California limits use of welfare 'debit cards' to essential purchases

thebigbiffo · 03-11-2010 03:34PM

up for anything wrote: »

I'm not allowed to rant but you, as a tax paying citizen, are. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

I'll contribute my absence so you can get on with your "some of my friends and family are bla..... oops that should read on social welfare" rant.

Byeeeeee

yep..entitlements a real big 'f'uckin problem in this country alright

curlzy · 03-11-2010 03:43PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

nice rant buddy. contribute anything to this discussion bar your b'ull****?

hahahahahaha LOLs, you really and truly are a big biffo aren't you??? It's amazing to me that you can be so self aware in that sense, but at the same time hold such ridiculous opinions.

I think I'm close to giving up on this forum, it's just reminding how ****ing nasty and selfish and small minded Irish people really can be. God help us.

miss_shadow · 03-11-2010 03:50PM

shouldn't we be giving these debit cards to the government?

since they're the ones who drove us to where we are now.

'damn this card won't accept NAMA'

thebigbiffo · 03-11-2010 03:53PM

curlzy wrote: »

hahahahahaha LOLs, you really and truly are a big biffo aren't you??? It's amazing to me that you can be so self aware in that sense, but at the same time hold such ridiculous opinions.

I think I'm close to giving up on this forum, it's just reminding how ****ing nasty and selfish and small minded Irish people really can be. Good help us.

curlzy, i used to like you!

wtf is wrong with suggesting a way to ensure that welfare money is not pissed against a wall? again, i'm not suggesting that everyone on SW is pissing their money against the wall - but there's a huge amount of it going places it shouldnt...

what ridiculous opinions, how am i 'nasty, selfish and small minded'? seriously, i thought i was being very reasonable with this suggestion and not once did i make any sweeping statements or insult anybody.

not one person who is anti this idea has given one decent argument as to why it shouldn't happen - it's just been rants, accusations of snobbery and attempts to de-rail the thread with snide comments.

curlzy, if you're not 'selfish' or 'small minded' maybe you - in your infinite wisdom - might suggest a way to ensure that money that should be used to ensure the country's most vulnerable get 'welfare' is not used for drink, drugs or other 'unnessesaries'?

Biggins · 03-11-2010 04:04PM

Staying on main topic and avoiding the personalisations and one snide dig (very uncalled for!), I would like to see the adoption of a similar system if not from an immediate start of unemployment, then from the very good suggestion that it be introduced at a later stage of unemployment status.

There is some concern here that we are all maybe just interested in making savings to the welfare budget.
Well I would dispute the "all" bit. I would in honestly be happy to see the social welfare budget stay the same if I thought that more ways were being used or introduced to see that such state funding was more so going to where it is needed - and not just possibly too into cigarette companies and across bar counters.

I would fight tooth and nail for the rights of the genuine unfortunate unemployed to be seen in as equally a light as those employed. A lot of the unemployed are just further victims of direct/indirect actions of others be it state heads or domino effect of internal/external policies adopted.
We should NOT be making unemployed people second-class citizens - end of story there!

I worry about kids (have 4 myself) and have never called or seen them as "scumbag kids" (who's called them this anyway!).
If a card system makes their life a little better in that they might actually get more food as they are growing, well feck it, I can live with more of my tax money going towards them.
Its simply for me, the right thing to accept as a hopefully decent moral citizen of this country.

Someone here worries that maybe there might not be such an upside to such a system but for me, I can see that if the money (thru the card) went on basics then charities might be less under pressure, more local shops would gain revenue (rather than a few select bars/off-licences), possibly with additional marketing Irish food producers might see an increase in sales, children's health (and adults too?) might improve - and if that does, would it show in less numbers being sick, help those possibly malnourished and thus being more prone to infections, etc and take a slight weight off our already stressed medical services? ...And those are just a few ideas off the top of my head.

There are or could be many possible domino effects of such a system - and at the very least, the idea deserves serious possible investigation/consideration and serious discussion.
Now if we can only do that here without the digs at one another!

southsiderosie · 03-11-2010 04:19PM

Biggins wrote: »

Someone here worries that maybe there might not be such an upside to such a system but for me, I can see that if the money (thru the card) went on basics then charities might be less under pressure, more local shops would gain revenue (rather than a few select bars/off-licences), possible with additional marketing Irish food producers might see an increase in sales, children health (and adults too?) might improve - and if that does would it show in less numbers being sick, possibly malnourished, being prone to infections, etc and take a slight weight off our already stressed medical services? ...And those are just a few ideas off the top of my head.

There are or could be many possible domino effects of such a system - and at the very least, the idea deserves serious possible investigation/consideration and serious discussion.
Now if we can only do that here without the digs at one another!

I understand why people want to be sure that people are using social welfare money for basics, especially if there are children involved. But the sad truth is, responsible parents will bargain hunt to the last dime to maximize their welfare money, and irresponsible parents won't. And those who are really desperate to buy alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes will just buy groceries with the card, and sell them to dealers or on the street for cash - this is sadly common in the US when people on welfare have addiction issues as well.

That's why I'm really a proponent of cash benefits with a lifetime cap. The government won't ask any questions, but also won't tolerate any foolishness. And you can't get full access without a work history. Responsible people will be mindful of this, and use it responsibly. Irresponsible people won't, and that's too bad, but at some point people need to take responsibility for their behavior and decisions in life.

Biggins · 03-11-2010 04:21PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

I understand why people want to be sure that people are using social welfare money for basics, especially if there are children involved. But the sad truth is, responsible parents will bargain hunt to the last dime to maximize their welfare money, and irresponsible parents won't. And those who are really desperate to buy alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes will just buy groceries with the card, and sell them to dealers or on the street for cash - this is sadly common in the US when people on welfare have addiction issues as well.

That's why I'm really a proponent of cash benefits with a lifetime cap. The government won't ask any questions, but also won't tolerate any foolishness. And you can't get full access without a work history. Responsible people will be mindful of this, and use it responsibly. Irresponsible people won't, and that's too bad, but at some point people need to take responsibility for their behaviour and decisions in life.

There is a lot of truth and good thinking in those words.
There are some points that equally deserve discussion.

thomasj · 03-11-2010 08:40PM

godwin wrote: »

Yes because people on the dole are making regular flights to Paris,London and Rome to spend their €196 a week , disgraceful.

I think the obvious solution from reading suggestions in the thread is a total ban on the sale alcohol and cigarettes to people on social welfare.

My point is so that the card is only useful in this country (ie if you are living in Poland you shouldn't be getting dole in this country) and that it is spend in this country

Run_to_da_hills · 03-11-2010 08:42PM

This is just a taste of what will happen here as soon as the IMF take over. :eek:

Debit Smart cards that will track all your transit movements and consumer purchases.

MagicSean · 03-11-2010 08:42PM

I've been suggesting this kind of thing since the last budget. Bloody terminator stole my idea.

curlzy · 03-11-2010 08:57PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

curlzy, i used to like you!

wtf is wrong with suggesting a way to ensure that welfare money is not pissed against a wall? again, i'm not suggesting that everyone on SW is pissing their money against the wall - but there's a huge amount of it going places it shouldnt...

what ridiculous opinions, how am i 'nasty, selfish and small minded'? seriously, i thought i was being very reasonable with this suggestion and not once did i make any sweeping statements or insult anybody.

not one person who is anti this idea has given one decent argument as to why it shouldn't happen - it's just been rants, accusations of snobbery and attempts to de-rail the thread with snide comments.

curlzy, if you're not 'selfish' or 'small minded' maybe you - in your infinite wisdom - might suggest a way to ensure that money that should be used to ensure the country's most vulnerable get 'welfare' is not used for drink, drugs or other 'unnessesaries'?

I actually quite like you too usually so I'll answer you without sarcasm or ****ing around.

My problem with this suggestion is that you are talking about branding 440,000 people as smoking, alcoholic parents. You do realise that what is intoduced for one must be introduced for all? So you have the unemployed accountant who worked their ass off for years but got unlucky when the recession hit, they're defaulting on the mortgage and they've had to make huge changes to their lives, to tell them that no they can't have cash, they have to have a debit card so they don't piss away their children's food money. That's ****ing humiliating no matter how much you say it isn't. It's a stupid idea to brand 440000 people as unethical scum (as you would be if you spent you're child's food money on booze/fags) when the real and actual figure would be a tiny portion of that, believe it or not ALOT of people have had to sign on, architects, tradespeople, private sector workers, should they all be branded second class citizens that don't deserve to be treated with dignity as a rational human being? I really think it's so nasty that in times of crisis Irish people rip into each other and the most vulnerable are demonised. As as much as I like to take AH as a joke I can't contribute to what I believe is character assasination of a huge group of innocent people. To be quite honest they having a hard enough time as it is without being made like the scum of society.

Regarding your question: what is my suggestion as to how to ensure that money is not spent on booze and fags instead of food. I don't have one because alcoholics will ALWAYS find a way to get booze and smokers will ALWAYS find a way to smoke, they'd just find a way around whatever system is in place. Also AH has decided this is a problem, it's not nice but it's not any bigger a problem now than it was years back, the HSE is there to rescue kids in trouble, that's their function, we could talk about better organising that instead of treating people like troublesome scum. I would much rather talk about actual problems than ones that the AH crowd has decided are problems.

saywhatyousee · 03-11-2010 08:59PM

cant see this ever happening society will crash and burn
increaed thefts for cash ect ect

alwaysadub · 03-11-2010 09:30PM

I'm unemployed atm, and in one way i can kinda see why this might be a good idea.
It's not often at all that i buy drink-a fair chunk of my dole goes on paying bills,yet i'm still getting further and further into debt- but i wouldn't be very happy if i decided one night to treat myself to a cheap bottle of wine/can of beer to be told "oh sorry can't sell you that cos you don't have a job".
I wouldn't be embarrassed or feel humiliated using the card though. I've worked hard for the past 12years, and i'd love nothing more than to be working now. But until that happens, i have no choice but to rely on SW help. That's nothing for me to be embarrassed about.

If this card did ever come in as a replacement to collecting your cash in the post office, it'd also have to be able to do things like pay bills, order home heating oil, not just limited to things like food basically.
I also don't agree with the suggestion of limiting it to certain chain stores. I live in a small town and, ok admittitely, i do most of my food shopping in Aldi lately, i'd hate to think i couldn't give local businesses my custom.

ladysarastro · 03-11-2010 09:57PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Great concept but it'd never happen over here. Can you imagine Scaldyballs O'Knackbag being refused booze or fags in Tesco when he hands over his debit card? There'd be chaos.

Plus you'd have the SVdeP and all the other bleeding hearts coming out saying that it's unfair that poor people can't spend their free money on cans of Tuborg and ciggies if they want to.

I think any genuine person who's fallen on hard times and is on welfare wouldn't have a problem with this type of system but you'll have the career-unemployed crying victimisation.

SVdeP actually buy a certain companys vouchers and hand them out to needy with "Grocery and Textiles only". Which means they can't be used on booze or fags. They used to have to spend the whole amount but some one rang the shops head office and whined so much that now the change can be put on a gift card... which can be used for booze. They always find a way around it

Augmerson · 03-11-2010 11:14PM

curlzy wrote: »

I'd be totally against this. Contrary to popular belief not all social welfare recepients are scum :rolleyes:. This idea that it's ok to treat social welfare recepients like stupid people is just indicative of how nasty our hive mind has gotton. Social welfare recipents are entitled to their dignity too you know!!! This kind of idea turns my stomach to be honest.

Right on!

flas · 03-11-2010 11:58PM

where are people recieving socail welfare ment to get the money to put petrol/diesel into their cars to drive to job interviews, or get public transport to job interviews or training courses?

goose2005 · 04-11-2010 12:15AM

curlzy wrote: »

I'd be totally against this. Contrary to popular belief not all social welfare recepients are scum :rolleyes:. This idea that it's ok to treat social welfare recepients like stupid people is just indicative of how nasty our hive mind has gotton. Social welfare recipents are entitled to their dignity too you know!!! This kind of idea turns my stomach to be honest.

But what's undignified about it? Not all airline passengers are terrorists, but we still go through the X-ray machine.

Saadyst wrote: »

The immediate concern I would have about this is: like it or not, there are a load of people out there who have debt. Some have a little debt, some have a lot.

If they can't keep up the minimum payments, they'll have to pay more in the long term, along with penalty charges, possibly dealing with the courts / bailiffs etc.

Basically, I'm thinking that this idea might make people poorer rather than better off.

Even if they find a job, they'll have to face the months / years of debt they couldn't pay when they were unemployed.

If you have debts, a portion of your dole could be handed straight to the creditor.

Venom · 04-11-2010 12:22AM

Biggins wrote: »

Well yesterday as I was waiting for a taxi, I seen a wretched looking drunk woman trying to control her 3 starved looking kids and I thought to myself "there is something seriously wrong here" (the radio controller confirmed the mother was unemployed and a regular drunk) so if she was disabled from buying so much drink with her dole money and would have to buy food instead more so, I'm definitely in favour of such a system.

In this particular case is a very novel but very good idea. Well done California.

Alco's and junkies will just get their fix another way that will more than likely cause more hassle for joe public than them being able to spend their cash on whatever they want.

A debt card payout won't cost any less in public taxes, will cause more hassle for everyone else and will 100% cost way to much to implement the way this country screws things up.

Venom · 04-11-2010 12:27AM

alwaysadub wrote: »

I'm unemployed atm, and in one way i can kinda see why this might be a good idea.
It's not often at all that i buy drink-a fair chunk of my dole goes on paying bills,yet i'm still getting further and further into debt- but i wouldn't be very happy if i decided one night to treat myself to a cheap bottle of wine/can of beer to be told "oh sorry can't sell you that cos you don't have a job".
I wouldn't be embarrassed or feel humiliated using the card though. I've worked hard for the past 12years, and i'd love nothing more than to be working now. But until that happens, i have no choice but to rely on SW help. That's nothing for me to be embarrassed about.

If this card did ever come in as a replacement to collecting your cash in the post office, it'd also have to be able to do things like pay bills, order home heating oil, not just limited to things like food basically.
I also don't agree with the suggestion of limiting it to certain chain stores. I live in a small town and, ok admittitely, i do most of my food shopping in Aldi lately, i'd hate to think i couldn't give local businesses my custom.

And if this card is limited to certain chain stores will there be proper legislation put in place to prevent these stores from being able to raise prices to gouge the new captive market?

I wouldn't bet on it.

Spudmonkey · 04-11-2010 12:39AM

curlzy wrote: »

My problem with this suggestion is that you are talking about branding 440,000 people as smoking, alcoholic parents. You do realise that what is intoduced for one must be introduced for all? So you have the unemployed accountant who worked their ass off for years but got unlucky when the recession hit, they're defaulting on the mortgage and they've had to make huge changes to their lives, to tell them that no they can't have cash, they have to have a debit card so they don't piss away their children's food money. That's ****ing humiliating no matter how much you say it isn't. It's a stupid idea to brand 440000 people as unethical scum (as you would be if you spent you're child's food money on booze/fags) when the real and actual figure would be a tiny portion of that

Seriously have you even read any of his post through fully? Cause not once have I seen anything that you mention above in one of his. You seem to just see one point, then rabble rabble rabble

The point of this is to ensure that someone's welfare is spent on the correct things. It's not to isolate a certain faction of society. So that someone doesn't come along, spend all their money down the bookies (even though this is probably only a small percentage of recipients, although you probably won't read that point) and then complain that they don't have money to spend on food, clothing, heating etc.

Frankly I am more in favour of what southsiderosie says and just put a cap on what someone can potentially receive. There is something seriously inequitable about a system where someone can pay stamps for 30 years, another for 2, and both receive the same welfare. So much for what you get what you pay in.

curlzy · 04-11-2010 10:13AM

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Seriously have you even read any of his post through fully? Cause not once have I seen anything that you mention above in one of his. You seem to just see one point, then rabble rabble rabble

The point of this is to ensure that someone's welfare is spent on the correct things. It's not to isolate a certain faction of society. So that someone doesn't come along, spend all their money down the bookies (even though this is probably only a small percentage of recipients, although you probably won't read that point) and then complain that they don't have money to spend on food, clothing, heating etc.

Frankly I am more in favour of what southsiderosie says and just put a cap on what someone can potentially receive. There is something seriously inequitable about a system where someone can pay stamps for 30 years, another for 2, and both receive the same welfare. So much for what you get what you pay in.

Ah will you ever cop on, how is telling social welfare recipients that they have to spend their cash a certain way not treating them like second class citizens??? When you tell someone oh you can only buy food because you can't be trusted, that's treating them as second class citizens. You say the point to make sure the money is spent on "correct things" so how do you put bus fare on a debit card, or new clothes for your kids, if the idea is to just ban them from buying booze/fags then again that IS treating them as second class citizens. AH have decided that social welfare recipients waste their money but that's just not true, it is in fact something that AH decided is a problem when in fact it isn't. And again I'm not going to decimate the character of 440,000 people just to fit in with the draconian ideology of this thread.

And there are different rates of social welfare, Jobseeker's Benefit (not means tested) when you've 52 A class contributions in the governing year and Jobseeker's Allowance when you don't have contributions (which is means tested and a lesser payment).

syklops · 04-11-2010 11:03AM

curlzy wrote: »

I'd be totally against this. Contrary to popular belief not all social welfare recepients are scum :rolleyes:. This idea that it's ok to treat social welfare recepients like stupid people is just indicative of how nasty our hive mind has gotton. Social welfare recipents are entitled to their dignity too you know!!! This kind of idea turns my stomach to be honest.

Post of the day.

orourkeda · 04-11-2010 11:18AM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ebt-cards-20101102,0,928832.story

At first glance the idea of a welfare 'debit card' seems like a useless idea. Welfare payments are paid into bank accounts in this country which can then be used for any purchase whatsoever so what'd be the point in implementing a specific welfare 'debit card'?

Well, considering what California have just done I think it's a great idea. Imagine a variation where when you signed up to the dole you recieved a card that could only be used to purchase specific items which the welfare payment is actually meant to pay for.

For a start, lets say you could'nt take out cash (or only a small amount of cash) and thereafter the card would only work in supermarkets (excluding the alcohol section), hardware stores, clothes shops and other stores deemed to stock essential goods? At least then you could be assured that welfare is spent on just that - the 'welfare' of the recipient and their family and not alcohol, drugs, gambling etc.

what thinks AH?

You've never been on the dole have you?

Saadyst · 04-11-2010 11:31AM

How much do people here think will be actually saved, compared to what it will cost to: 1) setup, 2) administer.

Bearing in mind that once the job market gets better (whenever that is), potential benefits will go down further, whilst cost to run will remain the same (especially bearing in mind that it will probably be run by the public sector).

thebigbiffo · 04-11-2010 11:33AM

orourkeda wrote: »

You've never been on the dole have you?

no. and eamon o cuiv probably hasn't, probably not the head honchos in the department of social welfare aswell...but someone has to propse ways to try ensure we get value for money - not just in social welfare but in all areas of public spending.

what next? you can't propose that your local council tar your road if you're not a civil engineer?

thebigbiffo · 04-11-2010 11:49AM

curlzy wrote: »

Ah will you ever cop on, how is telling social welfare recipients that they have to spend their cash a certain way not treating them like second class citizens??? When you tell someone oh you can only buy food because you can't be trusted, that's treating them as second class citizens. You say the point to make sure the money is spent on "correct things" so how do you put bus fare on a debit card, or new clothes for your kids, if the idea is to just ban them from buying booze/fags then again that IS treating them as second class citizens. AH have decided that social welfare recipients waste their money but that's just not true, it is in fact something that AH decided is a problem when in fact it isn't. And again I'm not going to decimate the character of 440,000 people just to fit in with the draconian ideology of this thread.

And there are different rates of social welfare, Jobseeker's Benefit (not means tested) when you've 52 A class contributions in the governing year and Jobseeker's Allowance when you don't have contributions (which is means tested and a lesser payment).

you're either not following the proposal here curlzy or you're ignoring the bits that you dont want to here. go back a bit and you'll see this:

proposal included a set amount in cash which should be enough for a reasonable amount of booze and fags, bus fares, petrol etc.

all clothing allowances such as back to school etc would also be put on the card and can be spent anywhere (just not casinos, pubs, offys and other 'luxuries').

you keep bringing this back to SW recipients being branded 'second class citizens', this is not the case! as someone pointed out, the reason they introduced this card in Cali was because it saved face for people - i dont understand how sticking a card into debit machine like people do 10 times a day is humiliating!

and you're also ignorjing the whole point of SW - it IS to pay for food and essentials - it IS decided from the outset that that is what it's supposed to pay for.

curlzy, you and people like you need to understand that there ARE people screwing the SW, it's not everybody obviously but it's enough that soomething needs to be done! someone mentioned earlier that if you're a young lad living at home, should you be expected to spend your dole on food...the answer is a resounding YES!! me and you are NOT liable for a young fellas boozing money - not when the country is facing the biggest cut back in spending in history.

there is nothing draconian or degrading about this proposal - this is about a simple change in our welfare system to ensure that there is SOME degree of responsibilty taken for the money people recieve from the state, that it is about WELFARE, not 'entitlement' to spend the money on nights out on the town or a bag of weed.

dont respond with this 'you are branding everybody a waster line', it's old and i'm not. i'm saying that there is enough f'ucked up people out there playing the system that they're starting to ruin it for everybody.

trust me, if things keep going the way they're going it'll be back to food and butter vouchers and then we'll be talking proper degradation - not the 'degradation' of using a f'uckin debit card to pay for your groceries...

Biggins · 04-11-2010 12:23PM

Venom wrote: »

Alco's and junkies will just get their fix another way that will more than likely cause more hassle for joe public than them being able to spend their cash on whatever they want.

There will always (sadly) be the junkies who will get their fix. Thats inevitable - but that don't mean we make their life easier for them to do that. It should be the opposite and as such create a further deterrent/reason for them to quit (yes, I totally accept that alone is not easy but if one is eventually determined...).

Venom wrote: »

A debt card payout won't cost any less in public taxes, will cause more hassle for everyone else and will 100% cost way to much to implement the way this country screws things up.

How can you say "it won't cost less" - seriously?
If (which we all hope) unemployment drops, of course it will cost less in revenue from the state.
If your talking about a card system costing less, have you bothered to look at the running costs of having to produce constant paper food stamps as an alternative? Hiring staff to work the paper (which has to be constantly bought! More un-environmentally friendly too?) mills, paying for the constant maintenance of the machinery, then there is additional postal costs to supplying possible food stamps to every unemployed person in the country every week/month. A figure which would turn out alone to be a massive sum! And thats just the tip of the iceberg!

Ok, so we adopt a similar card system instead. What are we looking at in costs in regards to the creation of a "smart card" that allows the transfer of state money to it and from it in shops.

* Well the banking systems are already in place as the state is already weekly transferring payments to unemployed bank accounts.

* The smart cards already exist and the underlying architectural structure code (and validation security codes) for such cards already exist in state structure systems and actual cards already given out by the state to staff (see FAS expenses account cards for one simple example).

* The debit card acceptance machines are already in nearly every shop in the country and are already used by many banks alone - and the software acceptance coding for those machines is already programmed in by the till card machine manufacturer before they even reach POS (point of sale)!

* The cards themselves will be the now standard "Smart cards" so they will have the inbuilt ability to know when it says thru' bar code or product key pressed ID input that an item on a food list is "alcohol, cigs' etc..." or recognise a brand name of a known manufacturer of a luxury item and not a basic one.

* Updating the cards due to their "smart" ability will also be cheaper and easier than having to start printing more paper (and again, the further cost runs of that!)

* The digital banking network connection structures are already in place, connecting between the state funds and debit systems which allows those funds to be withdrawn!

The already possible costings are a lot less then what's made out - made out by some who anyway, does not want such a system in place so they use "costing" as a further reason to justify the rejection of the idea!

Its an excuse that just does not wash!

Venom wrote: »

And if this card is limited to certain chain stores will there be proper legislation put in place to prevent these stores from being able to raise prices to gouge the new captive market?

I wouldn't bet on it.

Be it food stamps and/or a card system, such practises could happen in either case so denying the use of one and some justifying the other on the above reason alone, does not compute!

I keep hearing the cry "start-up costs will be too much".
Well in some cases, we have to think beyond the start-up costs. And as there will always be unemployed (a long term problem - not a short one!), there will always be the need for the most long run cheaper system to be using.
In this case the use of cards versus our present system, just might be a possible way of reaping benefits to all - and not just to the state or unemployed separately!

curlzy · 04-11-2010 01:01PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

you're either not following the proposal here curlzy or you're ignoring the bits that you dont want to here. go back a bit and you'll see this:

proposal included a set amount in cash which should be enough for a reasonable amount of booze and fags, bus fares, petrol etc.

all clothing allowances such as back to school etc would also be put on the card and can be spent anywhere (just not casinos, pubs, offys and other 'luxuries').

you keep bringing this back to SW recipients being branded 'second class citizens', this is not the case! as someone pointed out, the reason they introduced this card in Cali was because it saved face for people - i dont understand how sticking a card into debit machine like people do 10 times a day is humiliating!

Firstly the card was introduced in Cali so people wouldn't have to produce food vouchers, so while it's less humiliating for them, it's defo more humiliating for us in comparison to cash. And as much as you like to think that having your weekly budget worked out doesn't make you a second class citizen, you're wrong, I wonder if you would feel the same if the government proposed to control how YOU spent you money???

and you're also ignorjing the whole point of SW - it IS to pay for food and essentials - it IS decided from the outset that that is what it's supposed to pay for.

curlzy, you and people like you need to understand that there ARE people screwing the SW, it's not everybody obviously but it's enough that soomething needs to be done! someone mentioned earlier that if you're a young lad living at home, should you be expected to spend your dole on food...the answer is a resounding YES!! me and you are NOT liable for a young fellas boozing money - not when the country is facing the biggest cut back in spending in history.

Don't be so condesending Biffo, I do understand that some people are screwing the system, but what you've got to understand is that I know more about the social welfare system than you do, as evidenced by all the completely incorrect facts being spewed out here. With reviews, checks, unannounced visits, anonymous reports, etc the people that screw the system are being saught out and cut off, that's what SWIs are for (Social Welfare Inspectors).

there is nothing draconian or degrading about this proposal - this is about a simple change in our welfare system to ensure that there is SOME degree of responsibilty taken for the money people recieve from the state, that it is about WELFARE, not 'entitlement' to spend the money on nights out on the town or a bag of weed.

You obviously don't know what draconian means because this proposal is exactly that. This proposal is about controlling people who according to you are pissing away their children's food money, not only is this proposal draconian but your opinion and stance on SW recipients are too.

dont respond with this 'you are branding everybody a waster line', it's old and i'm not. i'm saying that there is enough f'ucked up people out there playing the system that they're starting to ruin it for everybody.

No there's no more people playing the system now than there was before, in fact the rules for getting SW are getting more stringent all the time; GSW condition is now much harder to fill, HRC condition is the same. The amount of allowable days on Jobseekers Benefit (JB) has been dropped from 390 days to 312 days and it is now 234 days if you have less than 5 years on your employment record.

trust me, if things keep going the way they're going it'll be back to food and butter vouchers and then we'll be talking proper degradation - not the 'degradation' of using a f'uckin debit card to pay for your groceries...

Biffo, I thought it easiest to quote you and then put my replies in bold.

thebigbiffo · 04-11-2010 01:22PM

Firstly the card was introduced in Cali so people wouldn't have to produce food vouchers, so while it's less humiliating for them, it's defo more humiliating for us in comparison to cash. And as much as you like to think that having your weekly budget worked out doesn't make you a second class citizen, you're wrong, I wonder if you would feel the same if the government proposed to control how YOU spent you money???

first, i dont believe it's more humiliating to use a debit card for purchases than cash and if things start getting any worse food vouchers will be back on the table very quickly
second, nobody's suggesting your weekly budget is planned for you. it's simply saying that welfare money is NOT used on anything that's not directly linked to the persons welfare and upkeep.
third, i have my own money that i can do what i want with. welfare money is NOT the recipients 'own money' - it's the states. and it's there to be used for the upkeep of the individual and their family for the sake of society.

You obviously don't know what draconian means because this proposal is exactly that. This proposal is about controlling people who according to you are pissing away their children's food money, not only is this proposal draconian but your opinion and stance on SW recipients are too.

you keep trying to paint me as against everyone on welfare, i'm not. there is nothing wrong with a society trying to ensure that welfare money is spent correctly. when you are 'dependent' on welfare meaning you are dependent on the state as as such have a responsibilty to the state to not waste that money. a system which holds you more responsible for where your money goes is not a bad thing imo.

btw:
From the Athenian lawmaker Draco, known for making harsh laws.
/SIZE][URL="http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=draconian&action=edit&section=4"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]edit[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 Adjective

draconian (comparative more draconian, superlative most draconian)

Very severe, oppressive or strict. The despot chose a draconian punishment. The Nazi regime was draconian. The mayor announced draconian budget cuts today

i dont believe there is anything draconian about this proposal - it would not hinder in anyway the vast majority of people on the dole, only those abusing it.

No there's no more people playing the system now than there was before, in fact the rules for getting SW are getting more stringent all the time; GSW condition is now much harder to fill, HRC condition is the same. The amount of allowable days on Jobseekers Benefit (JB) has been dropped from 390 days to 312 days and it is now 234 days if you have less than 5 years on your employment record.

what you are saying here is that things are tightening up - this is only a suggestion to further ensure the system is tight and not as open to abuse, thus making inspectors jobs easier to do. the fact is, if recipients are using their dole money correctly - as the vast vast majority are, then there should be no inconvienience on these people - you are ignoring the fact that the only people who will be in any way put out by this system are the people spending too much on drink, fags, drugs or anything else 'inappropriate'...

curlzy · 04-11-2010 01:49PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

first, i dont believe it's more humiliating to use a debit card for purchases than cash and if things start getting any worse food vouchers will be back on the table very quickly second, nobody's suggesting your weekly budget is planned for you. it's simply saying that welfare money is NOT used on anything that's not directly linked to the persons welfare and upkeep.
third, i have my own money that i can do what i want with. welfare money is NOT the recipients 'own money' - it's the states. and it's there to be used for the upkeep of the individual and their family for the sake of society.

Firstly you are completely wrong when you say it is is the states money. It's the recipients money as laid down by the Social Welfare consolidation Acts. This argument is going to go on for ever if you keep expressing your opinion as fact:rolleyes:. The recepients receives the money as an entitlement in accordance with guidelines and legislation as proscribed by the Social Welfare Minister, once the money transferrs to them it IS theirs.

you keep trying to paint me as against everyone on welfare, i'm not. there is nothing wrong with a society trying to ensure that welfare money is spent correctly. when you are 'dependent' on welfare meaning you are dependent on the state as as such have a responsibilty to the state to not waste that money. a system which holds you more responsible for where your money goes is not a bad thing imo.

btw:
From the Athenian lawmaker Draco, known for making harsh laws.
/SIZE][URL="http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=draconian&action=edit&section=4"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]edit[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 Adjective

draconian (comparative more draconian, superlative most draconian)
Very severe, oppressive or strict. The despot chose a draconian punishment. The Nazi regime was draconian. The mayor announced draconian budget cuts today

i dont believe there is anything draconian about this proposal - it would not hinder in anyway the vast majority of people on the dole, only those abusing it.

You and I have very different opinions on the meaning of the words severe, oppressive and strict, as such I find it of no benefit to continue on with this point as it is just pedantic.

what you are saying here is that things are tightening up - this is only a suggestion to further ensure the system is tight and not as open to abuse, thus making inspectors jobs easier to do. the fact is, if recipients are using their dole money correctly - as the vast vast majority are, then there should be no inconvienience on these people - you are ignoring the fact that the only people who will be in any way put out by this system are the people spending too much on drink, fags, drugs or anything else 'inappropriate'...

Again you are expressing an incorrect opinion as fact. Putting the money into the recipents debit card would in fact make the SWI's job much harder. As it is, when the recipient doesn't collect their payment from the post office or cash the cheque then money automaticly reverts to the Dept of Social Protection within a certain time, this gives a heads up to the SWI that the claimant may have come to Ireland, signed on and then left the country. The debit card idea completely takes away this safety measure.

California limits use of welfare 'debit cards' to essential purchases

Comments