what, no more strip clubs w/ govt' $, WTF!!!

[pauldun170]

One day I was driving along and someone passed me on the double yellow.
I complained to a friend.
That friend told the story to someone else and the the person responded that someone could have been killed.
That person told the clerk at the deli that the road is dangerous and people drive crazy on the road all the time.
The deli clerk recalled the story of how 1 people died in a car accident on the road awhile back.
A person overhearing the story stated "I don't feel safe driving anymore especially with all the traffic. It would be so much better off everyone would be green and ride bicycles back and forth" so a letter to a legislator was written.
The following year the legislator announce a 50 million dollar project to re engineer the road, add red light cameras, a concrete center island, bike lanes and also widen the road to add additional lanes.

A local cop quickly looks up records for the road and noticed one drunk driving accident from 10 years ago and nothing else. He does recall the dirty look that guy gave him last year when he passed him on a double yellow rushing to get to work at the precinct.


Moral of the story is...I like looking at womans asses.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I believe the issue Mr. Boustany is trying to address is: if they have enough disposable cash to visit strip clubs with welfare money, what in the hell are they doing on welfare in the first place? Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be a simple matter of removing from the program those who aren't really in need. I'm guessing the next best thing is to make it more difficult to abuse the program.

Placing restrictions on tax payer dollars isn't demonizing anyone, it's goddamn common sense. Seems to me we could do with a few more restrictions on tax payer dollars in this country.

Who exactly is "they?"
Is this legislation done in response to a study?

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Who exactly is "they?"
Is this legislation done in response to a study?

Probably an internet poll.

Congress spent the better part of a year on hearings for steroid use in major league baseball. I'll take "restricting of welfare money from use in entertainment" any day of the week, whether it was one guy who told his friend about a wild Saturday night or 100,000 drunk partiers a day beating on their congressman's door demanding a strip show with welfare debit cards in hand.

Do we need a study? Should it be a double-blind with placebo and a control group? Or do we identify a shortcoming in the program, correct it, and move the fuck on?

[Switch]

Originally Posted by shmike

My wife and I have debit cards for our HSA (Health Savings Account).

It will work at a doctor's office or pharmacy because they are approved medical vendors.

It won't work at a gas station or resturant because they are not approved medical vendors.

Private sector FTW.

Which means it works at Wal-Mart. Which means, you can buy lots of electronics.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Probably an internet poll.

[pauldun170]

Couple of interesting points

“It’s an expensive thing to do. They’re going to re-program every ATM machine? You’re putting an expensive burden on local and state governments. What’s the real purpose? Is there a huge problem with people paying for lap dancing with TANF cards?,” said Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler who represents parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, New York.

“Because a person cashes a check in a casino doesn’t mean they are going to use it in the casino. There’s no law that says that a person who cashes the check across the street at a bank can’t just do that and walk into a casino,” said Rep. Don Payne, a Democrat who represents Newark. N.J.

“I don’t think just because you’re on welfare that you should never drink a beer,” said Rep. Frank. “It’s impossible to enforce and it’s a violation of states rights,” Barney Frank said. “If you want to say people who are on welfare can’t have entertainment that’s one thing but why should they be able to go to a movie but not to a naked person dancing — I don’t make a moral distinction there,” Frank added.

[Homeslice]

Assuming, in a magical world, that these new programs could actually stop people from spending it on beer, entertainment, etc ......I'd be all for it.

[EpyonXero]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Couple of interesting points

That politician seems to have common sense. Interesting.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I believe the issue Mr. Boustany is trying to address is: if they have enough disposable cash to visit strip clubs with welfare money, what in the hell are they doing on welfare in the first place? Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be a simple matter of removing from the program those who aren't really in need. I'm guessing the next best thing is to make it more difficult to abuse the program.

Placing restrictions on tax payer dollars isn't demonizing anyone, it's goddamn common sense. Seems to me we could do with a few more restrictions on tax payer dollars in this country.

I disagree. It is demonizing the poor. This guy is playing on emotions, rather than facts. Your taxes are too high. My taxes are too high. Solution: blame the poor.

Our taxes aren't too high because X% of welfare recipients blow some of their (our) money on hookers and booze. They're too high, because our government refuses to get its collective shit together. This is just a distraction from the issues politicians don't want to talk about, a little red meat to toss to the torch and pitch fork crowd. Its bullshit, and honestly, I'm surprised you're falling for it.

Show me a cost/benefit analysis, that says this legislation will lower my taxes, and I'll be all over it. Until then, Welfare Bob can slurp vodka out of stripper's navels all day, for all the fuck I care.

JC

[Homeslice]

OK fine, so it's not even close to being a major election issue, but even if this program doesn't save any money at all, what is wrong with preventing people from spending money on things they shouldn't be spending money on? The value of a government program is not measured solely by how much money it saved or collected.

Also, by preventing people from spending welfare on inappropriate things, maybe they will become more motivated to get off welfare, thus saving everyone money. Even if not, who cares. I'm all for "owning" people who try to abuse my taxpayer dollars, as long as the net cost of doing so isn't huge.

This program might be poorly executed, but the intent is good, IMO.

As another example, why is nobody complaining about the expense of running the SEC? Should we only enforce on rich people?