NationStates Jolt Archive

How stupid is this? The state of Tennessee wants to limit lottery winnings for welfare recipients to $600.

I mean, really. If a poor person wins the lottery, it means one less poor person getting public assistance, right? How can that be bad? The state's reasoning is that people who receive public assistance can't afford lottery tickets and should not be buying them - why don't they just come out and make a law saying that you can't buy them if you're on welfare? Stupid.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/04/07/tennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl7|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2F07%2Ftennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor%2F

http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/stupid.jpg

Likely because the stimulus bill covered the unemployment normally covered by the state. So this shifts cost from State to federal government.
Once the stimulus money runs out for unemployment benefits and the states have to continue the benefits this law will be quietly repealed.

This does seem like quite a stupid idea.

Like they won't sell on winning tickets. Even people stupid enough to play the lottery can probably figure that out.

State lotteries should be banned though.

State lotteries should be banned though.

Care to support that view?

Rolling squid;14677611']Care to support that view?

It don't think the government should be in the business of grifting.

It don't think the government should be in the business of grifting.

But it makes the schools so much money.

It don't think the government should be in the business of grifting.

Ah. So no facts to back up your opinion.

The state of Tennessee wants to limit lottery winnings for welfare recipients to $600.
[...] The state's reasoning is that people who receive public assistance can't afford lottery tickets and should not be buying them - why don't they just come out and make a law saying that you can't buy them if you're on welfare?
That's a silly thing. If they are so concerned, they could rather make the lottery winners pay back their welfare benefits for the last X months out of the winnings. At least that wouldn't kill the whole idea of a lottery.

Won't this just put the state in an even worse situation than if they allowed them to keep their money?

Rolling squid;14677639']Ah. So no facts to back up your opinion.
This phrase should be banned.

How stupid is this? The state of Tennessee wants to limit lottery winnings for welfare recipients to $600.

I mean, really. If a poor person wins the lottery, it means one less poor person getting public assistance, right? How can that be bad? The state's reasoning is that people who receive public assistance can't afford lottery tickets and should not be buying them - why don't they just come out and make a law saying that you can't buy them if you're on welfare? Stupid.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/04/07/tennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl7|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2F07%2Ftennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor%2F

I think the idea is probably to get poor people to stop buying lottery tickets. Though they're probably the only ones who do with regularity.

But it makes the schools so much money.

Yah, but these schools turn out successive generations of people who lose money playing the lottery. So it's all a bit of a waste of time.

Easier just to give less money to the schools.

This phrase should be banned.

Source?

But it makes the schools so much money.

Ah yes. In California, budget cuts took away many of the non-basic classes - like music, art, PE, what have you. So, a lottery was instituted to get money to support these.

Guess what happened?

With the lottery money rolling in, the government (read idiots) decided to cut deeply into the basics (Math, English, History, what have you), so the lottery money is now used not for extras, but for basics. Teachers, already underpaid, are having to fund things like paper, classroom supplies, what have you, out of their salaries.

Oh yeah, the lottery's been real helpful to education. At this point, without the lottery, California would have no primary and secondary educational system.

This phrase should be banned.

Why?

Ah yes. In California, budget cuts took away many of the non-basic classes - like music, art, PE, what have you. So, a lottery was instituted to get money to support these s.

Guess what happened?

With the lottery money rolling in, the government (read idiots) decided to cut deeply into the basics (Math, English, History, what have you), so the lottery money is now used not for extras, but for basics. Teachers, already underpaid, are having to fund things like paper, classroom supplies, what have you, out of their salaries.

Oh yeah, the lottery's been real helpful to education. At this point, without the lottery, California would have no primary and secondary educational system.

That's not the fault of the lottery. the idea was a good one, it was just poorly executed. Blame the executors, not the plan.

Source?

There are times when I really like you.

Rolling squid;14677681']Why?



That's not the fault of the lottery. the idea was a good one, it was just poorly executed. Blame the executors, not the plan.

I didn't blame the lottery, I blamed the idiots (read government).

I didn't blame the lottery, I blamed the idiots (read government).

Fair enough. Your post seemed more targeted at the lottery, hence the response.

Rolling squid;14677681']Why?
Because 99% of the times it's used in response to expressions of preference, which shouldn't have "proof facts".

A: "I like cranberry juice."
B: "Link to the factual proof please!"

Because 99% of the times it's used in response to expressions of preference, which shouldn't have "proof facts".

A: "I like cranberry juice."
B: "Link to the factual proof please!"

Ah, but the context I used it in was acceptable, was it not?

Ah yes. In California, budget cuts took away many of the non-basic classes - like music, art, PE, what have you. So, a lottery was instituted to get money to support these.

Guess what happened?

With the lottery money rolling in, the government (read idiots) decided to cut deeply into the basics (Math, English, History, what have you), so the lottery money is now used not for extras, but for basics. Teachers, already underpaid, are having to fund things like paper, classroom supplies, what have you, out of their salaries.

Oh yeah, the lottery's been real helpful to education. At this point, without the lottery, California would have no primary and secondary educational system.

funny those in government most of them went to better schools yet they idiots , due to most likely having no street smarts

Rolling squid;14677712']Ah, but the context I used it in was acceptable, was it not?
It was not.

"I don't think the government should be in the business of grifting" is a statement of moral position. What facts could one possibly use to prove it - output logs of a mind-reading probe?

It was not.

"I don't think the government should be in the business of grifting" is a statement of moral position. What facts could one possibly use to prove it - output logs of a mind-reading probe?
Fool. We told you not to betray our secret. Now, we have but one choice. Get the Psychic Probe.

Ah yes. In California, budget cuts took away many of the non-basic classes - like music, art, PE, what have you. So, a lottery was instituted to get money to support these.

Guess what happened?

With the lottery money rolling in, the government (read idiots) decided to cut deeply into the basics (Math, English, History, what have you), so the lottery money is now used not for extras, but for basics. Teachers, already underpaid, are having to fund things like paper, classroom supplies, what have you, out of their salaries.

Oh yeah, the lottery's been real helpful to education. At this point, without the lottery, California would have no primary and secondary educational system.

Haven't had that sort of problem in Texas. They instituted the lottery and my school got a transmission electron microscope with the money. Seems to be a Texans handle their schools/budget better type thing.

There are times when I really like you.

I know how you feel.

http://images.inmagine.com/img/image100/07001/070010345.jpg

It was not.

"I don't think the government should be in the business of grifting" is a statement of moral position. What facts could one possibly use to prove it - output logs of a mind-reading probe?

Eh, not exactly. The statement "I don't believe the government should be in the business of grifting" is a moral statement, however, evidence is usually presented when talking about the immorality of gambling. These can be countered with facts supporting the good that the lottery does.

Rolling squid;14677830']Eh, not exactly. The statement "I don't believe the government should be in the business of grifting" is a moral statement, however, evidence is usually presented when talking about the immorality of gambling. These can be countered with facts supporting the good that the lottery does.
Morality doesn't have "evidence" to it. It's either inside you or it's not there. Calling something morally right or morally wrong is always an opinion.

Morality doesn't have "evidence" to it. It's either inside you or it's not there. Calling something morally right or morally wrong is always an opinion.

Yes, but some moral opinions are based upon facts. Those that aren't are useless for debate, and should be ignored.

I didn't blame the lottery, I blamed the idiots (read government).

I blame the people who keep electing them.

I blame the people who keep electing them.

By the morons, for the morons?

By the morons, for the morons?

I see you know the Californian Anthem.

Rolling squid;14677830'] These can be countered with facts supporting the good that the lottery does.

The ends justify the means eh?

The ends justify the means eh?

With a few exceptions, yes.

I see you know the Californian Anthem.

My home state stirs my heart nearly as much as it ransacks my income.

But it makes the schools so much money.

That's what taxes are for. And I don't mean a tax on being bad at math.

How stupid is this? The state of Tennessee wants to limit lottery winnings for welfare recipients to $600.

I mean, really. If a poor person wins the lottery, it means one less poor person getting public assistance, right? How can that be bad? The state's reasoning is that people who receive public assistance can't afford lottery tickets and should not be buying them - why don't they just come out and make a law saying that you can't buy them if you're on welfare? Stupid.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/04/07/tennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl7|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2F07%2Ftennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor%2F

Not stupid. Evil. Like everything else conservatives do. Conservatives, especially in the South, have a long history of punishing the already under privileged. This isn't about encouraging the poor to stop spending the money they don't have. If it were then they just wouldn't be allowed to buy the tickets. It's about nothing more than hating the poor and counting on the population of a southern conservative state to be similarly hateful.

Not stupid. Evil. Like everything else conservatives do. Conservatives, especially in the South, have a long history of punishing the already under privileged. This isn't about encouraging the poor to stop spending the money they don't have. If it were then they just wouldn't be allowed to buy the tickets. It's about nothing more than hating the poor and counting on the population of a southern conservative state to be similarly hateful.

I must disagree on your assessment of conservatives. By painting them all with the evil brush, you do a disservice to them. Yes, there are evil conservatives - Sarah Palin comes to mind. But a most of them just want what they think is best for all concerned - the problem is that what they think is best (and, sometimes, it is best) is different from what you think is best (and sometimes, what you think is best, isn't).

So, please, temper your liberal high horse with a little thought and don't just speak the first knee-jerk thought that comes to mind, it's dishonest and insullting, both to liberals and conservatives.

My home state stirs my heart nearly as much as it ransacks my income.

I got to wonder where you spend the money?
We don't even have a state income tax and we have enough money for our schools and roads.

That's what taxes are for. And I don't mean a tax on being bad at math.

So Gasoline tax shouldn't fund roads ?
So tobacco taxes shouldn't fund children's health care ?
We have tons on ways to gain revenue other then just the basic tax, why should the lotto be any different?

On the other hand, if someone is on benefits, they're getting public funds. Now, I have no problem with using public funds to help feed, clothe, and house people, but do we really want to be using public funds to let people gamble?

On the other hand, if someone is on benefits, they're getting public funds. Now, I have no problem with using public funds to help feed, clothe, and house people, but do we really want to be using public funds to let people gamble?

good idea Neo instead we will just give them a hand full of moldy bread.

Rolling squid;14677872']Yes, but some moral opinions are based upon facts. Those that aren't are useless for debate, and should be ignored.

Ok, the lottery in my home State of Washington started in the 80's sometime. This was a government saying ahh it's for schools to make it ok. Lotteries and the like are scams sanctioned by the state government.

http://www.walottery.com/sections/aboutus/Default.aspx?Page=History

What ended up happening is it ended up in the general fund. So they joined a even bigger lottery "for schools". You see this is an addiction by the government. No different than cigarette or other sin taxes. It's all a scam to get more money from the citizens to make them poor so the state can take care of them. It's a sick little circle if you ask me.

On the other hand, if someone is on benefits, they're getting public funds. Now, I have no problem with using public funds to help feed, clothe, and house people, but do we really want to be using public funds to let people gamble?

Yeah but this isn't actually banning them from gambling this it to ban them from getting more than $600 in winnings.

Besides once the government gives people money for them to use they should be allowed to do what they want with t.

So Gasoline tax shouldn't fund roads ?
So tobacco taxes shouldn't fund children's health care ?
We have tons on ways to gain revenue other then just the basic tax, why should the lotto be any different?

Those other things are "basic" tax. They're just not sales tax. But the lotto isn't a tax. It's government sponsored gambling. If the government just legalized gambling and taxed it then it would be exactly like taxing gasoline to fund roads, or cigarettes to fund health care.

What I was saying in the post you quoted was "we already have taxes to fund school. Why should the government also have to stoop to scams that regular people can get thrown in jail for?"

How stupid is this? The state of Tennessee wants to limit lottery winnings for welfare recipients to $600.

I mean, really. If a poor person wins the lottery, it means one less poor person getting public assistance, right? How can that be bad? The state's reasoning is that people who receive public assistance can't afford lottery tickets and should not be buying them - why don't they just come out and make a law saying that you can't buy them if you're on welfare? Stupid.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/04/07/tennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl7|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2F07%2Ftennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor%2F

Neocons hate poor people, especially southern, blue-collar neocons.
Alabama Democrats just tried to repeal the sales tax on groceries and it failed completely and utterly. Then the redneck neocons are actually applauding that because poor people should have to pay taxes on groceries because it is "fair."

Yah, but these schools turn out successive generations of people who lose money playing the lottery. So it's all a bit of a waste of time.

Easier just to give less money to the schools.

Believe me, they probably couldn't if they tried.

I must disagree on your assessment of conservatives. By painting them all with the evil brush, you do a disservice to them. Yes, there are evil conservatives - Sarah Palin comes to mind. But a most of them just want what they think is best for all concerned - the problem is that what they think is best (and, sometimes, it is best) is different from what you think is best (and sometimes, what you think is best, isn't).

So, please, temper your liberal high horse with a little thought and don't just speak the first knee-jerk thought that comes to mind, it's dishonest and insullting, both to liberals and conservatives.

It's not the first knee-jerk thing that comes to mind. Some of what you said had merit back in the days of Barry Goldwater. But everything that conservatives believe has been discredited for years.

Going to war just because you don't like a guy is evil. The only reason they bought the WMD/9-11 argument was because what they really wanted was to kill people. All the other motivations had been debunked.

Capital punishment doesn't deter crime. The only reason left to favor it is because they want to kill people.

Banning gay marriage does nothing to protect straight marriage or children. The only reason left is because they want to make gay people suffer.

Banning medical marijuana does nothing to protect people from harmful substances. All it does is ease the suffering of some very sick people. This is where conservative views become nuanced. Some of them want to ban it because they make money selling expensive drugs that are less effective. Their motivation is greed. The rest don't stand to benefit from this, so the only motivation left for them is to make sick people suffer.

Torture doesn't produce useful intelligence. The only reason to favor it is because you want to make prisoners suffer.

Even fiscal conservatives don't want to save government money as a limited resource. They keep running defecits. They just want to make government unable to function so that those who depend on it will suffer. As Grover Norquist (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Grover_Norquist) puts it "I don't want to abolish government, I just want to shrink it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub."

Sure, you can say that there are "good conservatives" out there, but how come they keep elevating their most psychotic and depraved people to prominence so that they can set the agenda?

There are no good conservatives. Maybe there were once a few good, but deluded conservatives, but today it is not possible to be so stupid that you still favor conservative values while retaining a shred of moral decency. It's just too obvious that conservative values cause too much pain and suffering to be good. To follow them you either have to want to cause pain and suffering, or you feel that you might stand to gain something by causing that pain and suffering and you don't care how much others might suffer for your slim chance at a slight gain.

A good conservative is like a good Klansman. The appropriate adjective for both of them is "former."

Conservatives oppose(d): environmental protection, seat belts in cars, civil rights for minorities, government sponsored medical care, women's rights, gay rights, free-speech rights...

There's no end to the good things that conservatives oppose, and their given reasons are always debunked outright, and they just go on believing because not so deep down what they really want is to make people suffer. It may sound like an extreme statement, but there's really no other reason left behind what they do. All the stated ones have been debunked.

How stupid is this? The state of Tennessee wants to limit lottery winnings for welfare recipients to $600.
More than stupid it looks unfair to me.
Mr.A buys a ticket for 1$ with -let's say- 1/1000000 chances of winning. Mr.B buys a ticket for 1$ with exactly the same chances.
But, in case of winning, Mr.B gets less than Mr.A because Mr.B is on welfare: sounds quite unfair, doesn't it? They paid the same amount, they are supposed to have the same chances of winning - that's the point of lotteries.

Tennessee, where even irrational hope is just for the rich.


why don't they just come out and make a law saying that you can't buy them if you're on welfare? Stupid.

^this.

Btw, by the same standard, they should also forbid people who are on welfare to buy useless luxuries like videogames, music, cigarettes, alcohol...

Capital punishment doesn't deter crime. The only reason left to favor it is because they want to kill people.

Actually, capital punishment does deter crime. What America calls capital punishment - being condemned to death then living in jail for decades before getting offed quietly - doesn't

^this.
Neocons hate poor people, especially southern neocons. They want to keep taking poor people's money without having to give anything back to them.

They should rename the lottery the 'stupid people tax'.

They should rename the lottery the 'stupid people tax'.

Never heard that one before. Did you spend all night on it?

How stupid is this? The state of Tennessee wants to limit lottery winnings for welfare recipients to $600.

I mean, really. If a poor person wins the lottery, it means one less poor person getting public assistance, right? How can that be bad? The state's reasoning is that people who receive public assistance can't afford lottery tickets and should not be buying them - why don't they just come out and make a law saying that you can't buy them if you're on welfare? Stupid.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/04/07/tennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl7|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2F07%2Ftennessee-looks-to-cap-lottery-winnings-at-600-for-poor%2F
Wants to and will do are two very separate things. Further, it would be more accurate to say a legislator in Tennessee wants to ...

But they're on the right track. The poor don't know how to manage themselves or their money. If they did, they wouldn't buy lottery tickets, they'd fill out employment applications. They wouldn't buy cigarettes, they'd answer help wanted ads.

Maybe if they just made the poor person repay the burden that they've placed on society...

Actually, capital punishment does deter crime. What America calls capital punishment - being condemned to death then living in jail for decades before getting offed quietly - doesn't

Then let's do it like those beloved Muslims... Steal something, lose a limb. Kill someone, or be a homosexual, or a raped single girl, then lose a life. Right then and there.

Those other things are "basic" tax. They're just not sales tax. But the lotto isn't a tax. It's government sponsored gambling. If the government just legalized gambling and taxed it then it would be exactly like taxing gasoline to fund roads, or cigarettes to fund health care.

What I was saying in the post you quoted was "we already have taxes to fund school. Why should the government also have to stoop to scams that regular people can get thrown in jail for?"

It not a scam it is a voluntary donation. With a slight chance to give a reward for your good deeds.

Then let's do it like those beloved Muslims... Steal something, lose a limb. Kill someone, or be a homosexual, or a raped single girl, then lose a life. Right then and there.

Kill a Christian and be a hero...

there are some positive things... ;)