Should people be allowed to buy beer and cigarettes with Welfare?

Just wondering since they can.

http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/...cle_87627ed5-5d4e-5ff0-a781-f14deb034771.html

 

Yeah, I believe in the necessity of welfare, but that kind of thing needs to be curbed. In as many situations as possible, people on welfare should not be given direct money, but coupons or vouchers or something similar that allows them to buy specific items like food and necessary household supplies, and that's it. I don't think you'd be able to stop people from buying things and then trading them to others for real money, but still, it's a better response than simply ignoring it or getting rid of the program altogether. I despise the people who take advantage of these programs because they give a bad name to everyone who does, including the people with a real need and who use those programs as the stopgap temporary solutions they are intended to be.

 

you mean with foodstamps? if that is what you mean I say no

if you mean should a person in poverty be able to buy beer with money they earn I say yes

 

They are not supposed to, the fact they are doesn't mean they are supposed too, or legally doing so.

 

If its taxpayers money, then hell no.

 

Nopes.

 

Here in Australia the unemployed get so much money per fortnight & putting restrictions on what they can spend it on will add an extra layer of bureaucracy that will waste more of the taxes I pay so I voted yes.

 

Absolutely not.

I should not, as a taxpayer be forced to pay for someone else's vice.

Food is a necessity, cigarettes and alcohol are not, period.

 

I can see the argument but I think there are practical problems with it. Who makes the moral judgement (for that's what it is) on what people on this kind of benefit are permitted to buy? It seems you have there a system of two separate cards, one limited to clearly defined necessities (though there is a quote in the report about toilet paper suggesting even that has uncertainties) and one open for purchase of anything. As long as there is a reasonable limit on the second card, I don't see an issue with people having the option to spend a little on a "luxury" every once in a while to keep them going.

I could see attempts to clamp down harder on this kind of thing could well cause more problems than it solves, introducing more fraud and corruption. Also, the psychology for the honest people on benefits being forced in to an even more frugal life with absolutely zero scope for variety or luxury could well make it harder for them to pull themselves out of the situation that puts them on welfare in the first place (not to mention those there though situations beyond their control).

I certainly don't think individual shop workers are in a position to be making the moral judgement on what customers should be permitted to buy (though shop owners generally have the right to refuse).

 

Interesting question...on the way in to work today there was a story on about a 65 year old clerk at a convenience store that was fired because she refused to sell a young man 2 packs of cigarettes on his food card, or whatever it's called. Anyway, the clerk said she didn't want other people paying for his habit, which is exactly what it would have been, but the management sided with the youths step-mother who came into complain about the clerk.

How revolting.

 

I think the idea that we taxpayers have to pay for someone's optional vices is revolting, but I can understand the business owner not refusing to accept those cash cards for purchases like that. Income is income.

Full Disclosure: I generally support welfare, but only for necessary items like food, medicine, clothing(within reason, there is no need for $50 tee-shirts if you are on welfare), housing, and necessary household supplies. Booze, cigarettes, going to the bar, to the movies, all that stuff that is not required to survive, I do not agree with. If you are on welfare, I don't care if you live in a one room house with no furniture and no entertainment, as long as you can eat, be warm, have medicine, clothing, and access to job training and other services that would increase your chance of finding a job to support yourself and your family with.

 

Desperate to get back to slavery, aren't you? Make the exploited pay for being exploited by rich thieves - that's the American way!

 

That was the story the OP was referring to as well. The issue I see with your position is that you're effectively saying that individual shop workers should be making personal moral judgements on whether customers are permitted to buy what they've asked for. Those calls are up to the business owner (within the scope of relevant laws) and if an employee is unwilling (or unable) to follow the policies, there is no alternative other than them leaving the job (incidentally, the details are inconsistent but the suggestion is that she resigned rather than - or maybe before - being sacked).

 

Making you pay for your own vices is only rational. Don't see why you can't understand that.

 

Be weary of what you wish for those of you who drink or smoke, as you never know what the future may hold for you. Most people on SSI, SSD, or some State Welfare Program never set out to be on those programs. Illness or accidents can forever change our lives leaving us relying on the very system you look down on. When you loose almost everything due to an force outside your control like an illness or accident... you may be one of those people who use a vice to help you cope with the stress of being disabled, sick all the time, and having to deal with a social stigma that you did not ask for.

 

This is where you deviate from what is being discussed. Needing assistance is much different then allowing people to buy what appeals to their vices with taxpayer money. If you are disabled it is often due to medical reasons and succumbing to vices only makes the situation worse.

The same people that defend this, defend government bans on smoking and big gulp drinks.

 

Its a free country and it is very hard to legislate morality. I am on SSD and once a month I go out and buy a 6 pack of the best beer that I can afford... like a good Polish Porter at $12 a 6 pack. You are telling me I should not be allowed to do this? I am not an alcoholic, I drink very little, and once a month I get to partake of something that I really enjoy. You know what. When I am drinking a fine Porter, sitting in my EZ chair watching the news, for a short time I almost feel normal again... like before I became disabled.

Lets slide this slippery slope... make it so I cannot buy anything but health food... which I would actually be for except that health food costs way to much and all I can afford are much less healthy alternatives. Heck, while we are at it lets take all sugar away from children of welfare families!

Please don't tell me that you are a compassionate Christian conservative... or do because I could use a good laugh about now.

 

I don't buy 12 dollar 6 packs because I am not spending someone elses money.

 

If you don't like that I buy beer then take action to change existing laws or create new laws. FYI, I paid into the system for many years, thus the reason I am on SSD and not SSI. So it is my money to.

 

Technically, unless they've never paid taxes in their life, they are spending their money, considering their taxes fund the programs.

 

I don't want a bunch of broke ass deadbeats buying booze on my dime, so no. Let them work and buy beer with their own money, just like everyone else.

 

Wow, the ignorance of that statement is amazing. To imply that people on social welfare are deadbeats lacks any objectivity and is simply a stereotype. Some do fit the stereotype, while many others do not. So I would assume your opinion is punish them all? I am disabled and would give anything to be able to work. Your insensitivity is amazing. Again I warn, be careful what you wish for, because any of us can experience a life changing debilitating illness or accident at any moment.

 

But, it isn't just foodstamps. We had a bar that cashed checks from mothers receiving Aid to Dependent Children so they could get their bar tab first. Now, I think it's all debit cards but the drunk mothers still have to pay their bar tab or they don't get to run one. I check on one mother of five and her bar tab exactly equaled her ADC check. Amazing coincidence.

There was a couple who were developmentally disabled. One day Mrs. Doe was complaining thei electricity had been shut off becuase her husband gave their SSI checks to "someone needier than us."

Some people nned structure and help. And, if not being able to buy beer or cigarettes is intolerable. there is always the option of working.

 

I love the perverted logic of the left. The deadbeats who sit on their ass, drinking beer and smoking cigarettes and are supported by the guys who drag their ass out of bed and go to work are the ejxploited ones. How sick is that Iolo? The sharecroppers whose produce is taken to support deadbeats are, in your weird world, expoiters.

 

Baloney. Too many did in fact set out to be on those programs and that's why fraud is so rampant. I know a woman who shopped around till she found a corrupt doctor to get her on SSI for a price. In Hawaii, friends gave the me names of two phsycologists who would sign anyone up for SSI, as having permanently disabling emtional problem, for a price. So this liberal nonsense that it's all luck and there but for the grace of god goes you.

I have friends in wheelchairs who worked. I had a man working for me who was in a wheelchair. I knew a family where both parents were blind and worked. And, then there's the poor, pitiful deabeats.