Out-of-state welfare money being used around Orlando attractions

...in which case he is gainfully employed and therefore not permanently and totally disabled, and therefore should be ineligible for SS disability benefits. :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

RideMan said:
One of the things that people in these programs MUST learn to do is to manage their money. Placing limits on what they can buy, where they can buy it, when, etc. is all a level of hand-holding that does nothing to encourage smart money management.

My thoughts exactly. I'm fine with "food stamps" being limited to only food, but this is another program with entirely different goals. If people want to be irresponsible with the money, then let them learn responsibility the hard way. That money will run out after so many months and then they either sink or swim.

In the context of the story, I can think of plenty of valid reasons for someone on welfare to be using an ATM at whatever amusement park. The first of which would be grandma or another family member paid for the trip and they're using their benefits to buy lunch.

Lord Gonchar said:

Beemers.

They have roller coasters in the parking lot? :)

CP Chris said:
In the context of the story, I can think of plenty of valid reasons for someone on welfare to be using an ATM at whatever amusement park. The first of which would be grandma or another family member paid for the trip and they're using their benefits to buy lunch.

That was something like my first though, and why I haven't been participating in this conversation. If these people earned their money, even if by a welfare type program, then they should be able to spend it any way they please. Who are we to judge what they decide to spend their money on, especially since it's not drugs or alcohol.

If you give a homeless dude 100 bucks, you wouldn't care if they blew it on a ticket to Disney World?

And did you say 'earned'?

No. Heck a ticket to Disney World is probably better than some of the other things to which that $100 will go.

If you give someone cash, you are essentially saying that you don't care how it is used. That's what "cash" means. If you want strings on it, you don't use cash, you use a gift card at a local grocer (which can still be used for *gasp* junk food rather than fresh organic produce).

There is a relevant article to this whole discussion that appeared in today's Times. Here's the full link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/business/how-a-financial-pro-lost...wanted=all

I suspect it is paywalled, so here is the summary. Financial planner got in (way) over his head on a house he couldn't afford, with a name-your-payment mortgage that had payments so low that the principal grew over time, and had to short-sell. He admits he was an idiot, but having lived through that, he also talks about how he advises his clients differently now. Here are the relevant paragraphs at the end:

The experience has changed just about everything about how I do financial planning and the advice I give in public. For one thing, I am less quick to judge other people’s financial behavior. I’m also more inclined to take into account personal factors that determine how people behave around money.

I have a friend who is going through a tough time financially. He has a high income, but is burdened by debt from a few real estate deals that went south. He continues to take fairly expensive ski trips. That would seem irresponsible in his situation, and maybe they are.

But I now realize that it is not that simple. Maybe those trips are keeping the guy alive, or saving his marriage or keeping him sane enough to work.

...

The process of making financial decisions is about more than building a spreadsheet to calculate the answer, because life rarely fits cleanly into a spreadsheet. Our decisions often appear irrational until we understand the whole story.

Edited to add: there's a lot of good stuff in the article, and it is not that long. If you aren't yet at your 10-articles-per-month limit (or are a subscriber) it is worth a read.

Since we are providing the money they are being given, and since one of the aims of the program is teaching fiscal responsibility, I think we have every right to judge them on how they are spending money.

If they were able to scrimp and somehow manage to save enough for a trip to Orlando, that's great. But if they made that trip in a car that wasn't insured and they left home with the electric and water bills sitting on the table overdue and unpaid, I have a problem with that.

It's almost funny, because this is the time of year our local news stations air the stories about the people having a hard time with winter approaching. They always include the senior citizen who says he has to choose between heating his house and buying prescriptions-- with a cigarette dangling from his mouth. Or the woman outside the supermarket who worries about feeding her family-- and you can see the Doritos sticking out the top of the bag while she's putting numerous 12-packs of soda into the trunk of her car.

It's all a matter of priorities. If people have screwed up ones, I should be able to call them on it if I'm paying for their choices.

I can see it now...

The new face of Disney is Bone Thugs 'n Harmony...

"Where do you wanna go kids?"

"Disney!"

"Well now we can...cause it's the first of the month..."

da da duh duh duh duh duh da disney...

RatherGoodBear said:
It's all a matter of priorities. If people have screwed up ones, I should be able to call them on it if I'm paying for their choices.

And that's what it comes down to for me too.

Ditto

Where does that line get drawn, though? We pay for a lot of peoples' stuff that we have no say over.

It's easy to call out the "welfare bums" and say we should limit their choices as it's "my money," but what about people on regular old unemployment? Can we limit what they spend their checks on? That seems fair. They're not working.

What about people in Congress, as we pay their salary with our tax dollars? They only work 3 days a week for half the year, and don't have to pay in to Social Security. Can they spend my money on a retirement home? Screw them.

What about cops? Firefighters? The military? I don't think people in the Marines should be allowed to smoke, as they're using my tax dollars to buy their sweet, tasty Camel Lights. Is that fair? To a lot of people, yes it is.

I was dirt poor when I was young. We were never on welfare, but I know too well what a block of food bank cheese tastes like. Didn't have cable tv. My dad rode the bus instead of having a car. I bet less than 10% of my clothes and toys were new until I was in high school. (The key is to go to a Goodwill in an affluent neighborhood so you can get Izod shirts for $3.)

I was still able to make it to Sea World and Niagara Falls and a few other places. Usually with my grandparents. So going back to what someone mentioned above, if I had been on welfare and my grandfather paid for us to go to Sea World, am I abusing the system by withdrawing money to buy myself a burger with my card?

RatherGoodBear said:

It's all a matter of priorities. If people have screwed up ones, I should be able to call them on it if I'm paying for their choices.

Exactly, which is where I was going with the homeless guy example. Problem is, I'm not sure that was the best example since A) I don't give homeless people cash, and B) if I did it would be by my own choice. Unlike what's actually happening when someone's on welfare.

I personally don't want to spend *another* $500/month overseeing what someone is spending their $300/month buying. And frankly, that's where you typically end up when trying to over-supervise someone else's purchasing decisions.

Would I prefer that everyone stop smoking? Sure. But at what point do I get to tell the unemployed person (or the teacher, firefighter, cop, school bus driver) that I don't want MY tax dollars going to support their "vice"? That's an awfully slippery slope, given that we all are, to some degree, "Socialists".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLgEnDGkG4

kpjb said:
Where does that line get drawn, though? We pay for a lot of peoples' stuff that we have no say over.

The difference is being employed and paid by tax dollars and being unemployed and being paid tax dollars. One is a handout, the other is a salary.

One of the things that everyone should be taught (not just folks on welfare) are basic economics. Education in this country on fundamentals of economics is horrible.

Education in this country on fundamentals of economics is horrible.

Agreed. I can't count the number of otherwise well-educated adults I know who cannot grasp the Time Value of Money.

rollergator said:
I personally don't want to spend *another* $500/month overseeing what someone is spending their $300/month buying. And frankly, that's where you typically end up when trying to over-supervise someone else's purchasing decisions.

Would I prefer that everyone stop smoking? Sure. But at what point do I get to tell the unemployed person (or the teacher, firefighter, cop, school bus driver) that I don't want MY tax dollars going to support their "vice"? That's an awfully slippery slope, given that we all are, to some degree, "Socialists".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLgEnDGkG4

That first part is why you'll never see restrictions on cash. I'm not telling you that as opinion or speculation. That's exactly how the US government feels and it's been said countless times.

It would cost an enormous amount to set a program like that up for both the private sector and state and federal government. The switch to debit like cards has cut different types of fraud and irresponsibility but you're never going to cut it all out. Change the system and people will Chang their fraudulent ways and still make it to Disney World.

Lord Gonchar said:

kpjb said:
Where does that line get drawn, though? We pay for a lot of peoples' stuff that we have no say over.

The difference is being employed and paid by tax dollars and being unemployed and being paid tax dollars. One is a handout, the other is a salary.

Meh. I don't buy it. It's already been said that to be in this program you have to have some sort of job.

Everyone wants to complain when stuff they don't like is supported by tax dollars. I don't like hippies and their stupid public gardens, but I don't complain about it... I just go pee on the flowers at night.

These people aren't dipping in to an unending supply of government money. If they get $500 a month and have enough to feed and clothe themselves, then I don't give a crap what they do with the rest. It's not like they can spend money at Sea World and then ask for more. People gotta eat. What they do with the remainder doesn't interest me.

Tekwardo said:
Change the system and people will Chang their fraudulent ways

Does this mean they will dismantle and relocate their fraudulent ways to New Jersey?

kpjb said:
Meh. I don't buy it. It's already been said that to be in this program you have to have some sort of job.

No. You have to do some sort of service. It's not a job.

We just got sick (as a society) of the only requirement to get the money being the ability to put the right info on some paperwork. Now you have to put some time in doing crap to 'earn' your handout.

If they get $500 a month and have enough to feed and clothe themselves, then I don't give a crap what they do with the rest.

I do. Mostly because there shouldn't be anything leftover. I'm barely ok with helping people survive let alone funding things beyond the basic necessities. (Yes, I just typed that. I'm a heartless jerk. :) )