You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] didntsayeeeee 20 points 10 points (+30|-20) ago 

Since ATMs presumably don't carry fives, this would actually be a $20 limit?

There is some sense to it. If people want free money, they should be forced to show that they're spending it on staying alive, not on booze and cigarettes and black tar heroin. You can control how people spend their welfare money if it's in card form, you can't control it if they get cash. So, yeah, it's not a completely stupid idea. If you don't like it, don't be on welfare.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 29 points (+34|-5) ago 


[–] [deleted] 7 points 0 points (+7|-7) ago 



[–] WentRightOverMyHead 8 points 15 points (+23|-8) ago 

We are ALL on welfare, essentially. The poor get SNAP, the unemployed get unemployment, homeowners get tax write offs, the wealthiest get to send their money to the Caymans for tax free earnings. Why do we feel the need to let the rest of our country decide how the low income earners spend theirs? Shouldn't we also dictate how the rich spend all of their tax breaks? Or unemployment money? Let's stop acting like being on SNAP means you don't know how to care for your family or that you waste it on booze. It's insulting.


[–] Marble68 5 points 7 points (+12|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Not credits are not welfare since it is in relation to money the government wants to take, not give; and second because a tax break \ credit are mechanisms to stimulate activity that is empirically proven to have a benefit to economic activity holistically, and this vehicle of encouragement is more effective and efficient than if the government tried to do it itself.

Since the government produces nothing, it must take from someone to facilitate an action.

It's not the government's money.

Conflating temporary social assistance provided through seizure of property (in this case money) for non earners with highly effective taxation vehicles (none seizure) used to encourage specific activity, isn't rational.

It implies a sense of scarcity and the incorrect presumption that wealth is finite and that money is the property of the state. It completely forgets the idea of private property.

It's like that lunacy Warren spews about roads and companies. There is no 'rest of us', quite the opposite. The employees also pay for roads, especially the wealthy business owner who actually pays more for the road than a consumer. Never mind that property developers pay to build the roads and improvements in many cases in exchange for permits and approvals.

Some things, when boiled down into simple, sound bite taking points, become so removed from reality that they sound alien and insulated; devoid of critical thought or practicality.

Pardon the typos, written on phone


[–] spookybm 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

I qualify for tax returns because I live below poverty level, with a wife. I also qualify for food stamps because I am dislocated veteran. I also qualify for unemployment, but I don't, because I don't believe socialism is the right thing to abuse.


[–] Werdd 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Yeah this is a good way to keep track of where the publics money is going. This is smart policy to fight abuse.


[–] Beers 3 points 1 point (+4|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Same goes for all physical goods, actually. If someone on welfare is able to buy something physical, valuable, and transferrable, then their spending is not controlled. Stopping cash is one thing, but what happens when their dealer says "just go buy stuff on my shopping list and I'll give you 50 cents on the dollar in drugs"

The amount of effort and the cost of controlling every single aspect of a welfare recipient's life is not worth the benefit. Perhaps we would see a better return on our welfare expenses if we focused on helping, not controlling, the recipients. Give them options and a reason to try and live better, instead of generating conflict. Perhaps that would be more effective?

The goal is to get as many people out of welfare, and into productive lives, right? Or is the goal something along the lines of total control and punishment of the poor for being poor?