• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House bans welfare recipients' money from strip clubs, liquor stores

Gary said:
I wish I could put some pictures of strip clubs on this forum and change the minds of anyone opposing them. Pictures of the poor aren't going to be that convincing.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to strip clubs.
I'm opposed to someone using, what's supposed to be emergency need money, at strip clubs.

It indicates one of two things, the person does not need the money or the person is using the money foolishly.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What the hell?
So you're cool with emergency money being spent at titty bars?
Click to expand...

We are spending almost a trillion dollars a year to kill innocent people so we can control their resources on behalf of big oil, and you expect me to get indignent about the cost of 3 poor people or however the many hell it was, going to a titty bar????
 
Catawba said:
You mean the middle class that didn't used to be minimum wage:

Census Finds Almost Half the Country Poor or 'Near-Poor'

You prefer we support a person being on welfare rather than paying him a living wage to work???



I don't think this paper is saying what you think it does.

From your paper by the two gentleman:

"Living wage campaigns have succeeded in about 100 jurisdictions in the United States but
have also been unsuccessful in numerous cities."

"Clearly these cities are not identical to cities with living wages, because ultimately a living wage
law was not enacted."

"Some campaigns were unsuccessful because they were derailed due to state legislation or a
court ruling. Others failed due a negative city council vote or a mayoral veto."
Click to expand...
Someone tried to scan through a real research paper without a clue how to do it didn't they.
 
Catawba said:
We are spending almost a trillion dollars a year to kill innocent people so we can control their resources on behalf of big oil, and you expect me to get indignent about the cost of 3 poor people or however the many hell it was, going to a titty bar????
Click to expand...

More proof you aren't really with the rest of us here on Planet Earth.
 
MrVicchio said:
More proof you aren't really with the rest of us here on Planet Earth.
Click to expand...

Why, do the rest of the people on the planet have no sense of ethics in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
We are spending almost a trillion dollars a year to kill innocent people so we can control their resources on behalf of big oil, and you expect me to get indignent about the cost of 3 poor people or however the many hell it was, going to a titty bar????
Click to expand...

No, I except you to agree that it isn't the proper use of emergency funds.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No, I except you to agree that it isn't the proper use of emergency funds.
Click to expand...

With all we have wasted money on during the last 30 years in taking innocent lives to benefit the rich, a poor person getting his face rubbed in some titties, in his otherwise miserable existence, is a pretty damn cool thing to have happened in my opinion.
 
Catawba said:
With all we have wasted money on during the last 30 years in taking innocent lives to benefit the rich, a poor person getting his face rubbed in some titties, in his otherwise miserable existence, is a pretty damn cool thing to have happened in my opinion.
Click to expand...

:sigh:

Check the record player, I think we've heard this before.
 
Catawba said:
Why did you ask the same question if you didn't want the same answer?
Click to expand...

You avoided it for the most part, every other time I asked.
Insisting that I focus on the rich or how crappy republicans are.

This time, you say the same stuff, + you don't care, if people misuse emergency resources for non emergency things.
Just don't ever question another person's ethics, because the misuse of money in such a way, is unethical.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You avoided it for the most part, every other time I asked.
Insisting that I focus on the rich or how crappy republicans are.

This time, you say the same stuff, + you don't care, if people misuse emergency resources for non emergency things.
Just don't ever question another person's ethics, because the misuse of money in such a way, is unethical.
Click to expand...

"This is another example of setting policies based on attention-grabbing news stories with little connection to the underlying reality and that are designed to reinforce the 'unworthy poor' stereotype," said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a progressive D.C. think tank. "There's no evidence that this is a widespread problem. And even when funds are withdrawn in those locations, it doesn't mean that people are gambling away their benefits."

Welfare, formally known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, supported about 1.8 million American families in 2011 each month, with benefits averaging just a few hundred dollars. Since the passage of welfare reform in 1996, recipient rolls have not risen to meet increased economic need. Caseloads increased just 14 percent during the recession that started in 2007 even as the unemployment rate nearly doubled, according to the Urban Institute.

Lower-Basch called the bill an effort to "micromanage" a federal and state program that already gives states a lot of flexibility. Several states featured in news stories have already cracked down and ordered strip club and casino ATMs reprogrammed so they can not accept welfare debit cards, she noted."

Republicans Aim To Ban Use Of Welfare Debit Cards At Strip Clubs, Liquor Stores

I thought you used to be a states rights proponent??? Why do you wish now to grow the federal government to step on the states management of this?
 
Catawba said:
"This is another example of setting policies based on attention-grabbing news stories with little connection to the underlying reality and that are designed to reinforce the 'unworthy poor' stereotype," said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a progressive D.C. think tank. "There's no evidence that this is a widespread problem. And even when funds are withdrawn in those locations, it doesn't mean that people are gambling away their benefits."

Welfare, formally known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, supported about 1.8 million American families in 2011 each month, with benefits averaging just a few hundred dollars. Since the passage of welfare reform in 1996, recipient rolls have not risen to meet increased economic need. Caseloads increased just 14 percent during the recession that started in 2007 even as the unemployment rate nearly doubled, according to the Urban Institute.

Lower-Basch called the bill an effort to "micromanage" a federal and state program that already gives states a lot of flexibility. Several states featured in news stories have already cracked down and ordered strip club and casino ATMs reprogrammed so they can not accept welfare debit cards, she noted."

Republicans Aim To Ban Use Of Welfare Debit Cards At Strip Clubs, Liquor Stores

I thought you used to be a states rights proponent??? Why so you wish now to grow the federal government to step on the states management of this?
Click to expand...

I'm not explicitly a states rights proponent.
I'm in favor of policy that makes at least some sense, specifically the ethical usage of government emergency funds.
It shouldn't be used in places like this.

You're trying to pigeon hole me, won't work. :shrug:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not explicitly a states rights proponent.
I'm in favor of policy that makes at least some sense, specifically the ethical usage of government emergency funds.
It shouldn't be used in places like this.

You're trying to pigeon hole me, won't work. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Believe me, the last thing I would ever want to do is pigeon hole Harry Guerrilla!!!

You do realize that states already have the power to stop this and all but 8 states have stopped it?

In the 1996 Welfare Reform, states were given the money in block grants to manage in a way most suited to their specific needs. Do you disagree with this approach?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Believe me, the last thing I would ever want to do is pigeon hole Harry Guerrilla!!!
Click to expand...

Right, so you assume that because I favor states rights in some areas, I do in all areas.
That's categorically pigeon holing.

Catawba said:
You do realize that states already have the power to stop this and all but 8 states have stopped it?

In the 1996 Welfare Reform, states were given the money in block grants to manage in a way most suited to their specific needs. Do you disagree with this approach?
Click to expand...

Great, but the rest need to stop too and if it takes the feds to do it, I don't care.
I really don't give a crap as long as the money goes to people who need it and it is used in the best way possible.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Great, but the rest need to stop too and if it takes the feds to do it, I don't care.
I really don't give a crap as long as the money goes to people who need it and it is used in the best way possible.
Click to expand...

So you think administration of welfare in the states should go back to the federal government?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Maybe in some cases and not in others.
Depends.

The feds don't tend to adjust payments and thresholds based on the localized rate of inflation or cost of living.
Click to expand...

And since 1996 the feds have not been telling the states how to administer welfare funds.

Would you be opposed to new rules by the feds that would prevent unwed mothers from receiving welfare? Or to people with terminal illness? Or to people that work full-time, regardless of what they are being paid?
 
"Boustany's claims notwithstanding, there's little evidence pointing to widespread misuse of funds. The principal piece of evidence was this two-year-old Los Angeles Times article, which reported that some California casinos accepted TANF debit cards, but 0.4% of welfare funds went to gambling, and 0.001% went to "adult entertainment."

Within days of the article's publication, California changed its standards for use of TANF funds and imposed the restrictions Congress is now seeking.

With that in mind, why are GOP lawmakers in Washington bothering with this? Melissa Boteach had a terrific report, exploring this question in detail.

With unemployment at 8.5 percent and more than one in three Americans struggling to get by on low incomes, do conservatives really believe that taxpayer dollars used for strip clubs, liquor stores, or casinos is a pressing national crisis? For most House conservatives, the answer is probably no. Do they see the political value of forcing such a vote in an election year? You bet!

Putting politics above policy in this crass way is unfortunate and cynical. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program has experienced benefit cuts of more than 20 percent, after adjusting for inflation, even as the Great Recession and the slow economic recovery have caused elevated levels of unemployment and poverty. Many low-income workers on TANF are unable to access the child care they need to make work possible and ultimately end up spending nearly half their income on care for their children. Low-wage workers are constantly facing the threat of a layoff because more than 80 percent lack access to a single paid sick day to take care of themselves, a sick kid, or an elderly relative.

And the big vote on TANF is about strip clubs?

This vote represents yet another instance in the creeping trend of conservatives to demonize the poor -- and then threaten anyone who votes against the legislation with supporting "welfare spending" for strip club admissions. The tactic enables conservatives to imply that tough economic circumstances somehow make poor people delinquent and criminally inclined."


The Maddow Blog - House GOP eyes 'welfare integrity'
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Oh man, I used a source from Pen, but I don't live there.
I'm in Ga.
Click to expand...

I've slept in GA too, and all the hick states along the east coast. I'm glad I come from a southern state that was a slave state, but sent more people to the Union Army than any other state. I'm glad I come from a stock of people like John Dickinson, who was a slave owner, married a Quaker, freed his slaves, became Governor of Pennsylvania after the Revolutionary War and started the tradition where our state had the largest amount of freed Blacks before the Civil War. People up here were a century ahead of the deep South and all you have to do is look at the economic stats to see it. When you adjust median houselhold income to the COL, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware are 1st, 4th and 5th in this country. Georgia is 18th and with Texas (12th) are the only southern states in the upper 25 states have the largest household income. Delaware has no sales tax and has a progressive income tax. We are also blessed by not having any Republican holding a major office for our state.

I'm glad the people in the Mid-Atlantic region are wise enough to contribute to an economic system that is superior to the rest of our country.
 
Catawba said:
And since 1996 the feds have not been telling the states how to administer welfare funds.

Would you be opposed to new rules by the feds that would prevent unwed mothers from receiving welfare? Or to people with terminal illness? Or to people that work full-time, regardless of what they are being paid?
Click to expand...

Need based welfare is fine.

An adult working full time, who can support themselves, doesn't need any type of state welfare.
Why are you asking these silly questions?
 
Gary said:
I've slept in GA too, and all the hick states along the east coast. I'm glad I come from a southern state that was a slave state, but sent more people to the Union Army than any other state. I'm glad I come from a stock of people like John Dickinson, who was a slave owner, married a Quaker, freed his slaves, became Governor of Pennsylvania after the Revolutionary War and started the tradition where our state had the largest amount of freed Blacks before the Civil War. People up here were a century ahead of the deep South and all you have to do is look at the economic stats to see it. When you adjust median houselhold income to the COL, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware are 1st, 4th and 5th in this country. Georgia is 18th and with Texas (12th) are the only southern states in the upper 25 states have the largest household income. Delaware has no sales tax and has a progressive income tax. We are also blessed by not having any Republican holding a major office for our state.

I'm glad the people in the Mid-Atlantic region are wise enough to contribute to an economic system that is superior to the rest of our country.
Click to expand...

I don't appreciate that hick reference.
Just because it's the south doesn't make it hick.

It's actually what I consider a borderline racial pejorative.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Need based welfare is fine.

An adult working full time, who can support themselves, doesn't need any type of state welfare.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, minimum wage doesn't provide enough for support. That is why taxpayer funded welfare is required. You need to either pick full time work for a living wage, or welfare, you can't have your cake and eat it too while there are people that used to be middle class now living in poverty.

"Poverty in the United States

The official poverty measure is published by the United States Census Bureau and shows that:

In 2010, 46.9 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 -- the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty . This is the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty rates have been published (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 14).

The 2010 poverty rate was 15.1 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 1997. This is the highest poverty rate since 1993, but 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for poverty estimates. (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 14).

The 2010 poverty rate for Hispanics was 26.6 percent, for Blacks 27.4 percent.
In 2010, the poverty rate increased for children under age 18 from 20.7 percent to 22.0 percent. (DeNavas-Walt 2010 p. 14).

20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 19).

49.9 million people or 16.3 percent of the American people, do not have medical insurance (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 23).


"Minimum wage The United States enacts a minimum wage (as do some individual states) that tries to establish a floor for what can be paid as a wage by firms. The current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. In 2008, the official U.S. poverty level for a family of 4 was $21,834 ( Census Bureau "Poverty Thresholds"). With a 40 hour week, a family of 4 with one minimum wage earner would earn $15,080, only 69 percent of the poverty level. The minimum wage level is not indexed to inflation, which means that the real benefits will be eroded by inflation."

"One way the EITC reduces poverty is by supplementing the earnings of minimum-wage workers. At the minimum wage’s current level, such a family can move out of poverty only if it receives the EITC as well as food stamps (CBPP EITC.)"

"Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) In 1996, TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, which had been in existence since 1935. The TANF program provides block grants to states to provide assistance to needy families. States have discretion on how to use the funds."

"Lack of available child care can well keep single mothers from working as required"
Hunger in America: 2011 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts

I'm just glad the Senate had the good sense to pan this bill.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Thats the problem, minimum wage doesn't provide enough for support. That is why taxpayer funded welfare is required. You need to pick work for pay, or welfare, you can't have your cake and eat it too, while there people that used to be middle class living in poverty.
Click to expand...

Ummm, you never said minimum wage and I definitely said someone who can support themselves.
So this is yet, another straw man.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ummm, you never said minimum wage and I definitely said someone who can support themselves.
So this is yet, another straw man.
Click to expand...

So you support a living wage as an alternative to welfare?
 
Catawba said:
So you support a living wage as an alternative to welfare?
Click to expand...

Nope.
There is no such thing, it's entirely subjective.

But alas, when keep going in circles.
You keep debating with a ghost or your just creating straw men and I'm posting out your continuous, dishonest debate tactics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom