Casino Benefits For Welfare Recipients

I don't get up every morning just looking to brand someone a moron. I certainly don't get up every morning hoping that I can find someone to outright despise because of what they stand for and how they're going to contribute to the fall of society as we know it. It's not like I'm trying to be annoyed. But when I find out that in "California and Michigan, welfare recipients have been using their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards to withdraw state-funded payment from ATM machines in casinos", I tend to get a little testy.

According to something called Daily Finance, this absurdity that should not be occurring has been surprisingly recognized by politicians who (theoretically) can do something about it like make it so that the ATM machines in the casinos are programmed to not accept the EBT cards (which work like an ATM card does). And look, I realize that someone that is going to spend their money...oh, wait. I said that wrong, didn't I? I realize that someone that is really wants to spend MY money at a casino is going to. They're going to go to some other ATM, withdraw money that my taxes have funded, and then hop their sorry ass to a casino and piss away my money. I get that. But I don't think that the process needs to be made any easier by having the damn ATM AT the freaking casino be capable of giving them MY money.

In California, the surprisingly on the ball Los Angeles Times learned that "...79 out of the 148 tribal casinos and state-licensed poker rooms have welfare-friendly (aka, MY money friendly) ATM machines on the premises." That's over half. Not to mention that it's about 79 too many. And if you're thinking that maybe not a lot of people actually take advantage of this situation, you'd be wrong because "$1.8 million in state welfare revenues were withdrawn from ATMs in gambling establishments over an eight month period." Nice system, California. Whose freaking idea was this to begin with?

Now, you'd think that everyone would be able to be on the same page with getting something like this stopped, wouldn't you? You might think that, but again, you'd be wrong. And that brings me to the woman that I spent today simply loathing. A one Maureen Taylor is the state organizer of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization advocacy group (that's in Michgian). She has a problem with a bill that was introduced by Michigan Senator Bill Hardiman which would "...stop casino ATMs in his state from processing welfare payments." You know what the problem is that she has? Guess. Go on. Guess. You know what? It's so asininely ridiculous, you'll never get it. So, allow me...

Ms. Taylor "...feels that Hardiman's bill singles out welfare recipients unfairly." What? Singles them out? Well, yes. That's what it's supposed to do. You can't not single out a group that is already singled out. If you want to stop casino ATMs from processing welfare payments, that is automatically going to single out the group of people that are on welfare, that is correct. So, what is the problem that Ms. Taylor finds with this intentional and necessary singling out? She claims, "This is a way to corral low-income welfare recipients, put a red mark on their face and say, 'You're not welcome.' " ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Um, Ms. Taylor? Yeah, see, that's right! They're NOT welcome to take MY money and go spend it at a CASINO! They're on freaking WELFARE! They shouldn't HAVE any money to spend at a casino! If they did, they wouldn't be on WELFARE! What part of that do you not understand? It's not like we're trying to stop them from spending their money at a grocery store! It's a G-D casino, for cryin' out loud!

I'm glad that Ms. Taylor isn't in politics because that would be cause for alarm. I have no idea what the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization does exactly, but the fact that they use the word "Rights" in their title does not bode well with me. How come there is a "right" to be on welfare, but there isn't a "right" for those of us who pay for it to opt out? Oh, that's right. Because all of us would, that's why. I really wish that she had elaborated on that statement, but she didn't. And in a way, I think I'm glad. I don't know if I could have taken her explanation without needing an entire bottle of gin.

Side note: Against my better judgment, I went to the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization website to see what they were all about. I got as far as what is apparently their mission statement: "You get what you are organized to take!" I couldn't read any more after that, as I kind of think that says it all, don't you? Now, where did I put that gin?

Sphere: Related Content

Can YOU Use An ATM?

I know politicians are out of touch. You know politicians are out of touch. You know who the only ones who don't know that politicians are out of touch? Politicians. That is correct.



Take a one Senator Ben Nelson. He is a Senator from Nebraska. Now, in an article that appeared over there in the Omaha World-Herald (I don't know why there is that hyphen between World and Herald. Can't it be both? And if it can't, why aren't they able to just choose one?), Senator Nelson was "...asked this week whether Congress should cap ATM fees". That almost seems like a reasonable question. But in order for it to be completely reasonable, you have to believe that the government should be meddling in private business. Now, I'm all for reasonable fees. (Actually, I'm all for NO fees. It's a freaking ATM. Transferring money around costs the banks pennies. If they're going to charge me three bucks, I'm going to find another ATM. It's pretty simple. Can't the free market and/or supply and demand take care of this on its own? Do we really need to have Congress telling us what to do all of the time? Sweet Mother of God, I hope not.) So, technically, it was a reasonable question.

What wasn't reasonable was Senator Nelson's response. He said, “I've never used an ATM, so I don't know what the fees are,” Nelson said, adding that he gets his cash from bank tellers, just not automatic ones. “It's true, I don't know how to use one." Um, what now? You don't know how to....? An ATM?? Really? Good Lord, man....

Now, I don't know if he realized that his response wasn't exactly the most down to earth thing that anyone has ever heard or what, but he decided to do the most inadvisable thing that anyone could do in this situation. He tried to make it sound better. And you know how that tends to end. That's right. By making it worse.

He then said, "But I could learn how to do it just like I've . . . I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms.” Oh. My. God. What I want to know is when he learned to "swipe". I also really want to know what he knows about "the holograms" and how he knows it. If I had to guess, I'd probably go with his knowledge being limited to "Ooohh! Shiny!" Turns out, it was worse than that. The article tells us "By “holograms,” Nelson clarified that he meant the bar codes on products read by automatic scanners in the checkout lanes at stores such as Lowe's and Menard's." Wait. HE clarified "holograms" to mean "bar codes"? Where has this man been living since the mid-1970s? Under a rock? Under a holographic rock, was he?And it keeps getting worse!

No, I swear! In an effort to not make himself sound like a complete, out of touch tool, he added, "I go and get my own seating assignment on an airplane...I mean, I'm not without some skills. I just haven't had the need to use an ATM.” ::: sigh :::

Wow. He gets his own seating assignment on an airplane. Yes, he clearly has skills! You might notice that he didn't say he books his own airline flights. He just knows how to go to the airport, stand in line and tell someone his name when he gets to the counter. I'm not so sure that I would call standing a "skill".

Look, how old is this guy? Hmm...it appears he was born in 1941. So he's 69. OK, I get the feeling comfortable with going into the bank to get your cash. My Mom is 78 and my uncle is 80 and they both do that. But they both also know how to use an ATM! They both also know the difference between a freaking bar code and a hologram! And finally, neither one of them would add swiping a card to pay for gas or groceries as one of their "skills".

Sphere: Related Content

Messy Mortgage Math

Tell me something. Why is it that everyone thinks that they have to own a house? What is the great thing about being a homeowner? Other than you own it, that is? You don't have to own a house. There's nothing wrong with renting. But you'd think that there was, considering all of the people who bought houses that they couldn't afford simply because they wanted to "own their own home". I think it's because somehow, somewhere, people got it stuck in their heads that if they own a home they will have instant access to unlimited cash through something called "equity. The problem is that the equity concept has been twisted and warped to a point where it's not even recognizable any more.

See, equity is the value in your home that is above what you owe on it. It used to be that if you took out a "home equity loan" it was for improvements on your home. Banks were fine with doing those types of loans because it would improve the home and increase it's value due to the improvements and then when the home was sold, that money would come back. Sure, that makes sense. But then....that's right.....stupidity took over.

People started seeing their home as a big, shingled ATM. Oh, need some cash? I'll just take it out of my equity line of credit! Yeah, that's all well and good IF you can pay it back. But, surprise, as it turns out, a lot of these people who were taking the home equity lines out could NOT pay it back. (Obviously. If they couldn't make their house payment, I highly doubt they're going to be able to squeeze in another payment.) Shocking, I know.

I had read an article in the rapidly declining in quality San Jose Mercury News about a couple who had bought a home that they were spending 80% of their income on to the tune of about $6,000 a month. (Please note the bars on the doors and windows in one of the photos below.) That doesn't include the $7,000 a year tax bill. The couple said they had bought the home in 2004 because they had hoped it would pay for college for their children, ages 4, 6 and 13. And it's going to do that...how? Again? Are you planning on selling the home in 4-5 years when the 13 year old is ready for college? How much equity did you really expect to have? 4-5 years is not a lot of time to wait for a house with bars on the windows to appreciate in value enough to pay for three children to attend (I'm assuming) a four year college. (Keep in mind that a report that was released by some group trying to sound official and like they know what they're talking about, said that the average cost of state college for four years was around $6,600. That figure is definitely low for some states and definitely higher for others. But that's what makes it an average!)

Why would it not have made sense to these people to not buy a home, but to rent one instead for, say, half that amount? Then if they took the other half and put it in the bank or bought CDs with it or set up a Roth IRA, they would be accomplishing their goal in a much more efficient manner, as that $6,000 a month that they're paying right now is mostly interest. They're not seeing the balance of their mortgage go down a whole heck of a lot; no one does at the beginning. So how that plan made sense to them I have no idea. None.

If we do the hypothetical math on this one and assume that they can find a place to rent for $4,000 a month. That would be with or without bars on the windows; their choice. That gives them an extra $2,000 a month down from the $6,000 a month they're paying now. With 12 months in the year, that's $24,000 a year they can save instead of spending that money on a mortgage payment. Based on the earlier average state college cost of $6,600 combined with the three college bound (expected) children, they would need about $20,000. With my plan, they've done that in ONE year. They've been doing their plan for four years so far. Granted, this is totally hypothetical as far as the situation goes, but what they are currently paying for a mortgage and the reasons why they have stated they are doing that are not hypothetical. Why does my way not make sense to them? Why?

But here's how it made sense to them. When asked if they regretted the decision to buy the home, this was the answer the woman gave: "That's hard to say. I don't, because I wanted the stability of not moving my family around every few years. But we're paying about $6,000 a month. I mean, sure we could have more money and go on vacation, but it's hard to say. The stability of being in one place with your children and not having to move means a lot to me. I didn't buy my house to make a huge profit. I bought it so if my children wanted to go to college, we'd be able to pull money out later on."

You're going to pull that money out...of...where....exactly? Your ass? What do you mean? Are you aware that you are going to have to pay back however much you pull out? Apparently not. But the part that just kills me is the part where she says that if they had more money that they could go on vacation! NO!! THAT is the problem! Here's a tip for you: You do not, repeat, DO NOT have to spend EVERY single dime that you earn!! You are allowed to save it!! Yes! If you were spending less money and you did NOT go on vacation (just like you're not going on vacation now, I'm assuming) you would be able to SAVE some money. And you know what that means? That means that when your kids are ready to go to college (and they can't go out and get a job and work and go to school at the same time like some of the people writing this blog did) you'll be able to pull money out of the method in which you saved it! Then, because it's already yours you (get ready for this one) do NOT have to pay it back! Oh, sweet mother of God, WHAT?!?! What a crazy notion! Why would someone do THAT?! After all, they can go on vacation! ::::sigh::::: My head hurts.

Sphere: Related Content