Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:24 PM
The Straight Story (48,121 posts)
'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
![]() |
Author | Time | 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
DCBob (24,689 posts)
1. Congressman dont like the riff raff blocking their view.
![]() |
Response to DCBob (Reply #1)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:22 PM
Capitalocracy (4,307 posts)
20. Reply #1 = Winner winner...
Chicken dinner.
|
Response to DCBob (Reply #1)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 01:27 AM
cbrer (1,831 posts)
28. Ding Ding Ding
Bob we have a winner!
|
Response to DCBob (Reply #1)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:20 AM
HappyMe (20,277 posts)
34. Oh snap!
![]() Good one. ![]() |
Response to DCBob (Reply #1)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:22 AM
Snake Alchemist (3,318 posts)
35. The 1st reply isn't usually the best.
Splendid.
|
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:26 PM
Warren Stupidity (48,181 posts)
2. Big gummint republicans at it again.
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:30 PM
Downwinder (12,869 posts)
3. This mean that Albertson's has to make achoice between
Food Stamps or Beer and Wine?
|
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:30 PM
DJ13 (23,671 posts)
4. They are getting government money too
No sex clubs or casinos for them either.
|
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:31 PM
SwampG8r (10,287 posts)
5. this is insulting on many levels
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:31 PM
KansDem (28,498 posts)
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... |
Response to KansDem (Reply #6)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:53 PM
a simple pattern (608 posts)
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? |
Response to a simple pattern (Reply #7)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 09:10 PM
KansDem (28,498 posts)
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"
![]() 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. |
Response to KansDem (Reply #10)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:07 PM
a simple pattern (608 posts)
19. Another little piece of the * legacy.
![]() |
Response to a simple pattern (Reply #7)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 01:14 AM
FrodosPet (5,169 posts)
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.
|
Response to FrodosPet (Reply #27)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 11:57 AM
KatyMan (3,087 posts)
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!
|
Response to KansDem (Reply #6)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 01:02 AM
WhoIsNumberNone (7,534 posts)
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?...
|
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:59 PM
Johonny (16,664 posts)
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.
|
Response to Johonny (Reply #8)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 09:00 PM
Posteritatis (18,807 posts)
9. It's an election year. The dumber something is, the more real an issue it is. (nt)
Response to Johonny (Reply #8)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 09:35 PM
drm604 (16,230 posts)
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? |
Response to drm604 (Reply #11)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:06 AM
Johonny (16,664 posts)
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.
|
Response to drm604 (Reply #11)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:26 AM
JHB (32,399 posts)
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.... |
Response to Johonny (Reply #8)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:43 PM
Telly Savalas (9,841 posts)
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." |
Response to Telly Savalas (Reply #12)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:46 PM
Telly Savalas (9,841 posts)
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. |
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:48 PM
RZM (8,556 posts)
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. ![]() |
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:50 PM
FarLeftFist (6,161 posts)
15. More "FREEDOM".
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:53 PM
ProSense (116,464 posts)
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 |
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:00 PM
Firebrand Gary (5,033 posts)
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? |
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:07 PM
FarCenter (19,429 posts)
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"? |
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:25 PM
fujiyama (15,185 posts)
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!". |
Response to fujiyama (Reply #21)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:43 PM
jmowreader (44,297 posts)
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.
|
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:29 PM
Initech (85,644 posts)
22. Holy crap. They really think this shit is going to fix the economy?
![]() |
Response to Initech (Reply #22)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 12:57 AM
joeglow3 (6,228 posts)
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?
|
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:38 PM
Fumesucker (45,851 posts)
23. Does this mean no more beefcake with EBT cards?
Enquiring minds want to know..
![]() |
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:09 AM
Broderick (4,578 posts)
30. Wait a darn minute. Access to funds at a strip club for instance, STIMULATES something
if not the economy in some way.
![]() |
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:15 AM
JustABozoOnThisBus (20,468 posts)
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?
![]() |
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:16 AM
WI_DEM (33,497 posts)
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!'
|
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:18 AM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
33. This law should also apply to CONGRESS!!!!
The vote would probably flip 180 degrees.
|
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:31 AM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
37. Will they extend the ban to yacht clunbs BMW dealerships?