HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 'Strip club' bill approve...

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:24 PM

'Strip club' bill approved in 395-27 House vote

'Strip club' bill approved in 395-27 House vote


By a 395-27 vote, the House approved legislation that would prevent welfare recipients from accessing their payments in strip clubs, casinos and liquor stores, a proposal Republicans back as a way to reduce waste and abuse of federal payments.

Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which required a two-thirds majority vote. While some Democrats grumbled that the bill demeans people who need help, others indicated support for the bill as a common-sense way to reduce waste and ensure that payments go to help families.

The bill, H.R. 3567, was opposed by just one Republican and only 26 Democrats, making it easy for Republicans to reach the two-thirds majority.

The House had already passed similar language twice before, and Republicans were looking to pass it again to encourage House and Senate negotiators to include it in a bill to extend the payroll tax holiday for a full year. The fact that it had already passed made it easy for Democrats to simply accept it again.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/208125-strip-club-bill-approved-in-395-27-house-vote

39 replies, 4745 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'Strip club' bill approved in 395-27 House vote (Original post)
The Straight Story Feb 2012 OP
DCBob Feb 2012 #1
Capitalocracy Feb 2012 #20
cbrer Feb 2012 #28
HappyMe Feb 2012 #34
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #35
Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #2
Downwinder Feb 2012 #3
DJ13 Feb 2012 #4
Iggo Feb 2012 #38
SwampG8r Feb 2012 #5
KansDem Feb 2012 #6
a simple pattern Feb 2012 #7
KansDem Feb 2012 #10
a simple pattern Feb 2012 #19
FrodosPet Feb 2012 #27
KatyMan Feb 2012 #39
WhoIsNumberNone Feb 2012 #26
Johonny Feb 2012 #8
Posteritatis Feb 2012 #9
drm604 Feb 2012 #11
Johonny Feb 2012 #29
JHB Feb 2012 #36
Telly Savalas Feb 2012 #12
Telly Savalas Feb 2012 #13
RZM Feb 2012 #14
FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #15
ProSense Feb 2012 #16
Firebrand Gary Feb 2012 #17
FarCenter Feb 2012 #18
fujiyama Feb 2012 #21
jmowreader Feb 2012 #24
Initech Feb 2012 #22
joeglow3 Feb 2012 #25
Fumesucker Feb 2012 #23
Broderick Feb 2012 #30
JustABozoOnThisBus Feb 2012 #31
WI_DEM Feb 2012 #32
JoePhilly Feb 2012 #33
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #37

Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:26 PM

1. Congressman dont like the riff raff blocking their view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:22 PM

20. Reply #1 = Winner winner...

Chicken dinner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 01:27 AM

28. Ding Ding Ding

 

Bob we have a winner!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:20 AM

34. Oh snap!




Good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:22 AM

35. The 1st reply isn't usually the best.

 

Splendid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:26 PM

2. Big gummint republicans at it again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:30 PM

3. This mean that Albertson's has to make achoice between

Food Stamps or Beer and Wine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:30 PM

4. They are getting government money too

No sex clubs or casinos for them either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:44 AM

38. Straight up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:31 PM

5. this is insulting on many levels

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:31 PM

6. I worked with a fellow once who cashed his paycheck at a liquor store...

He had no bank account.

Does this legislation mean that welfare recipients would have to open bank accounts in order to "access their payments?"

I'm confused...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:53 PM

7. So then they have to open a bank account...

 

but they can't have too much in there or it will look like they're saving... but if they don't keep $1500 in it they will have to pay $10 in fees to the bank...

So what this is really about is squeezing another $10 a month out of people on welfare?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a simple pattern (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 09:10 PM

10. "So what this is really about is squeezing another $10 a month out of people on welfare?"

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012, 09:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I wondered that too. Like my employer's HSA ("Health Savings Account", just introduced in the last year or so. We have had "Flexible Benefits Accounts" that we can use starting with the new calendar year. I use it for copays for my medicines and doctor's visits.

But the FBAs are good starting with January 1. The allowable balance is automatically deposited. HSAs have to "build up" (combination payroll deduction and matching employer funds) so if I need emergency services on January 2, I pay out of pocket until my balance will cover the initial expense. Then I can withdraw the amount I spent earlier (yeah, like I have the money to pay for an emergency room visit, specialists, labs, etc., the 2nd day of January). It would probably be midyear before the balance was built up to cover such an event. All the time I'd be fighting off collection agencies and the like!

HSAs are handled by a local bank. It sounded like another scheme to divert monies to the banks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:07 PM

19. Another little piece of the * legacy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a simple pattern (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 01:14 AM

27. Considering the fees charged by liquor stores and check cashing places, it might be cheaper!

Maybe, as some have suggested before, the post office should become a low cost check cashing center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 11:57 AM

39. IN the UK a lot of these types of services

are handed by the Post Office, iirc. Might be a good model for the USPS to look into!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 01:02 AM

26. They'll just have to take them to a check cashing place

And for a mere 10% service charge, they can walk out with cash in hand. Maybe you'd like a payday loan while you're here?...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:59 PM

8. Is there any evidence that this is a real issue?

Seriously it is one month into the year and this is the first thing the Republican house works on. A bill that is highly likely to have zero positive impact to society but sounds and feels good to conservative voters. It's crap like this that I find so insulting about Republican legislative goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johonny (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 09:00 PM

9. It's an election year. The dumber something is, the more real an issue it is. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johonny (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 09:35 PM

11. It might actually cost more than it saves.

There has to be some implementation cost to this right? The government needs to somehow create and maintain a list of ATMs and point of sale terminals that are in such establishments then make the programming changes needed to reject any payment requests.

They'll have to come up with definitions of "strip club", "casino", and "liquor store". Will people be able to use their welfare and "food stamp" cards in supermarkets that sell liquor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drm604 (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:06 AM

29. yip

it's no different than drug testing welfare people. There is no savings after administrative costs come in. Wouldn't REAL conservatives wait for real evidence of real savings and real positive impact before expanding government to look at you pee? or where you spend money? Republicans are not fiscal conservative. Why democratic candidates do not attack this over and over is beyond me. There are lots of socially liberal, fiscal conservative people in the US. These people vote Republican based mostly on myths about their fiscal restraint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drm604 (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:26 AM

36. Who cares about the cost?

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a contract that can be handed to the (cough)biggest contributor(/cough) lowest bidder.

Since it will be handled by someone who is not "the government", it just HAS to be more efficient than anything those (ptui!) bureaucrats could come up with! It's what Ronald Reagan did, by God! That's why we don't have Welfare anymore....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johonny (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:43 PM

12. Shit like this will only stop when high profile Democrats bludgeon them with it

The best way of countering faux outrage by these demagogue douchebags is to loudly express real outrage at them for wasting time.

Here's the talking point: "if someone is smart enough to stretch their welfare check so far that they can provide for their food, shelter, and transportation, and still have enough left over to visit a strip club, then we need to vote them into office since they clearly know a lot more about budgeting than dumb Republican motherfuckers who think the best way to balance a budget is to cut taxes on the wealthy and spend hundreds of millions invading other countries on false pretenses."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Telly Savalas (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:46 PM

13. Oh wait - 395 voted for it.

I guess the Useless Dick Brigade must have a lot of Democrats among its members.

But fuck, who can blame them. The stupid fucks are incapable of solving real problems, so it's natural they'll make up fake ones to look like they're doing something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:48 PM

14. Note that it was 395-27

 

That's about as bipartisan as it gets.

While I have my reservations about people on assistance buying booze or gambling, sometimes when you're down and out, it's probably a positive motivator to go to a strip club. Rather than wallowing in intoxication or throwing your money away on gambling, you might get the sense that 'if I did good for myself, I might not have to pay a woman like this to dance for me.'

Just a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:50 PM

15. More "FREEDOM".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:53 PM

16. The no votes

Amash (only Republican)
Bass (CA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Edwards
Ellison
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Holt
Honda
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lee (CA)
Markey
McGovern
Nadler
Olver
Payne
Rush
Sánchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Stark
Waters
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll020.xml

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:00 PM

17. Two questions for Boehner.

Boehner stated upon swearing in that he would only propose legislation that was constitutional and would cite where his authority is given.

I am curious to know the cost of this new endeavor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:07 PM

18. The text of the bill

 

`(A) IN GENERAL- A State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall maintain policies and practices as necessary to prevent assistance provided under the State program funded under this part from being used in any transaction in--

`(i) any liquor store;

`(ii) any casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment; or

`(iii) any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment.

`(B) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of subparagraph (A)--

`(i) LIQUOR STORE- The term `liquor store' means any retail establishment which sells exclusively or primarily intoxicating liquor. Such term does not include a grocery store which sells both intoxicating liquor and groceries including staple foods (within the meaning of section 3(r) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(r))).

`(ii) CASINO, GAMBLING CASINO, OR GAMING ESTABLISHMENT- The terms `casino', `gambling casino', and `gaming establishment' do not include a grocery store which sells groceries including such staple foods and which also offers, or is located within the same building or complex as, casino, gambling, or gaming activities.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3567:

While it looks like liquor stores and casinos can evade the restriction by selling groceries, the idea of a strip grocery store is right out.

And what about "strip malls"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:25 PM

21. How does this control/enforcement even work?

I mean are welfare recipients given a debit card of sorts? Or are they cash disbursements? I honestly have no idea.

I certainly don't think someone on welfare should be spending money on the above mentioned stuff, but this attempt might cost more than it saves, like drug testing welfare recipients.

Another issue is that in some states, grocery stores also sell liquor. Either way, this just seems like a waste of time. But what else would you expect from a GOP congress. It's certainly easier passing garbage like this during an election year than trying to work on a jobs bill...This is clearly done for political purposes. And of course, they'll attach some other rider making this legislation even more unacceptable and if the president threatens to veto it, they can say "look, the president wants people on the dole to go and spend your money on strippers and booze!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fujiyama (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:43 PM

24. Drop the "grocery stores also sell liquor" meme

Read the text just a little bit above your post; the bill specifically states that a store that sells "foods including staple foods" is not either a liquor store (if it sells intoxicating beverages, and most of them sell SOMETHING you can get drunk on) or a casino (if it has gambling, which means lottery tickets most places and slot machines in Nevada) for the purposes of this bullshit legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:29 PM

22. Holy crap. They really think this shit is going to fix the economy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 12:57 AM

25. Won't hurt it

 

Seriously, how can people oppose not allowing people to use ATM's in strip clubs or casinos to access government money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:38 PM

23. Does this mean no more beefcake with EBT cards?

Enquiring minds want to know..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:09 AM

30. Wait a darn minute. Access to funds at a strip club for instance, STIMULATES something

if not the economy in some way.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:15 AM

31. Does this include Corporate Welfare Recipients?

Banksters will no longer be permitted to spend their bonus money on strippers and liquor? How will they entertain their congressional serfs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:16 AM

32. too bad most dems voted for it, too, but I guess they were invisoning the ads

this fall by GOP 'congressman votes to allow welfare recepiants to spend your tax dollars in strip clubs and gambling houses!'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:18 AM

33. This law should also apply to CONGRESS!!!!

The vote would probably flip 180 degrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:31 AM

37. Will they extend the ban to yacht clunbs BMW dealerships?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread