I Wear Pants;806382 wrote:Question: For those that are of the "shouldn't be spending money on drugs while receiving our money" opinion. Do you feel that people on welfare or other programs should also be forbidden from purchasing alcohol/tobacco? And I don't mean to actually propose that something like that would even be possible but in theory would you like that?

Absolutely. In Ohio, people on food stamps are not allowed to purchase alcohol/tobacco with their card. If it is money of their own, I don't care what they do with it, but if it is money they have received from tax collections they SHOULD have to use it for the necessities and that is it.

majorspark;806520 wrote:Also throw in cell phone, satellite TV, and internet.

TV perhaps, but phones and the internet are very legitimate business tools and ways to get a job.

cruiser_96;806397 wrote:Sure. It's one thing to receive our funds via taxes and do something in return (ie: congress person, senator, etc.). It's an entirely different think ( ) to "leach", no?

Representatives do something to "earn" our tax money. I have very little problems with how they spend their salary. If you did nothing to receive the someone else's money, you should receive the bare minimum.

Do you think otherwise?

I do not feel otherwise. I just might have a misunderstanding of how some of these programs work. Do any of them just pay checks or are they all like the food stamp program where it's either a card or some other method that restricts how you can use the funds?

I Wear Pants;807380 wrote:I do not feel otherwise. I just might have a misunderstanding of how some of these programs work. Do any of them just pay checks or are they all like the food stamp program where it's either a card or some other method that restricts how you can use the funds?

In Virginia you get a card for TANF/non-food stamps state aid - it is no different than a Visa debit card, there is a balance held by a bank (which back in the day was Wachovia) in which no fees were applicable and recipients had access to Wachovia for 3 withdrawals in a month. Anything more than that the bank was permitted to charge a fee. There were also balance inquiries allowed but I don't recall how many. The card works like any other Visa, you can buy diapers or alcohol, no questions asked. Food stamps are different, vendors aren't compelled to take them so it is a bit easier to control how the funds are spent.

I Wear Pants;807377 wrote:TV perhaps, but phones and the internet are very legitimate business tools and ways to get a job.

Which scenario is the more likely?

1. The welfare recipient is making phone calls to prospective employers with their gubmint funded cell phone and researching job opportunities on Monster.com.

or

2. The welfare recipient is sexting his girlfriend and making his next drug deal on the gubmint cell phone and surfing Redtube in his spare time?

believer;808311 wrote:Which scenario is the more likely?

1. The welfare recipient is making phone calls to prospective employers with their gubmint funded cell phone and researching job opportunities on Monster.com.

or

2. The welfare recipient is sexting his girlfriend and making his next drug deal on the gubmint cell phone and surfing Redtube in his spare time?

I honestly don't know which scenario is more likely. I think it is easy for someone to say scenario 2 is the more likely one; but I don't think that's usually the case.

I don't know which scenario is more likely either but I will say this...

I already pay for public libraries, which have computers and the internet. I shouldn't have to pay for their individual use as well.

cruiser_96;810461 wrote:I don't know which scenario is more likely either but I will say this...

I already pay for public libraries, which have computers and the internet. I shouldn't have to pay for their individual use as well.

Exactly.

cruiser_96;810461 wrote:I don't know which scenario is more likely either but I will say this...

I already pay for public libraries, which have computers and the internet. I shouldn't have to pay for their individual use as well.

believer;810537 wrote:Exactly.

I agree with this assessment, I was just stating that I don't know which scenario is more likely. In either case, I don't believe we should be paying for people's internet, phone, etc. I don't care if they are looking for a job, it is not my duty to help them find one through tax collection. If I willingly choose to help someone, that is different.

dwccrew;810923 wrote:I don't care if they are looking for a job, it is not my duty to help them find one through tax collection. If I willingly choose to help someone, that is different.

Freedom of choice and liberty are things best left to government bureaucrats. They are far more qualified to spend your money and make decisions for you. sarcasm alert

believer;810935 wrote:Freedom of choice and liberty are things best left to government bureaucrats. They are far more qualified to spend your money and make decisions for you. sarcasm alert

Don't worry, I picked up on it!

I'm a liberal, but I tend to agree with this. I think there should be at least one strike though and I think the proper support should be available to people with issues (and if you're doing drugs while on welfare--you have some problems are on your hands).

If you're addicted to drugs or using them, you'll go through whatever means to acquire the funds to do this.

I don't think the American people should be asked to fuel other people's drug habits. It already goes to some other wicked things. Besides, we have people in the middle east to kill with that money.