pShould the government restrict where people spend their welfare checks?

Next>

Results

76 %

Yes

20 %

4 %

Unsure

@Jan '13 c 372 comments V 425 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

425 Votes

u

15 hr
DrSilicon voted

v Yes
Fri
JoshH voted

v Yes
Thu
luna11 voted

v No
u

Thu
RobG endorsed Thunderchicken

v Yes
Thu
littlewolf8469 voted

v No
May 14
JTerry368 voted

v Yes
May 14

PayThatCEO

v Yes

I'm kind of unsure what a "welfare check" is? Food stamps comes on a debit card. Housing allowances are paid directly to the property owner (landlord). Is a "welfare check" just that? A check that is cashed? In that case, cash can be spent anywhere. Is it a debit card? In that case, yes I think there should be restrictions on where and how the money is spent. If you give your teenage child an allowance, would you be angry if he used your money to buy drugs and alcohol when you thought he was buying school supplies and clothes for himself? This is how I feel about welfare money. It should be used for the absolute support of the family...not theme park tickets, mo...

Post
May 14

MarkJM

v Yes

YES 1000 times over. It's OUR TAXPAYER MONEY that is funding them. So I say NO they can't go to certain ATMs. NO they can't go to the strip clubs. NO they can't blow it on McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, or any other fast food joint. Limit Welfare to grocery markets, post office, and medical clinics only (i.e. places where they only NEED, not WANT to go). If these leeches WANT something, then they can get a JOB like everyone else and EARN it.

Post
May 13
Smoothbeartoo voted

v Yes
u

May 13
Jal187 voted

v Yes
May 13
silentrunning endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes
u

May 13
Wooky endorsed Quiver12345

v Yes
May 13
Fyi1957 endorsed Quiver12345

v Yes
May 12
rangerjeff voted

v Yes
u

May 12
skspls voted

v Yes
May 12
warwil630 voted

v Yes
May 12
DanielZ endorsed DrFunkenstein

v No
May 11

jeffreyknee

v Yes

No processed, junk or fast food should be allowed if we still continue the welfare system as is. Ideally, it should scrapped entirely, all welfare programs. Then replaced with changes to Family Law in state courts which put the needy in the care of their family and relatives. Use IRS to enforce surtaxes and fines on the relatives, even across state borders.

Post
May 11
looncraz endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes
u

May 10

Hireman

v Yes

Welfare is other people's money. Just like most bank loans come with strings attached as it's their money you're using, so to is true with welfare. In this case, it's the government's money, and they have that right.

Post
May 10
LGRepublican endorsed RedFloppyShoes

v Yes
u

May 9
LilliB voted

v Yes
u

May 9
kwwb voted

v Yes
u

May 9
Brian567899 voted

v Unsure
May 9

Bill2E

v Yes

Should be spent on the necessities of life and not the candy, soda water, junk food and fast food restaurants. Flour, salt, vegetables, meat and basic necessities. Also give cooking class so they know how to prepare a healthy meal foe their families. Utilities and housing are necessary. Don't allow the waste of the money given to them.

Post
u

May 8
sml11 endorsed Quiver12345

v Yes
u

May 8
Penn1699 endorsed Thunderchicken

v Yes
May 8
Remember2Wipe endorsed Quiver12345

v Yes
May 8
whatheheck endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes
May 8
PaulUK2901 voted

v No
u

May 8
DemonsAngel13 endorsed DrFunkenstein

v No
May 7
that1guy voted

v Yes
u

May 7
bleakoutlook voted

v No
u

May 7
Gatnos endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes
u

May 7
nagydonnac voted

v Yes
May 7
oldtimer2 endorsed Quiver12345

v Yes
May 7
AlexNWA endorsed VVP

v No
u

May 7
DaQuietOne endorsed Quiver12345

v Yes
May 7
ZombieMedic voted

v Yes
u

May 6
gitrdone8383 voted

v Yes
May 6
Aaron262 voted

v Yes
u

May 6
AceLuby endorsed DrFunkenstein

v No
May 5
Randolf endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes
u

May 5
URBS endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes
May 5
LEC endorsed VVP

v No
u

May 5
oldnavyguy88 voted

v Yes
u

May 4
The_Bald_Guy voted

v Yes
u

May 4
mxdirtdude endorsed DrFunkenstein

v No
May 3
scotta endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes
u

May 3

jond414

v No

If they can't stop corporations from off shoring many times more money, then why should it matter where someone spends their welfare. Corporate welfare is a bigger problem than welfare for people. Oh, nevermind "corporations are people my friend".

r12 replies

Post

May 14

PayThatCEO

v Yes

I'm kind of unsure what a "welfare check" is? Food stamps comes on a debit card. Housing allowances are paid directly to the property owner (landlord). Is a "welfare check" just that? A check that is cashed? In that case, cash can be spent anywhere. Is it a debit card? In that case, yes I think there should be restrictions on where and how the money is spent. If you give your teenage child an allowance, would you be angry if he used your money to buy drugs and alcohol when you thought he was buying school supplies and clothes for himself? This is how I feel about welfare money. It should be used for the absolute support of the family...not theme park tickets, mo...

Post
May 14

MarkJM

v Yes

YES 1000 times over. It's OUR TAXPAYER MONEY that is funding them. So I say NO they can't go to certain ATMs. NO they can't go to the strip clubs. NO they can't blow it on McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, or any other fast food joint. Limit Welfare to grocery markets, post office, and medical clinics only (i.e. places where they only NEED, not WANT to go). If these leeches WANT something, then they can get a JOB like everyone else and EARN it.

Post
May 11

jeffreyknee

v Yes

No processed, junk or fast food should be allowed if we still continue the welfare system as is. Ideally, it should scrapped entirely, all welfare programs. Then replaced with changes to Family Law in state courts which put the needy in the care of their family and relatives. Use IRS to enforce surtaxes and fines on the relatives, even across state borders.

Post
u

May 10

Hireman

v Yes

Welfare is other people's money. Just like most bank loans come with strings attached as it's their money you're using, so to is true with welfare. In this case, it's the government's money, and they have that right.

Post
May 9

Bill2E

v Yes

Should be spent on the necessities of life and not the candy, soda water, junk food and fast food restaurants. Flour, salt, vegetables, meat and basic necessities. Also give cooking class so they know how to prepare a healthy meal foe their families. Utilities and housing are necessary. Don't allow the waste of the money given to them.

Post
u

May 3

jond414

v No

If they can't stop corporations from off shoring many times more money, then why should it matter where someone spends their welfare. Corporate welfare is a bigger problem than welfare for people. Oh, nevermind "corporations are people my friend".

r12 replies

Post
May 14

MarkJM

What do corporations have to do with leeches gaming the system and ripping off taxpayers?

Post @MarkJM
u

May 14

jond414

@MarkJM did you even read my post? Corporate welfare is a much bigger problem. At least the welfare for people stays in the local economies and isn't sitting offshore for tax evasion purposes.

Post @jond414
May 14

MarkJM

@jond414 I'm not excusing corporations either, of course their subsidies should be cut, just like big oil, the ethanol farms, solar companies, I could go on and on all day about taxpayer funded subsidies. But it still doesn't excuse the fact that we have multi-generation welfare leeches out there who'd rather suck off the taxpayer fund teet rather than try and become productive citizens themselves.

Post @MarkJM
May 14

PayThatCEO

@jond414 While I absolutely agree with you 100%, corporate welfare wasn't the topic. You're right and I understand your frustration. The U.S. has lost billions, if not trillions, of dollars due to offshored money. People aren't as likely to get their panties in a wad over this because they don't see or understand the repercussions of it. They will usually root for the rich, even if the rich are stealing them blind. The topic was government assistant welfare, and while I believe every civilized nation should have a safety net for its most vulnerable, I do think there needs to be a much stricter accounting of how that assistance is doled out.

B1

Post @PayThatCEO
u

May 14

jond414

@PayThatCEO The topic is welfare. I simply wanted to point out the hypocrisy by most americans about the subject. Youre exactly right when you mention the poor rooting for the rich as they exploit them. Welfare restrictions for people have become so tight, how exactly do you want to see stricter accounting? If a single parent has a child older than 2, they cannot receive adc, unless they already do. So what does a mother of a 3 and a 5 year old do, get pregnant so she can support her other 2 kids? Nope, the mother does the right thing and gets a part time job making $7 an hour. What does the government do since everyone is sooo upset over welfare abuse and "takers" and...

Post @jond414
View all 12 replies >
u

May 2

fraps

v Yes

There should be enforceable limits on what welfare money is spent on. In addition there should be drug tests on recipients before they receive their welfare payments. There should also be a work requirement for those capable of work.

r4 replies

Post
u

May 3

jond414

That view isn't very liberterian like. Ask floridians how many millions of dollars it cost tax payers to drug test under the premise they could save a bunch of money by kicking a bunch of druggies off the dole. @5% tested positive, if memory serves.

Post @jond414
u

May 3

fraps

@jond414 Whether I like that drugs are illegal is irrelevant. I disagree with all criminal laws that are in effect victimless and are prohibition in fact. I am a libertarian, not an anarchist. We should clearly not be giving things to criminals.

Post @fraps
May 5

LEC

@fraps Actually if we did give criminals a helping hand after they were done serving their time, they would be less likely to go out and commit more crimes for the bucks since no one will hire them because they are convicted criminals... One wonders why if we can't help them get work and get by why we even let them out of jail ever cause the system we have now is just a revolving door. Did ya hear we even have a school to prison pipeline now.. its disgusting and it is also big business now. Judges have been found to have been bribed to sent their cases to specific prisons.. Hows that for our wonderful justice system. And if we actually stopped creating criminals ...

Post @LEC
May 5

LEC

Oh and regarding welfare spending... believe me that is already taken care of because you have to go from agency to agency and you get very little cash of your own, it is all paid to providers whether it be for rent or medical expenses and food stamps , well when you haven't any money for toilet paper you might pay for someones food to get cash for TP and detergent and quarters to wash clothes and the occasional beer.. seriously people the money is tight, you don't get much if any discretionary money depending on the state.. and please remember that Jesus, your God, said to take care of the poor that they would always be with you because he knew how cheap and mean most...

Post @LEC
May 1

Hold_Please

v Yes

If you're asking me for money, one of the determining factors of whether or not I give it to you is what you want it for. Same principle applies here, since it IS my money they're asking for.

Post
u

Apr 29

treedcat25

v Yes

The social safety net shouldn't cover cigarettes and booze. That's just stupid.

Post
Apr 29

MarkColwell

v Unsure

The system needs more auditors, not more rules. If we are losing billions to people who break the rules today, what good is writing more rules going to do? What we need to do is root out those who are defrauding the system.

Post
u

Apr 28

tomincali

v Yes

i think all checks needs to stop and put all welfare bens on vouchers that way they never have any funds. these folks need to be watched at all times, surprise check in 24/7 to make sure they all are on the up and up.they sign and ok searches so get to searching. time to clean the mess up.

Post
u

Apr 27

BossTweed

v Yes

Absolutely............it's OUR money. Every greasy fast food joint in Calif has a We accept Food Stamps sign plastered on the windows...........yet we constantly hear that Washington is concerned with obesity and quality diets. We are just being played as always.............

B1

r1 reply

Post
Apr 30

MeBeBiski

Wrong on two counts, Boss. 1) Food stamps ( actually the vouchers have been replaced by EBT cards) are not welfare and 2) in order to accept these benefit cards, retailers must qualify see http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/store-eligibility.htm -- if you check it out it seems to me like what I would understand to be "fast food joints" don't qualify to be SNAP retailers. Yes you can buy soda and chips, but your post is inaccurate and misleading.

Post @MeBeBiski
Jan '13

cbrown3001

v Yes

I think people on welfare should not be able to buy over priced junk food etc. The other day a lady paid for a 4 dollar coconut water with her vision card. I almost threw up in my mouth. Everyday another lady spend 30 bucks on 6 kids pop and candy bars. she could have went and got the same stuff at wal greens like I do for less than half that.

B2

Post
Jan '13

TDriver04

v Yes

It's not a paycheck to stay home it's assistance to help you back on your feet. Short term not your whole worthless life.

B1

Post
Jan '13

2starider

v Yes

Can't believe the question needs to be asked.

Post
u

Jan '13

SickOfEveryone

v Yes

Forget welfare altogether. Fix the problem not the system. For the incredibly small portion of welfare recipients that respect and depend on the welfare system: I'm sorry. Blame your neighbors.

Post
u

Jan '13

Texan_Rep

v Yes

Yes they should, and they should only be allowed to be on it for a certain amount of time not a life time!

Post
Jan '13

loganrollo

v Yes

No more cash back or access to ATM machines. No purchases in gas stations. The money is for food period.

Post
u

Jan '13

cpier14

v Yes

sounds like an asinine question but democrats will be the first and try to justify recipients spending our tax dollars in strip clubs and liquor stores

Post
Jan '13

LALibertarian

v Unsure

First off, Government is not charity. I think that government has overstep its boundaries by taking this upon itself. I pay taxes for government to run and provide services for the entire public (which most of these services can be handled by the private sector), not just a special few. I understand that people may fall on harsh times--my family did at the beginning of the recession. But do you know how much welfare we received? Zero. Why? Because that's not what government was established for!

Post
R Load more comments...

Jan '13

MadAmerican

v Yes

I believe that there should be mandatory urinalysis checks as well, and if you come up hot you lose your privilidges. I also believe that they can never get extra cash in change from them. No alcohol or cigaretts either!

B4

r10 replies

e59 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

Quiver12345

v Yes

It should be limited to items essential for life. (Food, Water, Shelter)

B2

e38 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

DrFunkenstein

v No

How exactly would restricting work? Do you have a government official following the welfare recipient 24 hours a day accounting for every penny of that pathetic subsistence level welfare check? People hate welfare and none of them actually know what it is or how it works. They think illegal immigrants just hop on it as soon as they get in the country, they think single people without children can just freely get it and they think it's thousands of dollars a month when it's not enough for any luxuries. Anyone thinking of arguing should post the demographics of the welfare users, the requirements for welfare and the average welfare benefit. I would post them but you'd c...

B1

e14 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

RedFloppyShoes

v Yes

Regardless of the reason that you are on assistance, someone else is paying your way and because of that you are then subjected to their rules. It is no different than if you live under your parents rules, you live by their rules. In the end, it isn't free money, someone e is paying for it.

r11 replies

e8 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

VVP

v No

Dear conservatives, What happened to your platform of Small government? Why would you want the government to be even further involved in peoples lives, and making MORE government employees by creating jobs for people to regulate and monitor such restrictions were being followed? Oh, thats right, conservatives only believe that when it involves them perceiving someone taking something from them, Otherwise its perfectly fine to create a big brother state to make sure those dastardly poor unwashed masses stay in line and off their lawn. While freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose, Conservative is just another word for hypocrite.

B3

r12 replies

e5 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

Thunderchicken

v Yes

If I'm paying the bills, I have the right to call the shots. Given the bar code system we have, it wouldn't be too difficult to restrict what EBT cards can be used for.

r1 reply

e5 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

mwr

v Yes

food, clothing, shelter. only the basic needs should be allowed.

r1 reply

e5 endorsed

Post
u

Jan '13

Raptor

@ithink2 It never ceases to amaze me that you people get on here and talk about people like they are anamals with no rights and dignity, of persons with disabilities or going hungry or just people who need a helping hand for a little while to feed their family, these are people, human beings who have rights to. You sanctimonious hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B4

Post @Raptor
Jan '13

lawnmowrman

v No

Restricting where the money could be spent would be asking people without transportation to walk an excessive number of miles to get the goods that they need.

B2

r3 replies

e2 endorsed

Post
o

Jan '13

bigblock

v Yes

When we see welfare mama's driving up to the bank in their Mercedes-Benz to cash their government checks. Then we've got a problem. And this has been going on for decades. But nothing will happen during the Obama regime, you can bet on that.

B2

r4 replies

e2 endorsed

Post

Politix

pShould the government restrict where people spend their welfare checks?

Results