, I shouldn't see you partying it up every weekend while claiming an inability to pay me. Same with these folks. Don't be on public assistance while claiming you have a right to have certain things. You don't. You're living off MY money, not yours, and I'm telling you that you can't use MY money to buy certain things.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/