Don’t leave Little Rock without it

Don’t leave Little Rock without it

As Kathy Shaidle points out that often people are poor in the first place because they don’t know how to manage money (contrary to the liberal notion that poverty only exists because people are oppressed).

Thus, victims of Hurricane Katrina who were issued $2,000 debit cards from FEMA and the Red Cross have been found using them at upscale clothing stores and strip clubs.

According to a report by KPRC, Channel 2, in Houston, a manager at Caligula XXI Gentlemen’s Club said he has seen at least one debit card used at his club. A bartender at Baby Dolls, identified only as “Abby,” said she has seen many of the cards used at her establishment.

“A lot of customers have been coming in from Louisiana and they’ve been real happy about the $1.75 beers and they’re really nice,” she said.

I think I know what’s going on. The report has it completely wrong. These aren’t FEMA and Red Cross debit cards, these are the cards issued out of the funds collected by Bill Clinton. “The Clinton Debit Card: Don’t Leave Little Rock Without It.” See, that explains it.

  • has a another link to this disgusting behavior.  This is why many of us who were so concerned with the poor in our youth are conservatives now.  It becomes more and more apparent that most able-bodied, young, “poor” people in this country are that way because scamming is their way of life.  They chose to live off the handouts or the taxed income of others.

    Too many “people of color” have been told repeatedly by our elites and churches that they are victims of oppression and have a right to food, housing, medical care.  Why should anyone have to work for it if something is a right?

    Why use an emergency grant to buy necessities when it’s the “go’rment’s” job to provide those?  Hey, this is free money, time to have some fun.

    What a can of worms.

  • “This is why many of us who were so concerned with the poor in our youth are conservatives now.”

    LOL at this. I must be pretty heartless b/c I think I was always conservative when it came to the poor!

    Thanks for this thread. I almost threw up when I saw this story on WND.

    And “Abby” had better watch herself. I read some testimony by a former manager at a chain of sexually-oriented businesses in Ohio, and apparently one way SOBs get women on stage is to hire them as bartenders, kind of “love-bomb” them as they do in cults, then tell them after a few weeks, “Hey, so-and-so called in sick tonight. We really need you to take her place,” and make the woman feel as though she’s letting everyone down by NOT doing it. What creeps.

    Best to all –

  • On the other hand, cash is much more efficient and gives people the power to make their own buying decisions.  $2k a person is a pittance in the Grand Scheme of Things.  If they choose to spend it on booze rather than bread that’s their foolishness.  But if they can use the money for transportation to another city to stay with their relatives, why would you insist on giving them blankets instead?

  • When one gives money to the poor, it is better to not dwell on whether or not the poor will spend it as the giver sees fit.  Unfortunately, many donations, whether to New Orleans, or to the local food pantry, may not be used for the best purpose.  It doesn’t mean we should stop giving.  The publicity often goes to those who misappropriate the donations, but there are many, many more who need the funds and will use it wisely.

    That being said, the government can make sure that the bulk of the money is not given out on an individual basis.  Years ago I worked as a staff member in the U.S. Senate when we were settling certain claims of Indian tribes.  For the first time, a settlement was made that was given to the tribe as an entity and not distributed entirely on a per capita basis.  As a result, the tribes were able to start tribal businesses that would continue on for future generations.  The alternative had been individual payments that were very often squandered on fast automobiles and instant gratification.

    Again, you can’t avoid every problem, but there are ways to insure that the most people are benefited for the longest period of time.

  • Whew,

    If we are looking to the U.S. Senate and providing money to Indian Tribes as a positive example of stewardship, we are in dire straits.

    What is wrong with the local food pantry? Doesn’t providing a meal have a better chance at the intended result than providing cash?


  • If I were in need of a couple of things, I would much rather have the cash to purchase those things which I considered highest priority, rather than having to take what was available from donation and ending up with three dinners and no clothes.  I suspect most everyone on this blog would similarly trust themself?

    The question is: do you trust individuals to make their own decisions?  Or do you want to do the socialism thing and make decisions for them?  Do you know what’s best for you, or does the government or even a charity know what’s best for you?

    Obviously some people do not make wise decisions.  Does that mean no one should be allowed to make their own decisions on what they need?

    How much money and effort will be wasted or misdirected by giving cash?  vs how much money and effort will be wasted or misdirected by having the govt and charitable organizations, the middlemen, decide what each and every person needs?

    Ideally one would know the individual and decide whether he was competent to manage his own needs before donating.  Do you think the government could know each individual, and could or should make that decision case by case? and how much wasted money would it cost to interview every refugee?

    We have some refugee nuns—excuse me, “evacuee”—in my area, and they’re being given debit cards to Super-WalMart.  They can prioritize their own needs in terms of clothing, groceries, etc.

  • Bravo, JBP—to the point exactly.

    I have worked at soup kitchens and raised money for people in need.  I have seen the feckless and the responsible.  It would help if discretion were possible in government aid, but it isn’t.  If someone meets the criteria (hurricane victim) then they get the benefit.  Any attempt to determine how the beneift is used would be met with lawsuits about discrimination.

    That’s why person-to-person assistence is the best.  If the giver sees that they are being abused, they can stop giving.  Not so with government.

    Further, watching food stamps or credit cards being abused hardens the hearts of those who would otherwise be inclined to help.