Minnesota definition of the War on Poverty:

Make it illegal for poor people to have money.

Yes,proposed legislation would make it a criminal offense for those on public assistance to have more than 20 dollars in cash on them - all transactions must be debit.

"Not Making This Up" Disclaimer: Honest to God, read the text.

Summarized: make all transactions on your card, having more than 20 bucks on you will get you arrested, can't use the card outside of this state except for food, can't buy booze or cigarettes with it, store owners can demand your card and ID for inspection at all items, and they have an incentive to do so because they get a bounty of five percent off of anything you do that can be termed fraud.

Being proposed by the party against big government. Yup.

edited 18th Mar '11 7:49:53 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Minnesota is a blue state aint it? Can we find out who sponsored the bill?

NVM, read the first link.

House File 171 would make it so that families on MFIP – and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid – could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card.

Wow, I mean wow. I don't even know why I'm surprised anymore.

edited 18th Mar '11 7:54:49 PM by thatguythere47

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Wha...wh-what the hell?

I have lost the ability to be coherent.

Disturbing. It's just another way of punishing the poor and the jobless, to subdue them into a near-slavery status. And it has sinister implications for those who are employed - it will make the middle and working classes even more obedient. Yes, slavish, submissive drones are all that are needed by the powers that be.

Obviously an attempt to limit the mobility of the jobless.

edited 18th Mar '11 8:10:10 PM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

And then the Poor Laws! You get jailed when you're in debt!

What? I'm not sure what they think this law is going to solve.

No matter how stupidly wrong-headed, there has to be a reason they think this is appropriate, but I just can't see it.

Be not afraid...

This...is really creepy. First union rights and now this? I don't like the path the U.S. is going in.

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time

If it helps, the democrats are in charge and they're (hopefully) not dumb enough to think this is a good idea.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

The only sense I can see in it is if you literally wanted to remove public assistance from the budget by making it so inconvenient that the poor will voluntarily forgo it and turn to lives of crime instead, because if you're going to be arrested for trying to live normally and freely you might as well make more money selling crack. Then they can strip public assistance and push a tough-on-crime position too.

Otherwise, this is a ridiculous amount of oversight and a crippling threat to social mobility. It also cuts the poor away from vendors who take cash only.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I... what?

OK, here's my theory. I think Subd. 3 gives it away.

. The idea, I guess, is "people on welfare shouldn't be spending it on alcohol and drugs." Which is fine, as far as it goes, but this is such a blatantly authoritarian move that... I really can't think of the proper words to end that sentence, actually.

edited 18th Mar '11 8:14:57 PM by Linhasxoc

restricts rights? is total bullshit? Big government intervention?

edited 18th Mar '11 8:15:59 PM by thatguythere47

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Oh, Minnesota. You sly dog you.

I think that it might be a plan to to be able to use the money poor people hold in their "bank accounts" for lowering state debt. But I'm just spitballing.

Well, I guess that makes sense. If you're giving someone money to feed their children, you don't want them to go buy booze with it. So making assistance only available in debit makes sense, because you're forcing them to feed their children with it.

But prohibiting them carrying cash at all? Where the hell did they pull that from?

Be not afraid...

Hmm... I'm not quite seeing the "making it illegal to have more than $20 on you" thing. It looks more like "You can't use this card to withdraw more than 20$/get more than $20 in change from a transaction you used the card for". Which is still a terrible thing, but not quite as bad as you made it sound. It just means they have to get the money some other way without using the card, like drug dealing, theft, and prostitution.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Hmm, let me check... yep, Rational Wiki has it as a WIGO.

Even if you're right, this is still pretty authoritarian.

Oh, absolutely. But, I can understand where they're coming from- Like you said in #10, don't want people on welfare spending it on booze and cigarettes. If I had to guess, they figured that if they could take more than X amount of money out, they'd use that to buy cigarettes and alcohol.

I do dislike the "You can't use this outside the state", but I guess the logic is "If you've got enough money to leave the state, you don't need welfare".

Much as I dislike The Republican Party(TM)  ^*

, I think in this case, I can assume stupidity where either it or malice would suffice.

edited 18th Mar '11 8:41:22 PM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

reasons why this is retarded

1. 1: Can only use at certain stores? No way thats going to lead to dirty deals and I'm sure all those poor people out in rural towns are going to love having to drive 69KM to go buy food.

2. 2: So if I have to leave state to go lets say, have surgery or something else I'm supposed to sleep on the street?

3. 3: Seriously? You want to make a giant headache for poor people so they don't buy cigarettes? What is wrong with you?

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Since when have Republicans cared the tiniest bit about the poor?

I tried looking for a practical use for this bill. Call me lazy, but I quit. It's transparently a swipe at food stamps and a method of scapegoating the poor some more.

You know who the most frequent target of authoritarian governments are? Landless peasants.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

Exactly. That's essentially the point of legislation such as this. As much as people will deny it, the USA is a corporate police state. The UK is going the same way, with harsh sanctions for the unemployed and the second phase of government privatisation.

edited 18th Mar '11 9:17:44 PM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

If the US is a police stare it's pretty crappy at it. People get away with a whole lot of stuff.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

You've got a superfluous population who contribute nothing to the economy. What do you do with them? You lock them up. Cash in the bank!

I'm a skeptical squirrel

Fuck this bill, fuck the people who wrote it, and fuck the people who will vote for it.

It gets really depressing watching people come in in the morning and try to buy cases of liquor with food stamps.

Fight smart, not fair.

I thought welfare came mainly as foodstamps.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.