Federal Law to bar welfare debit cards at Casinos
Quote:Welfare recipients nationwide would be barred from using their government-issued debit cards at casinos, strip clubs and liquor stores under a bill to be introduced Wednesday by leaders of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.
A co-sponsor of the measure says he was inspired by the fact that nearly $5 million in cash benefits issued in California and meant to help struggling families feed and clothe their children, was spent or withdrawn from ATMs at casinos and poker rooms between January 2007 and May 2010.
Tens of thousands of dollars in Temporary Aid for Needy Families assistance was accessed or spent with the debit cards at Los Angeles-area strip clubs in the same period.
The Times last year detailed all of those transactions, prompting immediate changes in the state's network of ATMs that accept Electronic Benefit Transfer cards.
The cards, which provide recipients access to federal as well as state cash, were also used in tourist destinations, including the Las Vegas Strip, a remote Hawaiian island that is home to two Four Seasons resorts and on cruise ships leaving from ports around the globe.
here
There has always been a black market in food stamps and often someone will hang about a grocery store trying to convert various food stamps or voucher like things into cash so they can buy booze or cigarettes with it.Quote: EvenBobyou could only spend the stamps on food, nobody else accepted them.
I don't know the cost of programming the computers to block out casinos but its foolish. ATMs are often in jails for bail bonds, want to ban that too? Standing there trying to tell a welfare recipient to spend wisely seems rather foolish. If they were wise and controlled impulses, they wouldn't be on welfare.
The debit cards in question provide access to real money accounts where the government deposits aid money for the recipient monthly. The recipient is free to spend it however he pleases. If they ban the use of the cards inside casino, all that is needed from the client is to walk out, and find an ATM outside.
Right, but then some politician wouldn't get his name and photo in the paper for sponsoring the bill and someone's brother in law wouldn't get the contract for reprogramming the computer system. Its a publicity stunt ... as are most laws.Quote: weaselmanIf they ban the use of the cards inside casino, all that is needed from the client is to walk out, and find an ATM outside.
Quote:The cards, which provide recipients access to federal as well as state cash, were also used in tourist destinations, including the Las Vegas Strip, a remote Hawaiian island that is home to two Four Seasons resorts and on cruise ships leaving from ports around the globe.
I don't have a problem with this part. Many workers in tourists destinations don't earn enough to live in those destinations. I've read about the hotel housekeepers and waiters in Aspen living in tents because there is no affordable housing there for them.
Junk food from 7-11 is pretty much their normal diet.Quote: gofaster87Its government help to feed a person and their family, not a free for all on junk food.
Quote: FleaStiffJunk food from 7-11 is pretty much their normal diet.
True story.
Quote: gofaster87In Vegas, most 7-11's accept food stamps. They aren't stamps though, they look like a debit card. I see people buying candy bars and energy drinks all the time. Its bullshit. Its government help to feed a person and their family, not a free for all on junk food.
The problem is, if the market is the king, they people should be free to spend money however they choose; BUT with a social safety net (however low) there's going to be people who rely on the state. So we have this odd state where we have a market led cash payment, but a statist safety net which is neither fish nor fowl and has the worst of either system. What would be the response if welfare handouts were direct benefits of food and shelter (e.g. n choice or limited choice in the goods given out) with direct control of the person's life (which a hard-core statist approach would give)? Or the opposite where there is no welfare at all?
I don't know how hard/easy it is to fall onto welfare in the US. I've been on unemployment benefit in the UK for very short periods after losing jobs. I don't think I was on welfare because I was stupid or careless with my money. I would have survived in the short time without the money, but I had no idea it was going to be such a short period of time.
Quote: EvenBobBack in the 80's, when I was in the taxi business, we took food stamps all the time instead of money. If the fare was $10, we'd take $15 in stamps. They weren't really stamps, they were books of coupons that looked like money. Never had any problem using them, nobody ever asked for ID. That was the point of taking 15 for 10, there was a possibility you couldn't cash them.
Maybe you got mad at me? Back in the 80s I was a cashier and my boss was very strict on asking for the food stamp ID. And it was a "food stamp ID" as any other ID did not show you could use the stamps. People would whine 10 times a day how "we were the only store that asked for it." The other thing was if they were out of the book. Without the book it was a nogo, unless they were using $1s which were given as soft change. Hard change (coins) were given as regular coins.
It was sick how the stamps were spent. Rule was if was meant for a human to eat, or seeds for food, you could use them. Only exception was "prepared" food. People loaded up on junk food with them all the time. Many had so much WIC vouchers they forgot to use them, that is another story tho.
Quote: FleaStiffThey are going to gamble anyway, so what is the use of passing laws about it.
No reason to make it easier for them to do that. Make it a little more difficult to circumvent the system, and maybe you'll see a small percentage of them stop.
I'm actually amazed that this wasn't restricted from the start.
"Of the 40 states that have switched from paper checks to prepaid debit cards, 22 states' cards charge ATM fees, 24 charge balance inquiry fees, and 28 charge inactivity fees. The cards in Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, Ohio, and Oregon come with overdraft fees ranging from $10 to $20."
Article source: Welfare card withdrawals still occur at strip clubs, bars
Quote: FleaStiffJunk food from 7-11 is pretty much their normal diet.
A couple of young girls about 11 or 12 years old were on their way to school this morning and stopped at the gas station as I was getting gas. I ended up behind them in line and couldn't help notice what one of these children purchased with an EBT card. Energy drinks, Cheetos and candy bars to the tune of $26 and change. She swiped the card and they were on their way, no doubt to get to school in time to throw their nutritious free lunch in the trash. Maddening and sad for several reasons.
Quote: aceofspadesA friend of mine works at a state run shelter wherein welfare families stay for free (the state pays the facility $56/night)...these people are also on food stamps and also receive cash monthly. The people routinely ask if room service is available. Moreover, one of these people just leased a Mercedes. As she informed my friend who manages the place "I have free rent and free food - I might as well put the $800 cash I get each month towards something nice for myself". I say we cut off all aid and let everyone work for what they have.
welfare is limited to 5yrs lifetime.
and they have to go thru a jobs course.
obviously, u can still game the system.
but if u want reform, I want to start with farm substidies!
Quote: 100xOddswelfare is limited to 5yrs lifetime.
and they have to go thru a jobs course.
Rick Santorum said it best on this when he said the best "jobs course" is send them to McDonald's or Wal-Mart and let them learn about showing up on-time, clean, and sober. Seriously, the best training in how to keep a job is to work an entry-level job.
That's why I think you have to set up minimum wage to a higher $. My socialist mind thinks that you still have to provide welfare benefits to those in need yet find enough space between basic needs and entry level job to make the entry level job worthwhile. And close up the holes in welfare to reduce free cash to a minimum. Yeah, there will be abuses on a debit card good at grocery stores only. You can only limit Credit/Debit card purposes by store class, so there will be ways to abuse.
If you're on welfare and earning equivalent $5/hour, then a jump to $7.25/hour just isn't worth it. A jump to $10/hour - $11/hour would be worth it. Raise the minimum wage. It will also raise the cost of fast food and other low margin items which will help out the obese who might consider cooking at home using vegetables over the .69 cent items at Taco Smell and enable small businesses to be able to compete with big box.
Quote: boymimboThe question is however, why work at McDonald's/Walmart (where they will not hire you full time, they have to pay benefits) and earn $11,000/year (30 hrs/week) when you can sit at home for nothing and watch reality shows all day long and/or work under the table for cash?
The answer should be simple, so you can eat. If the gap between welfare and MW is not enough it is because welfare is too high, not because mw is too low.
Quote:If you're on welfare and earning equivalent $5/hour, then a jump to $7.25/hour just isn't worth it. A jump to $10/hour - $11/hour would be worth it. Raise the minimum wage. It will also raise the cost of fast food and other low margin items which will help out the obese who might consider cooking at home using vegetables over the .69 cent items at Taco Smell and enable small businesses to be able to compete with big box.
*sigh* Why do we need to punish businesses because too many people refuse to work? And how is the higher mw going to help a small business by raising their labor costs? Raising mw just means fewer low skilled workers will find any job at all, this has been proven time and time again.
Quote: boymimboThe question is however, why work at McDonald's/Walmart (where they will not hire you full time, they have to pay benefits) and earn $11,000/year (30 hrs/week) when you can sit at home for nothing and watch reality shows all day long and/or work under the table for cash?
That's why I think you have to set up minimum wage to a higher $.
You just argued against this statement in the first paragraph. Companies avoid offering health benefits by cutting workers' hours. Likewise, they will avoid paying out more $$$ per hour by cutting the number of employees!
Where in your right mind do you think McDonald's/Walmart/home depot would hire any more than they need? If the minimum wage goes up, McDonald's and Walmart's only choice is to raise prices, not lay off staff. They are already at a minimum staffing complement and minimal wage costs. If all of a sudden, a state decided to lower its minimum wage from $7.25 to $6.00 would Walmart pay their employees $1.25 less and hire 20% more workers? No. They would lower their wages to their employees and in turn lower prices to its consumers and not hire one more soul.
And I will always differ when it comes to welfare. Welfare exists to help the needy. In my opinion, it should exist to provide basic shelter, heat, and food to its recipients (and health care), and no more. Changing the gap between minimum wage and welfare so that there would exist a marked difference in the quality of life would take more people off welfare and into the workforce. Or at least they would be competing with the undocumented workers, illegal immigrants, or aliens, whatever you want to call them.
Quote: boymimboIf the minimum wage goes up, McDonald's and Walmart's only choice is to raise prices, not lay off staff.
Yeah, just like their only choice was to provide health insurance, not cut workers' hours. lol
Quote: boymimboIf all of a sudden, a state decided to lower its minimum wage from $7.25 to $6.00 would Walmart pay their employees $1.25 less and hire 20% more workers? No. They would lower their wages to their employees and in turn lower prices to its consumers and not hire one more soul.
Not likely as most WMT employees make more than minimum wage. But if wages went down they might indeed hire more people. For example, if they have more registers open they can get more customers checked out in a shorter amount of time, leading more people to stop by more often.
Quote:And I will always differ when it comes to welfare. Welfare exists to help the needy. In my opinion, it should exist to provide basic shelter, heat, and food to its recipients (and health care), and no more. Changing the gap between minimum wage and welfare so that there would exist a marked difference in the quality of life would take more people off welfare and into the workforce. Or at least they would be competing with the undocumented workers, illegal immigrants, or aliens, whatever you want to call them.
Welfare was never supposed to be more than a short to mid term solution. But the problem is people keep with this attitude of, "well, minimum wage doesn't pay enough to live on." It never was meant for that. If you are beyond high school and all you can qualify for and find is a minimum wage job then you have made bad choices in life. Why do I have to keep subsidizing people who refuse to work their way up in life?
Health benefits are a $3-$5 /hr benefit with a cost of $6-$10K per EE, which is why it's important to lower the costs of health care overall so that companies can hire full-time workers with little penalty.
Quote: wikiOn October 26, 2005, a Walmart internal memo sent to the firm's Board of Directors advised trimming over $1 billion in health care expenses by 2011 through measures such as attracting a younger, implicitly healthier work force by offering education benefits.[84] The memo also suggested giving sedentary Walmart staffers, such as cashiers, more physically demanding tasks, such as "cart-gathering," and eliminating full-time positions in favor of hiring part-time employees who would be ineligible for the more expensive health insurance and several policy proposals which may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.[84] The memo also accused Walmart's lower paid employees of abusing emergency room visits, "possibly due to their prior experience with programs such as Medicaid," whereas such visits may actually be due to the reduced ability of uninsured or underinsured people to make timely appointments to see a regular physician.[84] Critics point to this internal memo as evidence that Walmart purports to be generous with its employee benefits, while in reality the company is working to cut such benefits by reducing the number of full-time and long-term employees and discouraging supposedly unhealthy people from working at Walmart....
...
In 2011, Walmart stopped providing health insurance for part-time employees working under 24 hours per week.[92] In 2013, health insurance benefits will not be available to employees who work fewer than 30 hours per week. Experts in labor and health care observed that the change will shift the burden of providing health care for Walmart employees to the federal government, as eligibility for Medicaid has been expanded under Obamacare.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot likely as most WMT employees make more than minimum wage.
Walmart employees don't make much. Let's compare Walmart (Sam's Club) to CostCo.
Average wage at Walmart (all employees) $10.11/hr. Average wage at Costco: $17/hr. At Costco, 82% have health insurance coverage and pay 8% of premiums, while at WalMart, less than half do and they pay 33% of premiums. Staff turnover at CostCo is 17% compared to 44%/year at WalMart. Both companies are extremely profitable. Which company would you rather work for?
Quote: AZDuffmanWelfare was never supposed to be more than a short to mid term solution. But the problem is people keep with this attitude of, "well, minimum wage doesn't pay enough to live on." It never was meant for that.
It shouldn't be meant for that. But people gravitate to that because it's easy to do so.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy do I have to keep subsidizing people who refuse to work their way up in life?
Because there are plenty of people who did not have the same opportunities as you, have mental health issues, have self-esteems, did not have the same luck as you, or are just too damned lazy. They still deserve to live. And would you rather see them on the streets fouling up your inner cities. Oh, many of them already do.
Quote: boymimbo
Average wage at Walmart (all employees) $10.11/hr. Average wage at Costco: $17/hr. At Costco, 82% have health insurance coverage and pay 8% of premiums, while at WalMart, less than half do and they pay 33% of premiums. Staff turnover at CostCo is 17% compared to 44%/year at WalMart. Both companies are extremely profitable. Which company would you rather work for?
I would rather work at Costco, most people would rather work at Costco. This is why Costco offers more money, to get the pick of the litter as far as employees goes. WMT clearly has made a choice to offer less for a lesser employee. This is how a free market works.
Because there are plenty of people who did not have the same opportunities as you, have mental health issues, have self-esteems, did not have the same luck as you, or are just too damned lazy. They still deserve to live. And would you rather see them on the streets fouling up your inner cities. Oh, many of them already do.
Low self-esteem? BOO-HOO-HOO, get to work! They already foul the inner-cities. And ask anyone who deals with welfare recipients and they will agree that as a group they are very rude and demanding, thinking they are "owed" everything. Welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock.
Quote: boymimboThen why is it a hammock? What makes it a hammock over a safety net?
Well, for starters when you live in a 3 bedroom townhouse with all the latest TV and other electronic equipment, and all kinds of other goodies that is a hammock.
Again, what causes people to get out of the hammock and get to work? Start taking away the goodies.
Look at other countries poor people are skinny, living in modest shelter, with modest amenities,
Here...look at the people on our welfare lines....many are FAT. many have smart phones, many have at least basic cable ay home. and many can even afford to buy lottery tickets daily.
minimum wage jobs at big companies should be looked on as an entry level position. There is alot of turnover, so if you stay AND if you are a good worker, good communication skills, good attendance and work record....you have a real good chance of moving up in pay rate.
So for the people giving excuses that people on welfare dont have incentive to work at walmart because they get the same amount sitting at home.......that is a bogus excuse. Everyone starts at entry level in their paricular jobs no one is going to give people a handlout in the job market. Everyone has to earn their step up in salary.
People who can work who sit home and collect welfare thinking one day someone is going to knock on their door and offer them a managerial job having no prior experience are just lazy. They have to go out and prove themselves as cashiers and lower paying jobs.
meanwhile they have their smart phone, cable, and bags and bags of chips to sit and eat while watching Maury.
I am not saying to take away the basics,,,, but as long as they are given all the comforts of home that hard working people have.....laziness will prevail
I don't know.
A smartphone is what, $25/month? Basic cable is $30/month? Any structured welfare plan will give enough cash to afford those things.
And there are plenty of people who have poor communications skills and are not good workers. If all of a sudden I was deprived of my $60/hr job and was forced to work at Walmart / McDonalds to $10/hr I'd be awfully unmotivated to work. And there are plenty of people who were say, in manufacturing making $50K/year with a skillset that wasn't transferrable with a good pension plan. There are millions of uneducated Americans who fit this bill, who have good jobs despite the lack of education. Everyone can't go to college. Colleges don't have the infrastructure. They get laid off, and the best they can do is make $7.25 an hour working nights at the local gas station. The best they can EVER hope for without re-education is what, $10/hour. Woot!
Of all of the people working for Walmart, how many of them are going to advance to the next tier from $7/hr to $10/hr? I'm waiting for the success stories of the Walmart story who started at the bottom and worked their way up to Sr. Vice President.
Quote: boymimbo
And there are plenty of people who have poor communications skills and are not good workers. If all of a sudden I was deprived of my $60/hr job and was forced to work at Walmart / McDonalds to $10/hr I'd be awfully unmotivated to work. And there are plenty of people who were say, in manufacturing making $50K/year with a skillset that wasn't transferrable with a good pension plan. There are millions of uneducated Americans who fit this bill, who have good jobs despite the lack of education. Everyone can't go to college. Colleges don't have the infrastructure. They get laid off, and the best they can do is make $7.25 an hour working nights at the local gas station. The best they can EVER hope for without re-education is what, $10/hour. Woot!
If the best you can do is $7-10 an hour then you have made many bad choices in life. Yes, you may need to get some re-education but welcome to earth. I am sure there were some buggy-whip craftsmen that had to learn to work on automobiles. The motivated ones did, the unmotivated ones, well the world needs ditch-diggers, too.
Quote:Of all of the people working for Walmart, how many of them are going to advance to the next tier from $7/hr to $10/hr? I'm waiting for the success stories of the Walmart story who started at the bottom and worked their way up to Sr. Vice President.
I would say most can move to the $10 tier. In fact I would say it is next to impossible not to move up if you stick around and apply yourself. In a company the size of WMT or MCD there should be plenty of things you can move up to. There will always be more unmotivated folks than motivated.
It doesn't function with all bosses and owners. You can create a million more Walmarts and you need even more low wage workers.
So you either starve the bottom or pay them enough.
Perhaps the exception is everyone becomes self employed. I'm not sure how well that would work though. Still need UPS and truck drivers, and grocer trucks carrying food and stock handlers.
It's fine if you are living at home with mommy or with three roommates at college and making $7.25/hr. But if you're a 45 year old dude or chick who's lost their job because of outsourcing, where does that $7.25 / hr put you. First thing i'm doing is collecting all of my unemployment benefits at a higher wage. For example, if I lose my job today, my EI benefits pay me about $12.50/hr, more than minimum wage. I'd milk that while taking under the table work. Then i'm looking at retraining programs.
Quote: boymimboBut if you're a 45 year old dude or chick who's lost their job because of outsourcing, where does that $7.25 / hr put you. First thing i'm doing is collecting all of my unemployment benefits at a higher wage. For example, if I lose my job today, my EI benefits pay me about $12.50/hr, more than minimum wage. I'd milk that while taking under the table work. Then i'm looking at retraining programs.
And that is what motivated people do. A big gripe I and many people had with the "99ers" in the USA is that in 99 weeks you should be able to find *something.* You could even get an Associate Degree in 99 weeks. If you look for work for 99 weeks and can still only get $7.25 per hour, what is wrong with this picture?
Nothing stands still in an economy, if you are off-shored you need to find something else.
Yep, when the poor people in this country are fat, that's a good indication that it's a hammock, not a safety net.Quote: AZDuffmanWelfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock.
So? Life is tough, and EVERYBODY goes through rough patches. Doesn't mean the government needs to get involved in every single instance.Quote: boymimboBut if you're a 45 year old dude or chick who's lost their job because of outsourcing, where does that $7.25 / hr put you.
If someone has limited skills, like they work for the local coal mine, and then the mine closes....it was up to them all along to recognize that they had limited skills and prepare for the future. They had the ability to take night courses and expand their horizons.
As far as smart phones and cable costing "only 100 dollars" a month.....Who says people on welfare should have this sort discretionary spending money.
I wonder how many people would get off of welfare if the govt paid for their utilities, rent, medical directly. Allowed a certain amount of funds for household furnishings and appliances(making people responsible to make these items last). And give people enough food stamps to buy food (no junkfood allowed)...just cheese, meats, fish, and grain products like pasta or bread. And the govt didnt give people the money to buy twinkies, kfc, lottery tickets, cell phones, cable....you dont need these things to live. With an antennae people can get 6 local stations for free and be connected with the world, All the local stations are sufficient to keep people abreast of whats going on in their community and notify people of any pending disasters. Basic cable is not a neccessity. Smart phones are not a neccessity. A bucket of KFC is not a necessity. Going to the movies is not a necessity. If you want all these things, get money from a relative that can help you out or get a job/
its the bleeding hears that says...its only 100 dollars for cable and smart phones each month.....well hell I would love for someone to give me an extra 100 dollars each month .....who wouldnt want that.....but who pays for it....100 extra dollars for millions and millions of people.
really is it up to the govt to give you money to buy your kid a video game for christmas???is that what a govt is for? Is that why we pay taxes? I am all for getting people the neccessities so they can get thru a rough patch.....but I am not in to paying for their entertainment movies, video games, dvd players etc
