All Time Low
 

Lottery winner on food stamps even after $1 million jackpot | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

This is the sort of stuff that is killing America.. Well atleast she will blow

through the money quickly so it's probably good that she's still in the system.

I saw a video of her interview yesterday.... All I can say is - entitlement generation?!?!

ODB is fine with this

I posted this in the strange news story thread. It is just proof that the lotto is a tax on the stupid. Honestly, she should be removed from public assistance for buying lotto tickets in the first place. You shouldn't be gambling if you are on welfare.

Well, at the very least not using your welfare funds to buy the tickets. I get what you are saying, but there's no way to enforce something like that.

Well what differentiats (sp?) "their money from wefare money? The whole reason they are on welfare is because they don't have enough money to live on, so they certainly shouldn't have the money to gamble with.

Enforcement would be easy for large winings. Anything over I believe 10K you have to fill out tax documents. The person could easily be identified as having public assistance and the funds would be taken from them and put back towards public assistance.

Are you just going to limit it to one type of government assistance? What about subsidized student loans? Home mortgage deduction? Child care tax credit? Social security?

I get the moral outrage and in the above case it really is outrageous, but I don't think anyone wants a government so controlling that it determines what people can and can't purchase. Cross checking lottery winners with welfare roles seems appropriate and as long as it's cost effective I'm all for it. Government control of purchasing, especially if it only applies to the wrong type of person getting government assistance, is too much.

I get that it isn't realistic, nor should it probably be. However, I do feel there needs to be some checks and balances. Perhaps she wouldn't need public assistance if she wasn't buying lottery tickets with what little money she does have?

I think at the very least there needs to be something stating you forfeit your public assistance if you have any lottery winnings, or vice versa. May detract people from playing lotto with their welfare money.

And... she's been cut off.

Mich.: $1M lotto winner cut from food assistance - Yahoo! News

Couldn't it be that this woman is just dumb as can be and doesn't even understand she shouldn't be on welfare after winning the lottery? Seeing how she's probably already blown through half of it on a house and car, I can't imagine she has an even pre-K understanding of how government assistance works.

All time low? I find that some pretty crazy hyperbole

EDIT: If I were a little wittier- the correct retort was: "That's the craziest hyperbole anyone has ever said in the history of ever!"

SI

Never mind that she'll be paying the other half in taxes next year. You know, the half she won't have because she spent it

SI

Don't they take the taxes before you get the money?

Yes these hyperbolic examples are exactly what's wrong with the U.S. Isolated incidents that get dealt with, not the rampant unchecked plutocrats running us into the ground. Or the boomers that benefitted from thr legacy of their parents and now want everyone else to "pay their fair share" while they complain about social security. Riight.

You mean.... the poor people didn't cause the economic situation we are in right now? :confused:

But but but

She should also have to submit to a drug test....

And that is why you don't smoke crack!

I think its just poorly written laws. It's not winning the lottery that should make you ineligible for welfare its the fact that you own two homes and a car and have a bunch of cash. I'm sure that in 2 years or less, she'll be completely broke again and legitimately getting welfare once again.

Watch the video. The woman is clearly an idiot and will likely (deservedly) be prosecuted and have to pay the money back.

I have no problems with that at all. In fact, I'm all for laws making sure it doesn't happen again. But those are not "small government" type laws.

Public assistance pulled from lottery winner - CNN.com

You'd think someone on welfare winning the lottery would make everyone happy. One less mouth to feed!

Who really cares if it happens again? How many lottery winners are there? This is something we need our legislators spending their time preventing? I've been on welfare, and there's already plenty of regulations to keep anyone with money or assets from staying on it. We don't stop people on welfare from buying a candy bar, or going to the movies, but we need to stop them from buying lottery tickets? Give me a break.

Not in Michigan apparently.

I don't care how she got $500,000. If she found it in a treasure chest in a cave, she shouldn't be eligible for welfare. At least until she blows it all.

Is anyone arguing she should be eligible? I thought the argument is about whether she should be prevented from buying the ticket in the first place.

Is anyone arguing poor people should be prevented from buying lottery tickets?

I just see this as ineffective state government rather than her being evil or something, that's my point. Though I'm not quite sure if she's technically eligible for welfare under Michigan law because of how they determine eligibility (I figured they based it on last year's income or something), or if they just dropped the ball on enforcing their law. But it seems like they cut her off now so I guess it's the latter.

I wonder if it would be cheaper and more fair just to give welfare to everyone.

We can argue about whether playing the lottery is damaging, but for many poor people who don't have a lot of education, it represents their dreams. It's a form of escapism. Healthier than a drug addiction, that's for certain.

The problem is that lotteries make a lot of money - most of it from people who don't have a lot to begin with.

What troubles me about this story is that the woman still feels entitled to these benefits. We now have more than one generation of Americans who fully believe the government should care for them from cradle to grave.

... and a 15.5-trillion-dollar debt for their children and their grandchildren to pay off.

Ya, but at least people are freaking out over this and its a national news story - in the sense that this isn't a societal norm, yet. We're still offended by the idea, at least from our perch. But it could be a look into the mindset of some people who have lived their whole lives on welfare - that it's not true, at least in this one case, and I'm sure many others, that people "hate being on welfare", which is sometimes an idea that people float around. I'm sure there's many, many people that still take pride in reducing the amount of direct government assistance they get, but stories like this at least create the perception that that kind of idea is diminishing.

To be clear - I'm not arguing she should be prevented from buying the tickets. I'm saying I have no problem if they want to put a law in place mandating checking say...welfare recipients names against winners of lotteries, IRS filings...whatever.

Seems like one of those laws it would cost more to put into place then it would save though IMO.

This is what troubled me about it and made me say I have no problem with prosecuting her or what not. Her "Yeah I think I still deserve it" schtick.

People cheat every system, and systems must be adjusted better to deal with the cheaters. But you don't assume that a system is inherently broken because of the cheaters. That's just stupid. It just means the rules within the system need to either be tightened or better enforced.

I suspect that she will be back on the programs legitimately getting benefits in about a year.

Dola-
This isn't even the first time this has happened in Michigan in the last year.


I seem to remember this story popping

.

Yes, I LOL'd.

Sad but true.

She will be required to pay back every dollar taken in since she won the lottery, plus a penalty interest rate, plus any enforcement costs if she tries to resist. In the end her 'welfare' is probably going to cost her at least 20% more than she took in, and that is if they are nice to her.

They'll take enough so that after she pays it all of her lottery winnings will be gone and she'll be back on welfare.

Sad for her, she''ll probably have to sell one of her two homes to pay back the welfare she took.

She wouldn't pass the asset test, but she clearly passed the ASS test with flying colors.

+1

Winning a one million dollar jackpot and still scheming free food? That sounds crafty to me.

VIVA AMERICAN INGENUITY!

Sounds like she is now in a world of hurt.

Michigan lottery winner charged with welfare fraud – USATODAY.com

Seems a little excessive.

It is a completely different culture than most of us, or all of us, know about. She probably only knows that she has a lot of money to spend now. And thats what she did, she spent it. Poor people look for entertainment value and are willing to spend every last cent on what they think will help them temporarily. Money is just a means to have fun. It really has no worth to them beyond that. She has no clue how to save or invest. She does know how to get welfare. That is the culture she grew up in.

Dr. Ruby Payne has done studies of the economic impact on people. How they grow up and interact with others. Here is line from her web site:" How does poverty impact learning, work habits, or decision making? The reality of living in poverty brings out a survival mentality and turns attention away from opportunities taken for granted by people in middle and upper class."

Im not sure she thought she was committing fraud. She isnt going to magically change because she won $1 million. She has a mentality ingrained into her to survive. Not better herself or make decisions that will benefit her for a lifetime. It is about here and now.

Im not saying what she did was right. But I believe that $1 million dollars really doesnt mean much to her. Not like it would to a middle class or upper class individual.

And this goes back to the (cliched) reasons you teach a man to fish. I think thats the problem with entitlement systems in general. They become the normal way that people learn to survive.

Yes, if I were poor and had no assistance for 20-30 years...then instantly was handed some assistance to get on my feet...I'd have an appreciation for what was just given to me & I'd be much more inclined to give back (or at least sustain myself so I did not need to have it handed to me again).

But if I grew up with the concept of always going to the assistance center and "thats where my food comes from"...I'm not sure the same appreciation could even be possible. Certainly not for a majority of people.

And I use "appreciation" in the sense of "understanding" more than "thankfulness" although I think both words are appropriate.

Yes there are bigger injustices & corruptions on the surface in government & society than this but I do believe this type of cradle-to-grave mentality is the more long term damaging injustice for low/no income people...and its what assures they will (for the most part with minor exceptions) always remain on the bottom of the economic totem pole. It takes many small achievements to make people imagine & realize bigger achievements. If you rob somebody of the small achievements, such as sustaining oneself & the concept of not burdening others, then you've robbed them of the concept of what they can actually achieve and of what "fairness" really means. And not understanding the concept of "everybody pitches in & does the right thing" is why we end up (ultimately) with radical social/economic inequality, imho.

The "haves" believe they can achieve independence while the "have-nots" don't...or don't know what that means. So you've got a different system of values in place...one class believing you do things a particular way to make sure you can sustain yourself, another believing that life is too difficult & rigged to even try. This leads to segregation of neighborhoods, schools, etc. by economic class...which in turn breeds further class divisiveness. And the question then becomes..why don't the wealthy want to do more to help the lower income classes? Because they simply don't want to be a part of their society or value systems.

Obviously I'm highly generalizing people of all economic classes (and there are numerous exceptions to be pointed out) but I do believe it does always come back to individuals needing to do things for themselves. Whether that be getting a job, lobbying their local/state governments, creating a value proposition for others to buy from them (i.e. starting a business), or educating themselves (formally or informally)...it starts there.

I think from the dredges comes only two outcomes. More of the same, or intense change.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/articl...ad-3905465.php

Story didn't end well and I can't get Alanis Morrisette outta my head.

Who really didn't see that coming?