Kansas moves to implement $25 ATM withdrawal limit for welfare recipients [W:190]

[CanadaJohn]

Because Welfare allotments are to survive, not get lap dances.

So, if it's determined that specific welfare recipients are getting lap dances, then those recipients lose their benefits, period.

I don't want to highjack the thread, but isn't this the same argument against gun control? Just because one person misuses guns not all law abiding gun owners should be punished. Go after the lawbreakers.

Why is handling the poor with dignity any less a goal to handling gun owners or any other rights owner to dignified treatment?

 

[a351]

Actually...if you go back in this post you will see that my positions are not the ones both inconsistent or hypocritical. Its yours.

"Better they should just eliminate it altogether. Food banks are a better option as is direct payment for housing."

I've never advocated for killing assistance programs. I believe in providing for those that cant. I also believe in doing it in a fiscally responsible manner. I DONT believe in programs that create generations of crippled dependent pets.

The hypocrite remains...you.

I haven't accused you of being hypocritical though (Satire is tough sometimes). Our conversation is predicated entirely on the notion that applying different principles when dealing with humans rather than animals is somehow hypocritical, or that it contradicts ones belief in evolution. Both of those positions are and will always be embarrassingly stupid.

 

[Lovebug]

Because Welfare allotments are to survive, not get lap dances.

So how is a $ 25 limit to stop that?

 

[a351]

The ends justify the means?

:shrug: Sometimes coercion is necessary and a net benefit to society. Funding a military would not be possible through charitable means, nor would meeting the needs of a wide variety of oft-neglected interest groups.

 

[ludin]

That's fair, and things operate differently here in Canada. Here, welfare recipients receive dollar payments, direct deposits to their bank accounts - cheques being phased out - so any ATM activity would be the responsibility of the welfare recipient. But if you're talking about what is in effect a pre-paid credit card and the recipient can in effect get cash advances from that credit card, then I suppose that makes more sense, but not much, and I'll bet any ATM fee is charged to the balance on the card and not to the government issuer, same as if you or I used our cards in the same way. I'm sure the banks are happy either way.

the problem is they did an audit with what was being bought with these cards.

the cards are supposed to be used for food and other needs (not wants but needs).
the thing is the cards can only be used to buy certain types of food and it has to be nutritious. Ie you can't go buy a box of candy bars or a 12 pack of beer.

so what people were doing they were going to the atm and getting a cash withdrawal. with the cash they could buy whatever they wanted
no matter what.

On Your Side Investigators Find More EBT Fraud & Abuse | WREG.com

this is the problem they are trying to correct.

honesly ebt cards shouldn't be allowed cash withdrawals at all.

 

[ludin]

So how is a $ 25 limit to stop that?

most lap dances cost 30 or 40 depending on the place?

 

[ludin]

So, if it's determined that specific welfare recipients are getting lap dances, then those recipients lose their benefits, period.

I don't want to highjack the thread, but isn't this the same argument against gun control? Just because one person misuses guns not all law abiding gun owners should be punished. Go after the lawbreakers.

Why is handling the poor with dignity any less a goal to handling gun owners or any other rights owner to dignified treatment?

you can't pull their benefits that is the problem.

from my point ebt cards shouldn't allow cash withdrawl. pretty much all grocer's take
cards there is no need for them to pull cash out.

I think their other money comes in on a different card.
if you are going to live off the public then the public should get a say what you do with that money.

 

[VanceMack]

I haven't accused you of being hypocritical though (Satire is tough sometimes). Our conversation is predicated entirely on the notion that applying different principles when dealing with humans rather than animals is somehow hypocritical, or that it contradicts ones belief in evolution. Both of those positions are and will always be embarrassingly stupid.

I understand what you are saying completely. You...people like you...you have this pretense of 'morality' when it comes to protecting handout programs. The human 'animal' is 'different'. Therefore you can throw out the parts of science that are inconvenient to your quest for more handout programs. And hey...it works well for democrat politicians. They LOVE having crippled dependent pets to be able to rely on at the polls.

When do people like you bring up religion? Whenever you feel your handout programs (or lifestyle choices) threatened. You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

(oh...and you should change your password. Apparently, someone else created post #142)

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I expect that banking fees will be a problem

I would not doubt that a charge per withdraw is applied, (at least after a few free ones per month

Yeah, it's exploitation. The article said they charge an extra dollar on top of the regular bank/withdrawal fees.

 

[CanadaJohn]

the problem is they did an audit with what was being bought with these cards.

the cards are supposed to be used for food and other needs (not wants but needs).
the thing is the cards can only be used to buy certain types of food and it has to be nutritious. Ie you can't go buy a box of candy bars or a 12 pack of beer.

so what people were doing they were going to the atm and getting a cash withdrawal. with the cash they could buy whatever they wanted
no matter what.

On Your Side Investigators Find More EBT Fraud & Abuse | WREG.com

this is the problem they are trying to correct.

honesly ebt cards shouldn't be allowed cash withdrawals at all.

I think your last comment is fair. My issue is with allowing a certain percentage of the welfare allotment to be retrieved in cash but limiting how much you can take out at one time. If you're allowed to take out $100, as an example, how does taking it out in 4 transactions of $25 reduce potential fraud? Even the poor are smart enough to scam that system. So either accept a certain level of fraud or, as you say, eliminate all cash withdrawals, period.

 

[a351]

I understand what you are saying completely. You...people like you...you have this pretense of 'morality' when it comes to protecting handout programs. The human 'animal' is 'different'. Therefore you can throw out the parts of science that are inconvenient to your quest for more handout programs. And hey...it works well for democrat politicians. They LOVE having crippled dependent pets to be able to rely on at the polls.

Keep ranting. It's kinda your shtick at this point.

When do people like you bring up religion? Whenever you feel your handout programs (or lifestyle choices) threatened. You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

Didn't bring up religion once. You're batting a fat .000 so far.

(oh...and you should change your password. Apparently, someone else created post #142)

:lol: Bolded, just in case you missed it. A little slow on the draw today are we?

I haven't accused you of being hypocritical though (Satire is tough sometimes). Our conversation is predicated entirely on the notion that applying different principles when dealing with humans rather than animals is somehow hypocritical, or that it contradicts ones belief in evolution. Both of those positions are and will always be embarrassingly stupid.

 

[CanadaJohn]

you can't pull their benefits that is the problem.

from my point ebt cards shouldn't allow cash withdrawl. pretty much all grocer's take
cards there is no need for them to pull cash out.

I think their other money comes in on a different card.
if you are going to live off the public then the public should get a say what you do with that money.

I agree with all of what you've said, except the last comment. As I've been trying to say here, as a conservative who believes in small government, I don't believe in government programs that micromanage and punish the poorest in our society. Being poor should not induce shame. I take no pride or personal comfort from making life harder for poor people. But by all means, punish those who defraud the system, poor or rich or in between.

 

[ludin]

I agree with all of what you've said, except the last comment. As I've been trying to say here, as a conservative who believes in small government, I don't believe in government programs that micromanage and punish the poorest in our society. Being poor should not induce shame. I take no pride or personal comfort from making life harder for poor people. But by all means, punish those who defraud the system, poor or rich or in between.

Personally for me I would rather see Federal welfare progams go away and instead the money given to states to manage.
I like the idea of block grants to states for them to manage their own welfare programs and the federal government have no part of it.

however if you want the federal government to manage it then there has to be oversite.

I don't either, but at the same time the money is to be spent on food and needs not liquor stores and casino's.
the cost of micro-managing all EBT cards is way to expensive there are to many of them out there.

this is one of those cases that the fraud by a few affects the many.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Personally for me I would rather see Federal welfare progams go away and instead the money given to states to manage.
I like the idea of block grants to states for them to manage their own welfare programs and the federal government have no part of it.

however if you want the federal government to manage it then there has to be oversite.

I don't either, but at the same time the money is to be spent on food and needs not liquor stores and casino's.
the cost of micro-managing all EBT cards is way to expensive there are to many of them out there.

this is one of those cases that the fraud by a few affects the many.

I can agree with moving the management and oversight to the local level and I can also agree with limiting how the funds may be spent. This move, in my view, just seems blatantly petty.

 

[ludin]

I think your last comment is fair. My issue is with allowing a certain percentage of the welfare allotment to be retrieved in cash but limiting how much you can take out at one time. If you're allowed to take out $100, as an example, how does taking it out in 4 transactions of $25 reduce potential fraud? Even the poor are smart enough to scam that system. So either accept a certain level of fraud or, as you say, eliminate all cash withdrawals, period.

well it is 25 a day. so it isn't like you can go to 4 atms and get 25 dollars. you can get 25 one day 25 the next.
I still think it is a stupid idea and feel like total ban on cash withdrawals from those cards is needed.

 

[Chomsky]

you can't pull their benefits that is the problem.

from my point ebt cards shouldn't allow cash withdrawl. pretty much all grocer's take
cards there is no need for them to pull cash out.

I think their other money comes in on a different card.
if you are going to live off the public then the public should get a say what you do with that money.

I know I'm jumping in late here, and previously out-of-discussion, but I'm (unusually) siding with ludin here.

If someone's down-on-their-luck looking for a handout, there's nothing wrong with putting stipulations on my largesse; and some of them could be: "I'll help you & your kids survive this hard time, but I'm not giving you money for booze, drugs, cigs, strippers, prostitutes, and the like".

And I think that's more than fair.

IRL, my parents were good-enough to help me out when I was young & dumb and hit a rough-patch, and they had some pretty tough stipulations - and I was extremely grateful for their help, stipulations and all!

Today, I'd venture that if something cannot be purchased with a debit-card, it's probably not a required purchase!

And also, why feed an underground (cash) economy? (i.e., why allow cash benefits allowing the purchase of non-beneficial items)

 

[VanceMack]

Keep ranting. It's kinda your shtick at this point.



Didn't bring up religion once. You're batting a fat .000 so far.



:lol: Bolded, just in case you missed it. A little slow on the draw today are we?

#142 proves you to be a liar. As for the rest...#130 and #134 dont appear to have changed much.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, if it's determined that specific welfare recipients are getting lap dances, then those recipients lose their benefits, period.

I don't want to highjack the thread, but isn't this the same argument against gun control? Just because one person misuses guns not all law abiding gun owners should be punished. Go after the lawbreakers.

Why is handling the poor with dignity any less a goal to handling gun owners or any other rights owner to dignified treatment?

How, exactly, do you know what cash is being spent on? Giving taxpayer cash directly to folks, as opposed to paying the approved living expense providers directly, is the easiest way that can be done. The problem occurs when TANF and EBT funds are mixed since the rules for each program are different.

Also, the benefits are often said to be for their children. The left will squeal that the children are thus being punished for the "illness" or "sins" of their parent(s). The bottom line is that "welfare" buys votes, primarily for rhe left, and they will never allow that source of that "campaign" cash to be stopped.

 

[a351]

#142 proves you to be a liar. As for the rest...#130 and #134 dont appear to have changed much.

Ok. Add Satire to your laundry list of problem subjects.

 

[mnicholson2]

What's the problem?

What is the problem???? Really you have to ask that????
Got a bill that needs to paid and can't draw enough from the ATM to pay for it and it can't be paid with a card?
Your child has to pay an unexpected fee for school and once again you can't draw out enough to pay for at the ATM.
You CAN'T always use a card for everything.
Use your head for something other then a hat rack dude.

 

[ludin]

I know I'm jumping in late here, and previously out-of-discussion, but I'm (unusually) siding with ludin here.

If someone's down-on-their-luck looking for a handout, there's nothing wrong with putting stipulations on my largesse; and some of them could be: "I'll help you & your kids survive this hard time, but I'm not giving you money for booze, drugs, cigs, strippers, prostitutes, and the like".

And I think that's more than fair.

IRL, my parents were good-enough to help me out when I was young & dumb and hit a rough-patch, and they had some pretty tough stipulations - and I was extremely grateful for their help, stipulations and all!

Today, I'd venture that if something cannot be purchased with a debit-card, it's probably not a required purchase!

And also, why feed an underground (cash) economy? (i.e., why allow cash benefits allowing the purchase of non-beneficial items)

I think that is why they allow cash withdrawal now is to try and stop the underground cash market. you have a 500 ebt card and someone gives you 300 in cash for it.
pretty bad deal.

I have no problem with helping people I think it is a needed thing to help people. I hate how our system is designed because it doesn't help people. it keeps people on the government pay roll.

Yep my parents were to when I first started out. then I got on my feet. I went through my own rough patches.
the EBT cards have certain category of businesses they are not allowed to buy from.

I think that is why the limit on the ebt cards are for, but I say just get rid of cash withdrawals all together.
they can still spend the money, but they can only spend it where they should be.

personally I think no matter what you do it is a lose lose situation.

 

[reinoe]

Do American jurisdictions handle unemployment insurance payments in a similar manner? That is, in effect, social welfare for the unemployed between jobs. As I said previously, it seems petty and mean spirited to me and as a small government conservative I don't like government getting into the pockets of citizens to micromanage their lives.

No. When I collected unemployment I could use it for whatever I wanted. And contrary to popular belief by some people here, people on unemployment do not take pride in collecting it, do not seek to milk the system as much as possible, do not spend the money on drugs, do not eat steak and lobster every night, and do not host parties everyweekend. :roll: The funds went to the basics of living while searching for a job that's not likely to be outsourced.

 

[CanadaJohn]

How, exactly, do you know what cash is being spent on? Giving taxpayer cash directly to folks, as opposed to paying the approved living expense providers directly, is the easiest way that can be done. The problem occurs when TANF and EBT funds are mixed since the rules for each program are different.

Also, the benefits are often said to be for their children. The left will squeal that the children are thus being punished for the "illness" or "sins" of their parent(s). The bottom line is that "welfare" buys votes, primarily for rhe left, and they will never allow that source of that "campaign" cash to be stopped.

Just to comment on your first question, and it's a good one, it must then be assumed that legislators "believe" welfare recipients are using welfare funds for lap dances but have no proof. I suppose, anecdotally, one legislator was at his favourite strip joint and some guy who looked like he was on welfare stole his honey and so he was ticked off and moved to ensure welfare boy couldn't do it again.

I don't have answers for the whole fraud in the system argument. That's not the basis of my comments here. My comments are basically that limiting a single transaction to $25 if more than $25 may be withdrawn from a card is simply vindictive and does nothing to address fraud. But it sounds good to those who believe all welfare recipients frequent strip clubs, casinos, bingo halls and liquor stores.

 

[ludin]

What is the problem???? Really you have to ask that????
Got a bill that needs to paid and can't draw enough from the ATM to pay for it and it can't be paid with a card?
Your child has to pay an unexpected fee for school and once again you can't draw out enough to pay for at the ATM.
You CAN'T always use a card for everything.
Use your head for something other then a hat rack dude.

actually you can. all bills can be paid with a atm card.
the fees for schools are all up front an well known in advanced. I have yet to see a bill from school over 25 dollars.
at any rate most of those have to be paid by the end of a school year that is plenty of time to withdraw enough cash.

actually you can.

don't insult people when what you are stating is wrong.

 

[ludin]

No. When I collected unemployment I could use it for whatever I wanted. And contrary to popular belief by some people here, people on unemployment do not take pride in collecting it, do not seek to milk the system as much as possible, do not spend the money on drugs, do not eat steak and lobster every night, and do not host parties everyweekend. :roll: The funds went to the basics of living while searching for a job that's not likely to be outsourced.

unemployment funds is different than welfare funds. one is a paid benefit that you pay into as well as your employer. the other is requesting the public for assistance in living.