Judge Napolitano on Welfare Spent at Bars, Liquor Stores, and Strip Clubs

[Sujan]

Bingo. I didn't even know they had a "cash benefits" program, separate from welfare, that they can just ATM out for anything until I looked it up just now. Jesus. Isn't welfare enough?

Take a look at the other side of the ocean. In northern Europe its way more extreme than in the US.
In the Netherlands for example, all welfare is cash and that is almost the level of a fulltime job with minimum wage.
That is absolutely insane, basically there is no financial incentive whatsoever to get a job, unless it’s a well paid job.
Result is that literally millions of people are now on purpose in the social security by own choice!
You have no obligation whatsoever except for 4 times applying for a job per month, but then again no check whether those are real.
Do some work in the shadow economy and you live a free and luxurious life. No checks, no stress.
Meanwhile, the other part of the population is making long hours which are taxed at least 40%. Bizarre huh?

How has this come so far? All political parties are socialist by nature, and people keep voting for these parties. So these monstruous socialist programs are kept in place. Education preach socialism. Nobody has a clue about libertarianism or free markets. Everybody is raised with the notion that the government has to take care of all.

 

[Confederate]

What about people that are already working but still don't have enough to provide for their families?

There's charity.

 

[seraphson]

EBT cards should be limited to paying only for "approved" products (food and clothes). There shouldn't ever be cash benefits.

I know you know this but let's stop beating around the bush in debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There shouldn't be EBT. Period.

Edit: I feel as though I should elaborate a bit more. The problem with "forced charity" (that's what it is, think not? go ahead and try NOT paying your taxes and just see what happens) is the moral hazard and problems that manifest from that. The effect is the exact opposite from the intent. Just look at the war on poverty, drugs, and tearoar [sic] and those examples aren't just hypotheticals in a book but reality. It is, according to the dictionary, insane to think the results would be any different given the same exact approach government takes on in "dealing" with these issues.

 

[Confederate]

I know you know this but let's stop beating around the bush in debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There shouldn't be EBT. Period.

But there is, and there will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[truelies]

EBT cards should be limited to paying only for "approved" products (food and clothes). There shouldn't ever be cash benefits.

nah give the benefits ONLY as goods. Kinda Much harder to sell a 10 pound bag of rice or grits than to convert a food stamp card to cash.


and then ONLY to people who agree to live in a supervised hostel.

 

[Confederate]

nah give the benefits ONLY as goods. Kinda Much harder to sell a 10 pound bag of rice or grits than to convert a food stamp card to cash.


and then ONLY to people who agree to live in a supervised hostel.

That's much more expensive and less efficient than to have only approved products purchasable with an EBT card. Virtually all bar codes in the US are standardized, so retailers would just need to download a list of approved bar codes/product codes which an EBT card can pay for. So if you're buying $100 worth of goods at the supermarket, and only $65 are EBT-approved, your card can only be charged $65 and you'd have to pay with your own money for the rest.

 

[TonySutton]

Controlling welfare is impossible. Restricting products will simply create a secondary market for people to sell the approved products at discounted rates and then they will go spend the money as they wish. Not too long ago I read some news articles talking about thefts of tide laundry detergent. Apparently a certain size bottle was being used a alternative cash to pay for drugs and of course everyone can use an extra jug of laundry detergent. Just like they can use a 5 lb bag of rice, potatoes, a gallon of milk etc.

 

[Danan]

Take a look at the other side of the ocean. In northern Europe its way more extreme than in the US.
In the Netherlands for example, all welfare is cash and that is almost the level of a fulltime job with minimum wage.
That is absolutely insane, basically there is no financial incentive whatsoever to get a job, unless it’s a well paid job.
Result is that literally millions of people are now on purpose in the social security by own choice!
You have no obligation whatsoever except for 4 times applying for a job per month, but then again no check whether those are real.
Do some work in the shadow economy and you live a free and luxurious life. No checks, no stress.

And meanwhile dozens of Michael Moore-wannabes (why in the world they want to be Michael Moore is beyond me) with public funding are shooting "documentaries" about how awful and miserable the life in this "poverty" is. And don't forget to mention that it's of course the fault of greed and capitalism.

 

[Danan]

Why do you guys prefer to give them x$ only for food, or energy, or rent, etc. over x$ in cash? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Either way the government is spending x$ of taxpayer money on them. If they prefer to spend that money on booze, what do you care? You'd still have to pay the same taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I understand it if you are against spending any money on welfare at all, because that's my position too. There is no reason for "coercive charity". But given that you do spend an amount x on welfare, why not give it to them in cash? I don't see the reason to artificially lower the benefit for them by restricting their choice, while simultaneously not reducing the pain for the taxpayers, since they still have to pay the same amount on welfare. Just now on lower class, because less fungible welfare.

 

[dannno]

Whatever is cheaper.

Great, so the government directly subsidizes Monsanto bullfuckery farming practices, making their food cheaper... then on top of that, all the people on welfare are required to buy their food and Monsanto bullfuckery farming practices take over the world.

 

[Confederate]

Great, so the government directly subsidizes Monsanto bullfuckery farming practices, making their food cheaper... then on top of that, all the people on welfare are required to buy their food and Monsanto bullfuckery farming practices take over the world.

Don't like cheap food: work, make your own money and buy overpriced organic stuff.

 

[otherone]

Great, so the government directly subsidizes Monsanto bullfuckery farming practices, making their food cheaper... then on top of that, all the people on welfare are required to buy their food and Monsanto bullfuckery farming practices take over the world.

Spot on, and it's already happening.
Nothing get's the "class warriors" as riled as mentioning "welfare". What is funny is the Left doesn't see the poor don't benefit from it, and the Right is so full of hate that they don't see who actually benefits from it. Welfare is just another example of trickle-up economics....tax dollars are extracted from the middle class, fenced by the poor, and end up in the coffers of Monsanto, McDonalds, Walmart, ExxonMobil, and Pepsico. You aint actually giving the poor anything, as they cannot create wealth in a welfare state. The welfare state only helps investors.
It's called Corporatism, and it's the enemy of Liberty and Capitalism.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

and this is why they are on welfare in the first place. irresponsibility

 

[jllundqu]

Who cares? More people in this country care about "gettin a gubmint check" than righting the ship of state. This cycle will continue to its logical conclusion, despotism and slavery...

Revolution follows shortly behind...

 

[truelies]

That's much more expensive and less efficient than to have only approved products purchasable with an EBT card. ......................

or so you say. One thing for sure being made to stand in a public line for commodities and then lug them home would be humiliating.......VERY humiliating.

 

[Confederate]

or so you say. One thing for sure being made to stand in a public line for commodities and then lug them home would be humiliating.......VERY humiliating.

That's true. Welfare recipients should also wear a yellow "W" on their clothes.

 

[jmdrake]

There's a simple solution to this. If a business that is not a food vendor tries to access the EBT system, just send back a "denied" signal. Why is that so hard? The government can shut down Wikileaks funding but they can't stop "Wild Horse Saloon" from cashing in on EBT?

 

[Danan]

Spot on, and it's already happening.
Nothing get's the "class warriors" as riled as mentioning "welfare". What is funny is the Left doesn't see the poor don't benefit from it, and the Right is so full of hate that they don't see who actually benefits from it. Welfare is just another example of trickle-up economics....tax dollars are extracted from the middle class, fenced by the poor, and end up in the coffers of Monsanto, McDonalds, Walmart, ExxonMobil, and Pepsico. You aint actually giving the poor anything, as they cannot create wealth in a welfare state. The welfare state only helps investors.
It's called Corporatism, and it's the enemy of Liberty and Capitalism.

Getting money for free is benefiting to me. It's not true that those people have to live in misery because of the welfare state.

Also those companies are not benefiting from welfare. Do you believe that the recipients wouldn't eat without welfare? They would have to do something in return for their money and would actually be contributing to social welfare, but McDonalds wouldn't care. In fact, corporations (or it's shareholders more specifically) probably pay way more in taxes than what they "gain" from government spending (obvious exception those who get special deals, or contracts, like the military industrial complex).

But other than that your statement seems like a different form of the broken window fallacy where taxpayers should be happy about welfare recipients because they "stimulate" the economy.

 

[Confederate]

There's a simple solution to this. If a business that is not a food vendor tries to access the EBT system, just send back a "denied" signal. Why is that so hard? The government can shut down Wikileaks funding but they can't stop "Wild Horse Saloon" from cashing in on EBT?

Yeah but most food vendors also sell things that are not food and not 'appropriate' uses of food stamps, such as alcohol and cigarettes.

 

[Danan]

Again: Assume you will be taxed $1000 no matter what you say, or want, or do. This money will be taken from you and given to two unemployed people. You can not stop that. Now there are two options for you: 1) the people get cash, $500 each, 2) each person gets a bucked of groceries worth $500, bought by a government bureaucrat, charging you an additional $50 for his "work". What do you chose? What difference does it make if these people spend all of the cash on booze and cigarettes? You money is gone anyway. For what it's worth they can burn all of it, I don't care.

If you want to make the case that people shouldn't buy booze with their welfare checks the solution is simply to argue for cutting the welfare money, not to transform the system into a micromanaged bunch of new governmental work.