Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 3:15 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Welfare & Jackpot Lottery Winners

Topic closed. 167 replies. Last post 5 years ago by RL-RANDOMLOGIC.

Page 2 of 12
2.65
PrintE-mailLink

Is It Ethical For $1M+ Lottery Winners to Continue Collecting State Welfare?

Yes, if still unemployed, I'm entitled to it. [ 8 ]  [14.04%]
It depends... [ 8 ]  [14.04%]
No, if you still want more money, get a job! [ 22 ]  [38.60%]
No, those caught doing so should be thrown in jail [ 19 ]  [33.33%]
Total Valid Votes [ 57 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 2 ]  
Win$500Quick's avatar - Lottery-050.jpg
Florida
United States
Member #77815
August 1, 2009
3459 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 7, 2012, 12:46 pm - IP Logged

I just saw the story on the news. What is it with Michigan lottery winners and food stamps? First Leroy Fick now Amanda Clayton. If you are living on state aid, how do you have money to spend on the lottery.

Guess Who's Back?

    New York's avatar - 103h4yr
    NYC
    United States
    Member #117984
    October 19, 2011
    1843 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 7, 2012, 12:51 pm - IP Logged

    I just saw the story on the news. What is it with Michigan lottery winners and food stamps? First Leroy Fick now Amanda Clayton. If you are living on state aid, how do you have money to spend on the lottery.

    They use the money from their welfare check. I think they get like $100 a month and use the remaining change to buy some quick-picks or something.

      sully16's avatar - sharan
      Ringleader
      Michigan
      United States
      Member #81740
      October 28, 2009
      40340 Posts
      Online
      Posted: March 7, 2012, 12:56 pm - IP Logged

      They use the money from their welfare check. I think they get like $100 a month and use the remaining change to buy some quick-picks or something.

      I've seen people get as much as $5000.00 in food and $3000.00 in cash.

      Did you exchange a walk on part in the war ?

      For a lead role in a cage?

       

                                                  From Pink Floyd's " Wish you were here"

        New York's avatar - 103h4yr
        NYC
        United States
        Member #117984
        October 19, 2011
        1843 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 7, 2012, 1:00 pm - IP Logged

        I've seen people get as much as $5000.00 in food and $3000.00 in cash.

        Same here. They usually claim kids on their taxes or have like 5 kids for more money. I mean, it's ridiculous. Hey I guess that's how they survive. 

        $5000 in food stamps! Scared


          United States
          Member #111442
          May 25, 2011
          6323 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 7, 2012, 1:22 pm - IP Logged

          glad u got that off your chest.<snip> that was a long post.more like a story.have u guys ever seen the Dave chapelle show episope with the wrap it up box.thats what he needed."wrap that s..t up B. lolBed

          This post has been automatically changed by the Lottery Post computer system to remove inappropriate content and/or spam.

          I guess If I had the spare time, I'd be nice to read in it's entirety some of these long winded threads. Why is it that forums of "lottery discussion"

          have to take on such huge deviations into personal political commentaries? Not to disagree with your positions, just that there are other forums

          or Blogs available for such deviated discussions. Maybe we should change the name of "lottery discussions" to "whatever is bothering" you forums.

            rdgrnr's avatar - walt
            Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
            United States
            Member #73904
            April 28, 2009
            14903 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 7, 2012, 1:33 pm - IP Logged

            I've seen people get as much as $5000.00 in food and $3000.00 in cash.

            Yep, just keep poppin' out them babies and the libs'll give you a raise each time you do.

            Just make sure the old man is out of the house when the worker comes.

            And teach all your kids that the government is supposed to support them all their lives too.


                                                         
                                 
                                                     

             

             

             

             

                                                                                                               

            "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                        --Edmund Burke

             

             

              rdgrnr's avatar - walt
              Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
              United States
              Member #73904
              April 28, 2009
              14903 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 7, 2012, 2:03 pm - IP Logged

              I think the major problem with our country is the "entitlement attitude" that pervades every sector and corner of our country, from government officials and workers, to union employees to hourly employees to school children and adults of all ages and even to military members and their families.  Now I don't just throw out a controversial statement like that without providing background and proof.

              Government service used to be just that, but now all you hear from heads of government agencies is that, "If they were in a private sector company in the same position, they would be getting paid X amount of dollars instead of Y amount of dollars, so their pay, pension, medical and other fringe benefits are justified."  Well, Mr/Mrs. Government official/worker, you are not working in the private sector.  Private sector pay is usually based upon market conditions as well as performance whereas government pay and compensation is largely determined by credentials, longevity, and politics.  Also, there is a reason government workers are called "servants" for a reason; your pay is derived from your constituents so any comparisons to private sector compensation are invalid and not applicable. 

              Now let me rant on about CEOs.  No I am not one of these escalating the non-sensical dialogue of 1 percent vs. 99 percent.  One good thing I can say about this is that at least the majority of Americans can do simple math even though many are challenged in other important areas like history, geography, economics (understanding of economic principles), and common sense.  Yes, there is a disturbing trend of CEOs being rewarded for failure and often to the detriment of shareholders.  The problem is the board of directors not performing their fiduciary and due diligence duties.  But hey, many board of directors are getting richly compensated for very little time committed to actually watching over the well-being of the company whose trust the shareholders have placed in them to guard against incompetency in CEO/CFO.  I think the blame can be traced back to Masters of Business Administration schools breeding this element of entitlement among those placed in executive positions of publically owned companies.  News Flash:  If a rank and file worker fails miserably at job, that worker is usually summarily fired and only leaves to collect unemployment benefits.  But if a CEO runs company into the ground to the extent that it requires government intervention, that CEO and other top executives receives bonuses.  And this even happens when company still survives without government intervention and the board finally makes responsible decision to can the CEO...the CEO still usually leaves with a nice golden parachute.

              Don't get me started about unions.  Yes they were necessary over 30 years ago, but now labor laws are now usually slanted in favor of workers today and renders unions as irrelevant as the NAACP.  Really, when was the last time the NAACP did anything beneficial and noteworthy?  Another example of two types of organizations that have outlived their purpose but fight to continue to exist because the alternative is those in positions of leadership in those orgs would be left unemployed....and we can't have that!  So unions continue to exist and fight for "benefits" that render parent company more uncompetitive with global economy.  Don't believe me?  Well, the auto companies used to could not lay off or furlough unneeded factory workers without still paying them a large percentage of their salary to DO NOTHING!  What company do you know of that, when forced to reduce output due to market slowdown still had to pay non-working employees 50 to 75 percent of their salaries, and still show a profit?  That is precisely the reason the US automakers were continually losing hundreds of millions of dollars each year just like the airlines before they got rid of the unnecessary bloated union contract provisions.  If you are in a union, good on you.  But if you look at companies objectively and compare companies composed of non-union workers and those with union workers, your analysis will reveal that the non-union companies are more profitable than the unionized companies.

              School children entitlement.  I need not say much about this except it is evident from all the children's rights and children's esteem movement that children today have an entitlement attitude.  That might be the reason you hear of so many "going postal" incidents in schools today whereas when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, you never heard of such.  Also, today's children feel they are entitled to eat junk food and the administrators and parents acquiesce to their demands.  So what has that gotten America?  An epidemic of childhood obesity and the associated problems that go along with people who are overweight such as increased rates of childhood Type 2 diabetes (that is the preventable type), heart disease, joint problems, and cancer.  It is no surprise that Obama's Affordable Health Care Act is costing much more than he and his administration projected because many of the previously uninsured are families with obese parents and children.  For those who want to dispute that, please check your states obesity percentage and you will find that in many places, over 60 percent of adults and children are obese.  It doesn't take too much of a stretch in thought to also consider that many families living in poverty in the inner city without easy access to grocery stores selling more affordable healthy food options resort to eating at the many fast food joints in the neighborhood, and you can see from the combination of eating high calorie fast food and limited physical activity due to relative danger in the streets has resulted in majority of the poor adults and children becoming overweight.  More health problems means more healthcare utilization and therefore higher medical costs for all.  So get used to it unless Obamacare is repealed (yeah I know that is a bit off topic but it is relevant info).

              Lastly, I, myself, am a military veteran and continue to serve in a part-time role (though sometimes it feels very much full-time due to my responsiblities).  I have served all over the US as a military member and have met many military families from the East coast to the West coast.  I also keep abreast of seemingly innocuous current events.  Yes, I have sacrificed for the benefit of my country as have fellow veterans.  But I have encountered military spouses who moan and complain about store discount policies, facility entrance fees, and private business policies that do not always cater to or recognize military veterans.  For example, if a military member is on orders and staying at a hotel, they are entitled to receive the government contracted rate, and in some states, be exempt from taxes.  However, if the same member is not on orders and staying at hotel, the hotel is not obligated to honor the government contracted rate and it is likely fraudulent to claim tax exempt status in that instance.  Ditto with the airlines.  The airlines make the majority of their revenue from business class passengers.  Most US carriers will accommodate uniformed military personnel with upgrades to business class if possible, but again that is at the discretion of the airline and the situation.  One should not assume that military personnel will get automatic upgrade, or even expect that when traveling.  As I stated, I am a military member and also a frequent flyer in the highest status with one of the US carriers, but even I don't expect to receive an upgrade when I am traveling on a deeply discounted coach fare.  When I do get upgraded due to my frequent flyer status, I am appreciative of the upgrade, but when I don't get it because enough business class and unrestricted economy class flyers have bought up available business class seats (full fare economy ticket buyers at elite frequent flyer level usually get automatic upgrade to business class if seats are available within certain number of days of departure), I am content to sit in coach seat I was able to pre-select that allows me to deplane quickly or have more legroom.  The key is the attitude of expectation, and I would say the churches preaching a theology of prosperity gospel have not done America any favors because that just further breeds an attitude of expectation as opposed to an attitude of appreciation and humbleness.  Now it doesn't hurt to ask for a favor, but when denied, the person with an expectant, entitlement attitude will go out of their way to villify the company for not satisfying that person's request whereas the appreciative person would thank the person and contently go to assigned seat or place.  How else are military folk "entitled"?  Well, let's start with the pension program.  Actually, that is a subject that warrants its own topic of discussion.  Some people say because a person has on the frontlines and risked life and limb in service for country, they are entitled to receiving a pension after 20 years of service.  Well, today, hundreds of thousands of reservists who have served multiple stints in Iraq and Afghanistan have also been on the frontlines, but after 20 years, those members do not receive an immediate penion payment from the government after 20 years of service.  I am not advocating for it to be changed to that.  Rather, I was amused when I was leaving active duty after 9 years of service that the separation counselors made a point of telling those with 20 years or more of active service that they were not retiring, but rather they were just transitioning to other opportunities.  The majority of service members who leave the service after 20+ years of service continue to work in the government or private sector.  Entitlements now account for the majority of DoD budget due to result of income raises to match private sector pay, COLA, larger percentage of married members with more dependents (this is what DADT really was all about for the GLAAD/GLBT folks...no I am not of that community but if you don't know the acronyms you must have been living under a rock these past 3 years), and members living longer.  Just like social security, the current military retirement pension program is unsustainable and needs to be changed to match the provisions of receipt for 401k and reservist retirees, and that is that receipt of pension payments should only start after person turns 60 years of age.  Yes I know a person can withdraw from 401k before age 60, but not without paying a penalty.  The same thing should also apply for public sector workers like policemen and firefighters.

              Well I have thrown enough fuel on the fire but at least I put pools of water around to control the raging flames.

              VERY well put, OldSchoolPa.

              I agree 100%.    Thumbs Up


                                                           
                                   
                                                       

               

               

               

               

                                                                                                                 

              "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                          --Edmund Burke

               

               


                United States
                Member #79057
                August 26, 2009
                70 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 7, 2012, 2:20 pm - IP Logged

                This is absolutely wrong.  No lottery winner should ever be allowed to continue their public assistance.  Nor for that matter should anyone owning two homes...  sell one and live off the proceeds. 

                 

                But I get a laugh out of this whole debate because right from the get go, and knowing who posted this,  it was obvious that this was going to devolve from some idiots abusing the system and the politicians on both sides of the aisle who've allowed this to happen...into comments about entitlements and of course the hateful "lib" bashing.  I think you'd have to look long and hard to find a liberal who agrees with what this woman is doing, but that doesn't matter to someone pushing their own agenda.  Funny that some of the hard core conservatives on this site feel compelled to openly bash any group that doesn't agree with them on all issues... aren't they the ones that pride themselves on personal freedom??

                 

                When I joined LP it was all about talking about the lottery... now you can't look at the blogs without someone pushing their political agenda - and now it gets to spread into the forums?

                  Bigheadnick's avatar - badluck
                  Taunton, Ma
                  United States
                  Member #123005
                  February 11, 2012
                  136 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 7, 2012, 5:08 pm - IP Logged

                  This is absolutely wrong.  No lottery winner should ever be allowed to continue their public assistance.  Nor for that matter should anyone owning two homes...  sell one and live off the proceeds. 

                   

                  But I get a laugh out of this whole debate because right from the get go, and knowing who posted this,  it was obvious that this was going to devolve from some idiots abusing the system and the politicians on both sides of the aisle who've allowed this to happen...into comments about entitlements and of course the hateful "lib" bashing.  I think you'd have to look long and hard to find a liberal who agrees with what this woman is doing, but that doesn't matter to someone pushing their own agenda.  Funny that some of the hard core conservatives on this site feel compelled to openly bash any group that doesn't agree with them on all issues... aren't they the ones that pride themselves on personal freedom??

                   

                  When I joined LP it was all about talking about the lottery... now you can't look at the blogs without someone pushing their political agenda - and now it gets to spread into the forums?

                   I agree with most of this... This site is dominated by conservatives and many will use any subject to pile on the libs. I don't like either side of the aisle. It amuses me that both right and left continue to demonize eachother never acknowledging the good policies of the other side and simultaneously ignoring they're own party's faults. That's not to say I disagree with everything they're saying in here but this subject should not be a moritorium on liberal welfare policies.

                   As to the OP: Any lottery winnings that amount to as much as a years income for the average family of their particular size should automatically boot you off whatever assistance you recieve nevermind a million! With the one exception (permanant disability) In that case it should be a hold on the benefits for a year or if more, the years would equal the amount won. Just my opninion.

                    rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                    Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                    United States
                    Member #73904
                    April 28, 2009
                    14903 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 7, 2012, 6:04 pm - IP Logged

                     I agree with most of this... This site is dominated by conservatives and many will use any subject to pile on the libs. I don't like either side of the aisle. It amuses me that both right and left continue to demonize eachother never acknowledging the good policies of the other side and simultaneously ignoring they're own party's faults. That's not to say I disagree with everything they're saying in here but this subject should not be a moritorium on liberal welfare policies.

                     As to the OP: Any lottery winnings that amount to as much as a years income for the average family of their particular size should automatically boot you off whatever assistance you recieve nevermind a million! With the one exception (permanant disability) In that case it should be a hold on the benefits for a year or if more, the years would equal the amount won. Just my opninion.

                    "this subject should not be a moritorium on liberal welfare policies."

                    What?  I don't think that'd make sense even if it was spelled right.

                    OldSchoolPa started the thread and articulated his position on it very well.

                    It's called "Welfare & Jackpot Lottery Winners"

                    I don't see the problem.


                                                                 
                                         
                                                             

                     

                     

                     

                     

                                                                                                                       

                    "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                --Edmund Burke

                     

                     

                      CARBOB's avatar - FL LOTTERY_LOGO.png
                      ORLANDO, FLORIDA
                      United States
                      Member #4924
                      June 3, 2004
                      5893 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 7, 2012, 6:14 pm - IP Logged

                      "this subject should not be a moritorium on liberal welfare policies."

                      What?  I don't think that'd make sense even if it was spelled right.

                      OldSchoolPa started the thread and articulated his position on it very well.

                      It's called "Welfare & Jackpot Lottery Winners"

                      I don't see the problem.

                      Why can't the lottery office treat welfare receipants like they treat someone who owes back taxes or back child support?

                        JonnyBgood07's avatar - Patriots logo1.jpg
                        Connecticut
                        United States
                        Member #61623
                        May 29, 2008
                        20581 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 7, 2012, 6:15 pm - IP Logged

                        People who win any kind of jackpot should be paying back all the assistance they've ever received.

                        Afterall it is the tax payers money.

                        I just read the article and it's pretty pathetic that someone could think that it's ok to keep accepting benefits in a situation like that....irregardless that the state was dumb enough not to shut her down right away after she collected her winnings.

                        "No matter how bad things may get, I'd like to thank my middle finger

                        for always sticking up for me.."

                         


                          rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                          Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                          United States
                          Member #73904
                          April 28, 2009
                          14903 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 7, 2012, 6:19 pm - IP Logged

                          Why can't the lottery office treat welfare receipants like they treat someone who owes back taxes or back child support?

                          Excellent point, CARBOB.

                          It should be a debt that you have to pay back if you're ever able to.


                                                                       
                                               
                                                                   

                           

                           

                           

                           

                                                                                                                             

                          "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                      --Edmund Burke

                           

                           

                            rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                            Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                            United States
                            Member #73904
                            April 28, 2009
                            14903 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 7, 2012, 6:21 pm - IP Logged

                            People who win any kind of jackpot should be paying back all the assistance they've ever received.

                            Afterall it is the tax payers money.

                            I just read the article and it's pretty pathetic that someone could think that it's ok to keep accepting benefits in a situation like that....irregardless that the state was dumb enough not to shut her down right away after she collected her winnings.

                            I Agree!  Exactamundo!


                                                                         
                                                 
                                                                     

                             

                             

                             

                             

                                                                                                                               

                            "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                        --Edmund Burke

                             

                             

                              Bigheadnick's avatar - badluck
                              Taunton, Ma
                              United States
                              Member #123005
                              February 11, 2012
                              136 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 7, 2012, 6:44 pm - IP Logged

                              I Agree!  Exactamundo!

                              Funny when you agree with someone how you don't question they're word choices or spelling. see "irregardless"

                               Maybe it was a bad use of the word "moratorium" however, to a degree my use of the word applies as you seek to use this forum to push your ultra conservative agenda. Part of this agenda is a halt on welfare all together. The word is defined as a halt on a particular activity until it can be further discussed. I hope you understand the context. Try not to cherry pick arguments like that when you know aht I'm talking about. It only implies you can't make a good argument on the subject at hand.

                               And exactly as you said the topic of this thread is "welfare & jackpot lottery winners" which refers to the practice of some lowlives of continuing to get benefits after winning a jackpot. You would have this thread turn into a complete bash of welfare itself and liberals which has no place in this forum. Do I have to post quotes you have made in this thread which have zero to do with the subject at hand?

                                 
                                Page 2 of 12