What if someone is on Social Security and receives food stamps?

That is a good point...

So the question then becomes whose definition of the term will be used to assess the viability of it's application?

Muddy water...

Oh MY...

"This bill prohibits issuance of lottery prizes in the amount of $600 or more to any person who receives state or federal economic or medical assistance due to indigency and any such prizes otherwise payable to any such persons would be declared unclaimed prizes. The prohibition would not apply to recipients of lottery scholarships or higher education tuition assistance, recipients of benefits from programs administered by the Tennessee housing development agency, and persons receiving other state and federal financial assistance that is not based upon the recipient's indigency."

*HB 0818 by *Campfield ( SB 1240 by *Bunch)

Lottery, Corporation - As introduced, prohibits certain persons who receive state or federal assistance from being awarded lottery prizes over $600; prohibits persons incarcerated from being awarded lottery prizes. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 51, Part 1.

Surprise! Campbell is a Republican.

Here's my bottom line, I don't give a flyin fart who wins the lottery, poor, rich or in the middle. You paid a frickin $1 for the ticket, it hits, you get your money plain and simple. The state is going to get their slice of that pie before the winner does. They take the taxes right off the top before they ever get a check. If this goes thru ain't no tellin where it would end. A person on assistance wins the PCH sweepstakes is the state gonna take that from them also?

Winx.. this will not be answered until someone finds out how and why Tennessee considers a person indigent.

I think you're right.

This absolutely ludicrous!!! So they win the lotto and have to forfeit and stay on welfare

That is what I said... errrr... meant by what I said...

I'm thinking it means anybody that receives any kind of aid. They do not have the means to provide for themselves, let alone their family.

I can't find TN specifically....but this is the legal definition of it

indigent 1) n. a person so poor and needy that he/she cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter) for himself/herself. 2) n. one without sufficient income to afford a lawyer for defense in a criminal case. If the court finds a person is an indigent, the court must appoint a public defender or other attorney to represent him/her. This Constitutional right of counsel for the indigent was determined by Gideon v. Wainright in 1963, when a penciled letter from a prisoner came to the attention of prominent Washington attorney Abe Fortas, who carried the case to the Supreme Court for free. Fortas later became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 3) adj. referring to a person who is very poor and needy.

Sounds like that definition covers any and all people who receive assistance other than what was spelled out clearly earlier...

That is unconstitutional...

Lotteries are not acceptable or proper for needy people to play?

What is this country coming to?

That is a wonderful idea. I feel that if you cannot afford everything on your own and require government assistance, you should therefore not be able to afford things like lotto tickets. I've seen people in the liquor store by where I work come in looking completely ratty with a car that knocks, smokes, and barely runs buy $50 in scratchers. that's just irresponsibility.

First how do you know they are on assistance of any kind? Second who the hell do you think you are to pick and choose who is worthy to recieve anything? I don't think you are qualified to make this determination and I am glad you are not allowed to do so.

This is the philosophy of some Americans that is ugly and prejudice and sick. It brings shame to this country for people to go about stating things like this. In my opinion of course.

Over 30 million people receive food stamps. If 1% of them buy one lottery ticket every two weeks, that is still about $7.2 million in public money per annum.

That attitude displays privelege...

It screams of elitism...

Republicans... Geeeesh...

The real question to ask is this...

How many winners are there that actually receive assistance?

If there are but five or six in that year, then the taxes on the winnings cover the money spent... and then some most likely.

Now, think of it in another way, without those winners being allowed to play, that just keeps them using the system...

There is no logical purpose...

It sounds like just one more attempt to force someone else's idea of what ought to be.... for the sake of the kids???

Bull****!

Libertarian, actually. Republican free since 6 months after my 18th birthday (we all make mistakes)

And that stance completely supports my political beliefs of personal responsibility. If any social assistance is received, it should supplement personal income. That personal income should cover every living expense it can, then the social assistance (don't believe in it either way but for the sake of argument) should cover the remaining expenses. Lotto tickets have nothing to do with living. Not to mention the horrible ROI.

If that's elitist, then fine. If you receive assistance because you can't afford to live on your own, you should have nothing that you don't require to live/be comfortable in your budget.