US laws prevent the use of welfare in liquor stores and gambling establishments

Scioch · 09-07-2012 8:56pm

I'm sick of all this "people are better off on the dole, they are all lazy scroungers." crap.

Chuck Stone said it perfectly with.

Ah yeah, stagnating on the dole, having your confidence sapped away and becoming socially isolated is better than having a weekly wage, being involved with your colleagues, progressing in your career/life, adding value to your CV and skills.

Thats exactly what its like for a lot of people and I'm sure they would gladly trade their medical card for a career, steady wage and life. I know I sure as fcuk would.

crapmanjoe · 09-07-2012 8:59pm

well so much for not starting a dole bashing thread

I think peoples reactions here are hilarious

All the US is trying to do is limit what welfare is being used on. By its very definition welfare is "the provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all citizen".

I think we can all agree that booze, gambling and adult entertainment do not fall into these categories.

I think if the system works, or even helps minimize / reduce money being spent on these areas than the law is worth while and that it should be something we should be looking into as well.

maykitrayen · 09-07-2012 9:03pm

Welfare reform in the UK and now welfare reform in the US.

I'm looking forward to similar welfare reform here. I've no problem with the amount of money people are receiving but there is absolutely no way that welfare should be allowed be spent on alcohol/cigarettes/gambling/etc. or any other luxury that those working and paying the tax to pay those on welfare can't afford or are scraping to afford for themselves at the moment.

I would imagine we'll see tougher measures coming in this December and welcome them with open arms. We've an unemployment rate of 15%, but 4% of that 15% chose to remain unemployed throughout the boom years and I want to see that 4% suffer.

Tombi! · 09-07-2012 9:04pm

Always wanted to ask this (and please, if the answer is a yes/no but X, feel free to explain your answer): Those of you think that people on dole (not long term ones, just the ones that are generally having trouble since the last 4-5 years snce the recession hit) shouldn't spend money on drink, what do you think of the politicians spending hours drinking and going into work hungover?

Or better yet, what about the people wgo on a night out on go in to work hungover and do a half ass job because of the hangover?

Jesus Shaves · 09-07-2012 9:07pm

maykitrayen wrote: »

Welfare reform in the UK and now welfare reform in the US.

I'm looking forward to similar welfare reform here. I've no problem with the amount of money people are receiving but there is absolutely no way that welfare should be allowed be spent on alcohol/cigarettes/gambling/etc. or any other luxury that those working and paying the tax to pay those on welfare can't afford or are scraping to afford for themselves at the moment.

I would imagine we'll see tougher measures coming in this December and welcome them with open arms. We've an unemployment rate of 15%, but 4% of that 15% chose to remain unemployed throughout the boom years and I want to see that 4% suffer.

What about the 11%, should they suffer too?

Jesus Shaves · 09-07-2012 9:07pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Always wanted to ask this (and please, if the answer is a yes/no but X, feel free to explain your answer): Those of you think that people on dole (not long term ones, just the ones that are generally having trouble since the last 4-5 years snce the recession hit) shouldn't spend money on drink, what do you think of the politicians spending hours drinking and going into work hungover?

Or better yet, what about the people wgo on a night out on go in to work hungover and do a half ass job because of the hangover?

They should get fired and their jobs given to people on the dole

maykitrayen · 09-07-2012 9:09pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Always wanted to ask this (and please, if the answer is a yes/no but X, feel free to explain your answer): Those of you think that people on dole (not long term ones, just the ones that are generally having trouble since the last 4-5 years snce the recession hit) shouldn't spend money on drink, what do you think of the politicians spending hours drinking and going into work hungover?

Or better yet, what about the people wgo on a night out on go in to work hungover and do a half ass job because of the hangover?

Alcohol is a luxury and luxuries should be earned. If the politicians want to have a few drinks at the end of a day of work, by all means let them. The same goes for private sector employees. They're working, earning and contributing so if they've a few quid to spend on pints at the end of paying their bills then good for them, let them enjoy it.

Luxuries in return for nothing is incentivizing doing nothing.

The rest of the stuff about how well someone works after a night out has absolutely nothing to do with it.

crapmanjoe · 09-07-2012 9:11pm

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

They should get fired and their jobs given to people on the dole

For being hungover - jesus every accountant would be out of a job in a week - speaking from experience here

Sunnyisland · 09-07-2012 9:12pm

As well as the smokers and drinkers what about the overweight/obese people,Maybe we can make sure they only spend there dole on healthy food, No ice cream or sweets for them folks.

This idea wont work and would/will be impossible to implement.

maykitrayen · 09-07-2012 9:13pm

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

What about the 11%, should they suffer too?

No, but not having access to luxuries such as cigarettes and booze isn't suffering. It's something that quite a few people who are working can't afford themselves so absolutely should not be freely available for those who are doing nothing to enjoy.

They can enjoy them all they like when they're back to work.

With regards to that 4%, I think taking better aim at the long term unemployed is what I'm talking about and given that everything is tracked by PPS, it is both easy to gather statistics on how many would be affected and who those that would be affected are.

Personally I think newcomers to social welfare should be on a higher rate than they're on currently and have it decrease with time spent on it. It's stupid that someone who is laid off from their job this week will get the same money as some leech who has sat around on welfare for the last 10 years because he preferred to spend his days having cans with his other unemployed friends than trying to get his situation back together, as the newly unemployed person would be.

Tombi! · 09-07-2012 9:15pm

You say alcohol and smoking are luxuries.

I say they're addictions.

Force people to get help, not just say "you're a bum, we're treating you like scum".

Dartz · 09-07-2012 9:17pm

I love the killjoys who think the necessities of life stop at food and water.... and maybe a roof if you're lucky.

I fu hope you get hit with the redundancy stick. Then we'll see how much you like it. The arrogance of some people in this thread astonishes me. I think the only valid explanation is that the air up on top of your high horse must be so thin that it's getting to your brains or something. That horse of yours is standing on very brittle legs.... it wouldn't take much for them to break now, would it?

Well guess what?

The vast majority of people on the dole are actively searching for work. And the vast majority will be made to suffer and put up with **** for the actions of a minority of ****ehawks.

And. quite simply, banning the purchase of alcohol, or heroin, or cannabis has never worked in the past, has it? I mean, who here's been 14 years old and had some random oulfella go into an off-license and buy a few cans for them?

Come on, own up.

All this law will achieve is making some old farts happy with themselves while the high-horse brigade can grow smug sniffing their own goddamned farts.

That, and drive it underground. And if I go through the effort of saving my money then I will spend it however I goddamned please. And **** you if you think you can tell me otherwise. Because, quite frankly, after listening to the ****e in this thread I need a good stiff drink.

spacecookie555 · 09-07-2012 9:17pm

I'd agree with you on some points Vard, I honestly think that the nearly half a million people on the dole now should be supported through 3rd level education, reduce the dole a bit and use the excess to pay the colleges then at the end of the 3years instead of having half a million unskilled unemployed people you would have half a million highly educated people ready for employment. Let them choose their degree, a course that would suit families with kids etc...

And anyone who refuses cut their dole severely because no one has an excuse to turn up free education imo, id love a free education, Id take the hand and all off of someone who offered it.

I think something like this would really work and pay off but sadly I doubt the government would ever implement it.

Tombi! · 09-07-2012 9:19pm

Dartz wrote: »

And if I go through the effort of saving my money then I will spend it however I goddamned please. And **** you if you think you can tell me otherwise.

Excuse me? SAVINGS?! You can't have savings while you're on the dole! :mad:

Now, give me back my money since my taxes pay for it, filthy scrounger :cool:

Yes it's sarcasm

Boskowski · 09-07-2012 9:19pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Always wanted to ask this (and please, if the answer is a yes/no but X, feel free to explain your answer): Those of you think that people on dole (not long term ones, just the ones that are generally having trouble since the last 4-5 years snce the recession hit) shouldn't spend money on drink, what do you think of the politicians spending hours drinking and going into work hungover?

Or better yet, what about the people wgo on a night out on go in to work hungover and do a half ass job because of the hangover?

I would say that's off topic.

maykitrayen · 09-07-2012 9:22pm

spacecookie555 wrote: »

I'd agree with you on some points Vard, I honestly think that the nearly half a million people on the dole now should be supported through 3rd level education, reduce the dole a bit and use the excess to pay the colleges then at the end of the 3years instead of having half a million unskilled unemployed people you would have half a million highly educated people ready for employment. Let them choose their degree, a course that would suit families with kids etc...

And anyone who refuses cut their dole severely because no one has an excuse to turn up free education imo, id love a free education, Id take the hand and all off of someone who offered it.

I think something like this would really work and pay off but sadly I doubt the government would ever implement it.

There's already a back to education scheme available for those who've been on the dole for a while.

Giving blanketed free education out to those who are unemployed removes the incentive for people to not be unemployed post-secondary level i.e go straight into college. You then put an even bigger debt on the taxpayers pocket when instead of subsidizing the colleges and paying the way for those on welfare as they currently do, they would be paying the dole for basically every secondary school leaver and the college costs for those people too.

It's a well meaning but ludicrous suggestion.

Guy:Incognito · 09-07-2012 9:25pm

El Weirdo wrote: »

Fuck it, lets just let the dole scum live on Soylent Green and have it done with.

:rolleyes:

Yes because how will they possibly live without the state buyign them beer and paying for gambling. Oh, the humanity. How is this camparible to rubbish rabble rousing like that?

I'm on the dole btw.

Sunnyisland · 09-07-2012 9:28pm

Banning people from getting cigarettes or Alcohol will only open up another huge Black market which in itself will just fuel the Gangsters and criminals even more,There is already a huge cigarette black market in this country which costs the state billions in revenue every year,Its a no go from every reasonable side you look at it.

Guy:Incognito · 09-07-2012 9:30pm

Sinfonia wrote: »

Land of the free indeed.

How ridiculous that anybody would support this idea. Those who work and complain about how the recipients of 'their' tax money spend it should consider how very, very little an individual actually contributes. The purpose of social welfare is that we, as a supposedly civilised society, help each other rather than simply allow the unemployed to die. .

How will the unemployed die without beer and gambling?

stephendevlin · 09-07-2012 9:35pm

whats wrong with gambling?? our bankers do it with our money all the time

maykitrayen · 09-07-2012 9:41pm

stephendevlin wrote: »

whats wrong with gambling?? our bankers do it with our money all the time

Oh yawn.
Does this stuff still impress anyone? Is there anyone that isn't tired of seeing this crap dragged into every conversation in the country these days?

Sinfonia · 09-07-2012 9:42pm

c_man wrote: »

Yeah, it's scary that some people here are advocating those unhappy with the status quo should emigrate.

Why?

crapmanjoe wrote: »

I think peoples reactions here are hilarious

All the US is trying to do is limit what welfare is being used on. By its very definition welfare is "the provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all citizen".

I think we can all agree that booze, gambling and adult entertainment do not fall into these categories.

And where does it end? Disallowing people freedom of choice is a horrible and dangerous thing to introduce into a society.

maykitrayen wrote: »

I'm looking forward to similar welfare reform here. I've no problem with the amount of money people are receiving but there is absolutely no way that welfare should be allowed be spent on alcohol/cigarettes/gambling/etc. or any other luxury that those working and paying the tax to pay those on welfare can't afford or are scraping to afford for themselves at the moment.

Once again, an individual pays such a tiny amount toward it. People shouldn't think that they own the right to say what unemployed people should or should not buy. Almost everything that exists is a luxury.

spacecookie555 · 09-07-2012 9:43pm

maykitrayen wrote: »

spacecookie555 wrote: »

I'd agree with you on some points Vard, I honestly think that the nearly half a million people on the dole now should be supported through 3rd level education, reduce the dole a bit and use the excess to pay the colleges then at the end of the 3years instead of having half a million unskilled unemployed people you would have half a million highly educated people ready for employment. Let them choose their degree, a course that would suit families with kids etc...

And anyone who refuses cut their dole severely because no one has an excuse to turn up free education imo, id love a free education, Id take the hand and all off of someone who offered it.

I think something like this would really work and pay off but sadly I doubt the government would ever implement it.

There's already a back to education scheme available for those who've been on the dole for a while.

Giving blanketed free education out to those who are unemployed removes the incentive for people to not be unemployed post-secondary level i.e go straight into college. You then put an even bigger debt on the taxpayers pocket when instead of subsidizing the colleges and paying the way for those on welfare as they currently do, they would be paying the dole for basically every secondary school leaver and the college costs for those people too.

It's a well meaning but ludicrous suggestion.

I know it has its downfalls sadly but maybe if we tweaked it in some ways we could get it working if people brainstormed together, you never know.

The back to education allowance is only for one year and I dont know of any degree you could do for a year, it must be very hard for families trying to get an education, they couldnt just get it for one year and then let the kids go hungry, its an awful system.

Even the grant is a joke I think the government thinks everyone is able to live at home while getting educated well thats not the case I moved out of a very volatile home environment when I was 16 and worked my way through school and it was so difficult, I worked for a coupla years after school and then lost my job, I was begrudged a miserable €100 to live on, €36 of which went on rent, I had to cut my food bill down to €12 a week to be able to pay other bills, it was horrific I just cried most days, I tried to get onto a fas course but I wasnt eligible because I wasnt claiming for long enough, I was so depressed, I really understand why suicide is now the leading cause of death in young people and for some people to look down on me and call me a scrounger is disgusting, those people are disgusting.

Sorry maykitrayen went off on a bit of a tangent there only the first part applies to your post.

Nodin · 09-07-2012 9:45pm

maykitrayen wrote: »

Oh yawn.
Does this stuff still impress anyone? Is there anyone that isn't tired of seeing this crap dragged into every conversation in the country these days?

Not half as tired of it as I am dole bashing threads, single mother bashing threads and the rest.

Muir · 09-07-2012 9:47pm

A few people are mentioning the 4% unemployment rate we had during the boom. Below 5% is considered full employment. I remember in Economics being told that this was due to the fact that at any given time there will be people who are between jobs.
Yes, I know there are a percentage of the population who just refuse to work but it's probably smaller than 4%.

I know welfare is supposed to provide a minimal standard of living, but to what extent can you impose things like this on people? I mean, should we bring it in to the extent that those on social welfare can only pay for bills, food & clothes and have no other forms of enjoyment in life? Then you will probably see an increase in depression amongst the unemployed.

These sort of things are great ideas in the boom times when there are people who just don't want to work. I don't think it's fair on people who have already lost their jobs, possibly their homes etc. Most of those people really are trying to get back into work or to reskill or upskill. But someone who has say paid their taxes for the past 30 years and lost their job because of the recession to be told that they can only spend money on x, y & z seems a bit unfair to me.

Tombi! · 09-07-2012 9:50pm

maykitrayen wrote: »

Oh yawn.
Does this stuff still impress anyone? Is there anyone that isn't tired of seeing this crap dragged into every conversation in the country these days?

You're either a re-reg/duplicate/new/lurker if you know so much.

I'm assuming you're a lurker like myself: The arguments aren't going to end. You were bashing the dole and then you get sick and tired of someone who posts something else that's commonly posted?

Muir · 09-07-2012 9:50pm

spacecookie555 wrote: »

I know it has its downfalls sadly but maybe if we tweaked it in some ways we could get it working if people brainstormed together, you never know.

The back to education allowance is only for one year and I dont know of any degree you could do for a year, it must be very hard for families trying to get an education, they couldnt just get it for one year and then let the kids go hungry, its an awful system.

Even the grant is a joke I think the government thinks everyone is able to live at home while getting educated well thats not the case I moved out of a very volatile home environment when I was 16 and worked my way through school and it was so difficult, I worked for a coupla years after school and then lost my job, I was begrudged a miserable €100 to live on, €36 of which went on rent, I had to cut my food bill down to €12 a week to be able to pay other bills, it was horrific I just cried most days, I tried to get onto a fas course but I wasnt eligible because I wasnt claiming for long enough, I was so depressed, I really understand why suicide is now the leading cause of death in young people and for some people to look down on me and call me a scrounger is disgusting, those people are disgusting.

Sorry maykitrayen went off on a bit of a tangent there only the first part applies to your post.

The back to education allowance is not only for one year & it's possibly the best scheme I've seen being offered to help the unemployed. You do have to be unemployed for a certain length of time - 6 months for PLCs and 9months for 3 level.

spacecookie555 · 09-07-2012 10:07pm

Muir wrote: »

spacecookie555 wrote: »

I know it has its downfalls sadly but maybe if we tweaked it in some ways we could get it working if people brainstormed together, you never know.

The back to education allowance is only for one year and I dont know of any degree you could do for a year, it must be very hard for families trying to get an education, they couldnt just get it for one year and then let the kids go hungry, its an awful system.

Even the grant is a joke I think the government thinks everyone is able to live at home while getting educated well thats not the case I moved out of a very volatile home environment when I was 16 and worked my way through school and it was so difficult, I worked for a coupla years after school and then lost my job, I was begrudged a miserable €100 to live on, €36 of which went on rent, I had to cut my food bill down to €12 a week to be able to pay other bills, it was horrific I just cried most days, I tried to get onto a fas course but I wasnt eligible because I wasnt claiming for long enough, I was so depressed, I really understand why suicide is now the leading cause of death in young people and for some people to look down on me and call me a scrounger is disgusting, those people are disgusting.

Sorry maykitrayen went off on a bit of a tangent there only the first part applies to your post.

The back to education allowance is not only for one year & it's possibly the best scheme I've seen being offered to help the unemployed. You do have to be unemployed for a certain length of time - 6 months for PLCs and 9months for 3 level.

Im so sorry Muir I just read up properly on it that is a fantastic scheme, I had no idea it was that good, wish I had, ah well thanks Muir I would have never known that.

maykitrayen · 09-07-2012 10:15pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

You're either a re-reg/duplicate/new/lurker if you know so much.

I'm assuming you're a lurker like myself: The arguments aren't going to end. You were bashing the dole and then you get sick and tired of someone who posts something else that's commonly posted?

I'm mainly a reader, more than anything. I tend to read a lot of Irish sites every day ranging from the Irish Times to Boards.ie. The new social attachment to sites such as the IT, The Journal, Independent etc. have created a new community element to the content posted on the site. Here, obviously, there's a forum where people can commentate on things.

Yet, there is this consistency in the new Irish internet community that regardless of the topic the banks and the government are dragged into it. No matter what, it's almost guaranteed to appear in any article you can find, regardless of what it's about. If it's an article on the weather, you'll have cretins talking about the government and the banks, if it's an article on ice cream, you'll have cretins talking about the government and banks.

When you throw in the weather we're experiencing, the uncertainty the economy faces and everything else we're dealing with at the moment, the last thing we need is a bunch of cúnts trying to make every, single topic of discussion into a political matter or even more bizarrely, something to do with the banks.

I think you'll find that I wasn't bashing the dole either, in fact I said that the base rate for new joiners should be increased, if anything. I will, however, bash perceived abuse of the social welfare or the sense of entitlement that has grown around social welfare in recent years. I literally cannot believe I read someone insinuating that alcohol and gambling can be counted as necessities previously in the thread. It's amazing what we've come to in such a short time.

Tombi! · 09-07-2012 10:20pm

maykitrayen wrote: »

I'm mainly a reader, more than anything. I tend to read a lot of Irish sites every day ranging from the Irish Times to Boards.ie. The new social attachment to sites such as the IT, The Journal, Independent etc. have created a new community element to the content posted on the site. Here, obviously, there's a forum where people can commentate on things.

Yet, there is this consistency in the new Irish internet community that regardless of the topic the banks and the government are dragged into it. No matter what, it's almost guaranteed to appear in any article you can find, regardless of what it's about. If it's an article on the weather, you'll have cretins talking about the government and the banks, if it's an article on ice cream, you'll have cretins talking about the government and banks.

When you throw in the weather we're experiencing, the uncertainty the economy faces and everything else we're dealing with at the moment, the last thing we need is a bunch of cúnts trying to make every, single topic of discussion into a political matter or even more bizarrely, something to do with the banks.

So a lurker (you basically read forums a lot, nothing bad despite the name sounding bad). But you can't complain about people dragging the banks or government into it when it's dealing with a well spoken about topic.

You have two groups on the extreme from "shoot the claimaints" to "give them more money, they need it" and everywhere in between. You can't blame people when they try to discuss something else that is also a drain on the ecomony and is also at fault for the current situation.

No, you weren't bashing the dole and that's fine. You weren't bashing people on the dole either. You were trying to say they don't "deserve" to spend their money (and it is their money, regardless of it's deserved or not) on what they wish. Now granted, child benefit is a different story and I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the people who are responsible and do manage to save money and do manage to budget well enough. If they can say "hey, I managed to get 20 euro left over, I might have a few cans and a takeout this week". You can't say "no, give the money "back" to the welfare".

US laws prevent the use of welfare in liquor stores and gambling establishments

Comments