Welfare, and Need vs. Abuse (thread split)

[Foil]

Question Foil, just out of curiosity…Have you ever lived in the slums, and for how long?

Never lived in the slums. I grew up in a 'working poor' family, moved a lot, but managed to mostly stay in the lower 'burbs. My parents were good with what little they had (usually right around the poverty line).

My own experience about welfare abuse is from welfare families I knew, and working as a teacher in an inner-city (definitely slums) school.

What I found is that people's ethics aren't income-dependent.
- Honest folk stay honest whether on welfare or making six+ figures.
- The kind of guy who abuses welfare is the same guy who at another income level will steal from his employer, cheat on his taxes, etc.

In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, the majority of people are honest, but the percent who have the "take it if you can get away with it" mindset is still significant. The only similar stat I know off the top of my head is insurance fraud, which sits around 30%. In the absence of other good statistics, I think it's a reasonable comparison.

[woodchip]

And just how would one comprise those statistics? Lets see, we could send out a questionnaire with the question:

Do you abuse your welfare benefits:

A) Very rarely
B) Sometimes
C) All the time
D) Not at all.

I bet we would get a real accurate accounting...........................

Well, one could, y'know, perform something called "investigation" and, like, check up on these people to see what their situation really is. Just a little something called "research" you may have heard of. But because no such research apparently exists, or at the very least you yourself have never seen any, you're essentially declaring that you really were coming up with those statements out of nowhere. Good to know..

Do you still live in your parents basement?

[Will Robinson]

Question Foil, just out of curiosity…Have you ever lived in the slums, and for how long?

Never lived in the slums. I grew up in a 'working poor' family, moved a lot, but managed to mostly stay in the lower 'burbs. My parents were good with what little they had (usually right around the poverty line).

My own experience about welfare abuse is from welfare families I knew, and working as a teacher in an inner-city (definitely slums) school.

What I found is that people's ethics aren't income-dependent.
- Honest folk stay honest whether on welfare or making six+ figures.
- The kind of guy who abuses welfare is the same guy who at another income level will steal from his employer, cheat on his taxes, etc.

In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, the majority of people are honest, but the percent who have the "take it if you can get away with it" mindset is still significant. The only similar stat I know off the top of my head is insurance fraud, which sits around 30%. In the absence of other good statistics, I think it's a reasonable comparison.

I'd agree with your guess on the numbers based on insurance fraud is a decent starting point but think you have to use a multiplier of an additional percentage to cover the 'honest people' who will rationalize the 'taking back' what the government takes from them aspect even if they are honest in other areas. And then the other modifier would be the number of people who don't really try as hard as they would if the safety net wasn't there for them to rely on, maybe they got on the program for no fault of their own but they become lazy because of a lack of necessity to get off of it.

I see examples all the time of the types who would go out and apply for jobs in a really negative way just looking to get the number of signatures on a card to show they 'tried' to find work and if you seem like you might hire them they suddenly have issues with distance to travel to get there or 'can't work mornings'...etc. I have about three people that have been calling me for years every three months to ask if I'm hiring and use me as an 'attempt' to get hired even though I've told them they really don't have any kind of skill I need in an employee.

If you have a whole lot of high profile people telling you you are a victim you tend to act like one if you have little drive and those same people are handing out free money. The removal of the stigma of 'being on assistance' might make people feel better about it but making people feel better about it makes them comfortable with it...

Another anecdotal example from my town, the local shelter has grown to be quite impressive and with it the local homeless/junkie population has grown right along with it, both outpacing the growth of the towns population by quite a bit. I don't give them any money anymore because they are creating a problem.

[Foil]

Another anecdotal example from my town, the local shelter has grown to be quite impressive and with it the local homeless/junkie population has grown right along with it, both outpacing the growth of the towns population by quite a bit. I don't give them any money anymore because they are creating a problem.

Holy crap. What makes you think the shelter growth causes the homeless population growth, rather than vice versa, or both as the result of the economy?

Shelters don't pre-emptively build extra space when there isn't a need. They build extra space because the need rises. (And before anyone asks, yes, I have actually helped with building efforts at my local shelter.)

---------

I certainly understand the problem with dependency, and I fully support any reform which helps filter out individuals who have the ability to help themselves. However, the argument that says "assistance drives need, so less assistance is better" is bull★■◆● rationalization in my book.

[Will Robinson]

Another anecdotal example from my town, the local shelter has grown to be quite impressive and with it the local homeless/junkie population has grown right along with it, both outpacing the growth of the towns population by quite a bit. I don't give them any money anymore because they are creating a problem.

Holy crap. What makes you think the shelter growth causes the homeless population growth, rather than vice versa, or both as the result of the economy?

Shelters don't pre-emptively build extra space when there isn't a need. They build extra space because the need rises. (And anyone asks, yes, I have actually helped with building efforts at my local shelter.)

---------

I certainly understand the problem with dependency, and I fully support any reform which helps filter out individuals who have the ability to help themselves. However, the argument that says "assistance drives need, so less assistance is better" is **** rationalization in my book.

I live in a tourist/beach town that attracts transients and the better the shelter the more that are attracted to it. I'm not just guessing at the end result, this is something a lot of people here are watching unfold, numerous former supporters have decided to end their support based on the influx of lifers moving here from other locations. The town has to cut out all the underbrush from open land around the shelter because of the tent villages that spring up, shelter is half full woods are full of trouble...
Cause or not it is the net result...

[flip]

It's all because of that passing glance at fairness if you ask me

[Top Gun]

Do you still live in your parents basement?

Last time I checked, no. Too many creepy-ass house centipedes and big hairy spiders wander around down there. Though they have a disturbing habit of often making their way upstairs too, so I guess it wouldn't make a huge difference.

[callmeslick]

There are families that are generations deep into living off of welfare, foodstamps, etc.

and, they do this because of the generous lifestyle it provides. And further, how many people do these 'generations' entail, as a percentage of all recipients?

There are also countless studies done all the time about welfare perpetuating itself and the many facets of the welfare-to-work programs and how they are more effective with slightly disadvantaged ie; high school diploma versus grade school drop outs etc. Those studies show the 'lifers' (lazy ignorant **** escaping reality) certainly exist and it is usually in the inner cities that this happens. They have their own culture that becomes a support group for lifers.

likewise, there are probably 'countless' people who consider the above words to comprise a non specific, non factual collection of words, which sort of make you look both clueless and mean-spirited all at once.

I have no clue

and, you've gone out of your way to illustrate that nicely. Congrats!


seriously, you, by your own admission don't know how much this 'problem'(which, despite 'countless' studies, you failed to actually define.)impacts costs or harm to the taxpayers. You seem to be casting some sort of wary eye to the cities, although I'd suspect that overall, fraud is about as prevalent in rural America as in the cities, just more spread out by definition. I don't know, you don't seem to me to be making a very strong case.

[Will Robinson]

There are families that are generations deep into living off of welfare, foodstamps, etc.

and, they do this because of the generous lifestyle it provides. And further, how many people do these 'generations' entail, as a percentage of all recipients?

I don't know and made no assertion that depends on knowing that number...so what is the point you think you made?
The fact that families are generations deep into the welfare is relevant to the points I was raising and interesting whether they are 2% or 20%.

...

There are also countless studies done all the time about welfare perpetuating itself and the many facets of the welfare-to-work programs and how they are more effective with slightly disadvantaged ie; high school diploma versus grade school drop outs etc. Those studies show the 'lifers' (lazy ignorant **** escaping reality) certainly exist and it is usually in the inner cities that this happens. They have their own culture that becomes a support group for lifers.

likewise, there are probably 'countless' people who consider the above words to comprise a non specific, non factual collection of words, which sort of make you look both clueless and mean-spirited all at once.

How can it be non factual when I linked the study?!? Now if you want to examine the web site I provided and show me it is non-specific or non-factual, then you may be on to something. Otherwise you are completely wrong!

seriously, you, by your own admission don't know how much this 'problem'(which, despite 'countless' studies, you failed to actually define.)impacts costs or harm to the taxpayers. You seem to be casting some sort of wary eye to the cities, although I'd suspect that overall, fraud is about as prevalent in rural America as in the cities, just more spread out by definition. I don't know, you don't seem to me to be making a very strong case.

You seem to be developing a lot of totally wrong conclusions from the actual words I typed and material I linked.

People were talking about the downside of Welfare etc., I pointed out that it is a complex problem and said that allthough I don't know the ratio of legitimate claims to illegitimate claims, in my opinion any illegitimate claim is too many. I pointed out the politics of maintaining the victim class for the benefit of a certain party that panders to and tacitly condones a degree of the fraud. I alluded to the phenomenon of the concentrated areas giving birth to a 'support group' mentality for the lifers. That isn't my own invention (Ok, the L.I.F.E.R. term was my embellishment, the social scientists who discuss the families continuing through generations on the programs wouldn't use 'Lifer' in their study and I don't get credit for coining the phrase but it just fits so well I threw it in there).
Just because these facts are hurtfull to people doesn't mean they aren't there or relevant to the discussion.
However, I did not say we should drop welfare, I did not say any number of things you seem to have tried to imply was my intent.

If you read that web page that I linked...you know the one that you ignored so you could say I was 'non-specific' and provided ' a collection of non-factual words' you would see the web page is slam full of facts and specifics!! So your charge is really bizzare! Some kind of knee-jerk-didn't-bother-to-read-the-thread-attack-the-conservative-at-all-costs kind of weird!

And, if you read the material, you would see that it is a really difficult thing to determine just how effective the work-to-welfare programs are and those programs are the front lines for battling the need for welfare and the fraud that goes with any kind of 'free lunch' government offering.

So why did you choose to misrepresent what I said, which you are plainly wrong about...and why did you choose to ascribe to me intent that wasn't there and that alleged 'mean' intent doesn't even line up with the content of my comments nor the reference I linked?
In a discussion about welfare fraud, talking about the people who live continuously off the program and don't make good faith efforts to get off of it isn't a "mean" thing to do, just as calling a murderer a killer isn't a mean thing to do.

[CUDA]

LOL as if right on Que. my Son-in-law has been unemployed for several months now so he went in and applied for food stamps today. the Government case worker told him to stop collecting his unemployment and she would put him on several government programs and he would actually make more money than just collecting his unemployment.

That's what screwed up with our system. social workers telling people how to screw the system. and this isn't the first time I've heard of something like this from someone.

[flip]

Breaking: Secret Bilderberg Agenda Leaked by Mole

The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 8, 2011

Alex Jones and Infowars.com have received inside information regarding the Bilderberg agenda now unfolding in the idyllic Swiss countryside.

According to AFP journalist and legendary Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker’s inside sources, the agenda now under review includes a number of critical issues at the top of the elite’s to-do list. These breakdown as follows:

The elite are concerned that the American Congress may soon turn against the illegal and immoral invasion under humanitarian cover by NATO and the UN against the north African dictator Moammar Gaddafi.

As columnist Patrick Buchanan noted yesterday, Congress is rising in opposition to bogus wars launched by the executive branch in violation of the Constitution.

“Last week, House Speaker John Boehner had to scramble to cobble up a substitute resolution to prevent half his GOP caucus from joining with Democrats to denounce President Obama’s war in Libya as unconstitutional and to demand a total U.S. pullout in 15 days,” Buchanan wrote.

More than a third of House Republicans voted to pull out of the NATO coalition attacking Gaddafi’s forces, in essence forcing a NATO withdrawal from the color revolution engineered civil war in that country.

In January, former oil industry pastor Lindsey Williams revealed that his inside sources said oil prices will skyrocket – a fait accompli with gas prices at the pump now at historically high levels – as the global elite work behind the scenes to take take down national economies. Williams appeared on the Alex Jones Show to talk about new revelations that deal with the death of the dollar, exploding energy prices, and the engineered onset of order out of chaos revolution worldwide.

The elite now meeting behind closed door in the Switzerland are pushing for a wider war and incalculable suffering in the Middle East.

The money masters have long profited from war and mass murder. Nathan Rothschild made a financial bet on Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo and while also funding the Duke of Wellington’s peninsular campaign against Napoleon. The House of Rothschild financed the Prussian War, the Crimean War and the British attempt to seize the Suez Canal from the French and also financed the Mexican War and the Civil War in the U.S.

In addition to worrying about Congress waking up to the Libyan scam, the global elite is also concerned about a diverse liberty movement that has grown exponentially with the help of an open and free internet.

In response, the pocketed pawns in Congress have introduced a raft of bills over the last few months designed to take down the internet and blunt its impact as a medium for alternative news and information.

On April 1, 2009, the Senate introduced two bills, endangering a free and open internet: S. 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 and S. 778 to establish a White House cybersecurity czar.

In addition, on September 20, 2010, S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced.

Early last month, an especially ominous bill was introduced in the Senate. Entitled Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, PROTECT IP for short, this legislation would use copyright infringement as a smoke screen to take down web domains and institute rolling censorship.

On the international front, the European Commission gave a nod toward implementing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a draconian measure that will subvert national sovereignty, trash Net Neutrality, consumer privacy, and civil liberties. In the United States, the corporate media has virtually ignored ACTA, but then key players in the Mockingbird media are often Bilderberg attendees and privy to aspects of the agenda.

The above represent a small sampling of legislation and treaties that will be used to shut down the opposition under the cover of protecting copyright and preventing terrorism.

Hyperventilating over exaggerated threats of cybersecurity, Senator Jay Rockefeller mused during a congressional meeting on cyber crime and terrorism in 2009: “It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet.”

The globalists are not opposed to the internet, especially as a corporatized money-making instrument. They are, however, opposed to an open, free, and unregulated by government internet where alternative media opposed to their globalist devices are allowed to thrive.

In addition, we can expect minions of the global elite who parade around as our elected representatives and appointed government officials to continue their propaganda efforts to convince the American people that the internet will be used as a terrorist weapon of mass destruction and as such needs to be tightly regulated – for our own safety, of course, and that of the children.

Finally, the Bilderbergers will work on an effort to sucker an already economically besieged American public into further fantastic debt producing bankster bailouts, specifically for Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and other member EU nations sliding toward bankruptcy and social disruption on a monumental scale.

In late 2010, the U.S. Treasury, now operating as a liaison between the government and the bankster owned private Federal Reserve, indicated it was ready to fork over billions more to the European black hole.

“There are obviously some severe market problems,” said a faceless bureaucrat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “In May, it was Greece. This is Ireland and Portugal. If there is contagion that’s a huge problem for the global economy.”

As of late 2010, the IMF, whose biggest single “shareholder” (read: parasitical host) is the United States, has committed 250 billion euros to the bankster engineered black hole.

“Why should American taxpayers be on the hook because a foreign government cannot cover its debts?” asked Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, at a House subcommittee hearing last May.

Because the plan is to take down national sovereignty, impose drastic austerity measures, hold fire sales on national assets, consolidate wealth and power, and use an endless economic crisis as an excuse to usher in world government, a one-world currency, and a sprawling high-tech police state.

If there is ANY truth to this, better get your dancing shoes on

[null0010]

Infowars is ... suspect. At best.

[flip]

Yeah, they have a personal agenda, but all I can say is it does describe the growing trend almost to a T. Don't kill the messenger just because he is overzealous, and I will add that that 'infowars' has definitely been deemed as a threat. The problem I have is that I see this too =/.

[callmeslick]

LOL as if right on Que. my Son-in-law has been unemployed for several months now so he went in and applied for food stamps today. the Government case worker told him to stop collecting his unemployment and she would put him on several government programs and he would actually make more money than just collecting his unemployment.

That's what screwed up with our system. social workers telling people how to screw the system. and this isn't the first time I've heard of something like this from someone.

not to take all the fun out of this little story, but did the nice social worker tell him how long he could collect these benefits, and also, would the level of benefits ever be considered sufficient to actually live in any sort of real comfort or economic stability?

[CUDA]

LOL as if right on Que. my Son-in-law has been unemployed for several months now so he went in and applied for food stamps today. the Government case worker told him to stop collecting his unemployment and she would put him on several government programs and he would actually make more money than just collecting his unemployment.

That's what screwed up with our system. social workers telling people how to screw the system. and this isn't the first time I've heard of something like this from someone.

not to take all the fun out of this little story, but did the nice social worker tell him how long he could collect these benefits, and also, would the level of benefits ever be considered sufficient to actually live in any sort of real comfort or economic stability?

I fail to see how that has anything to do with him being instructed by a Government employee on how to "work the system"

another story: a few years back when they were talking about revoking the green cards of some people in this country. I had a co-worker that was from Guatemala, his Government case worker told him IF it came down to him being deported that he should get as many Credit cards as he could and Max them out and just take the merchandise with him, because there would be no way that the CC companies would be able to recover their money.

A Government employee has no business instructing someone on how to intentionally take advantage of the system. EVER.

[Duper]

Another anecdotal example from my town, the local shelter has grown to be quite impressive and with it the local homeless/junkie population has grown right along with it, both outpacing the growth of the towns population by quite a bit. I don't give them any money anymore because they are creating a problem.

Holy crap. What makes you think the shelter growth causes the homeless population growth, rather than vice versa, or both as the result of the economy?

Shelters don't pre-emptively build extra space when there isn't a need. They build extra space because the need rises. (And before anyone asks, yes, I have actually helped with building efforts at my local shelter.)

---------

I certainly understand the problem with dependency, and I fully support any reform which helps filter out individuals who have the ability to help themselves. However, the argument that says "assistance drives need, so less assistance is better" is **** rationalization in my book.

Actually Foil, we have a similar problem here in Portland. Except we aren't building more shelters. This town is known for being soft on panhandlers and users so they are actually migrating in from other states that are cracking down on the willfully homeless. That's a whole nuther thread tho.

Cuda is quite right, I don't know how many times over the course of my life, I've heard the exact same thing. Reps advising how people can get "the most of their situation" by working the system. I talked to a gal a number of years ago that was told by a rep to have more kids so she could get more subsudies.

[flip]

Maybe those people recognize it for what it is and are just trying to help in the only way they know how?

[CUDA]

give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to .... well you know the rest

[flip]

The original social security act began in 1935. Sounds like a passing glance at fairness.

[Jeff250]

another story: a few years back when they were talking about revoking the green cards of some people in this country. I had a co-worker that was from Guatemala, his Government case worker told him IF it came down to him being deported that he should get as many Credit cards as he could and Max them out and just take the merchandise with him, because there would be no way that the CC companies would be able to recover their money.

How much credit do green card immigrants have?

[woodchip]

LOL as if right on Que. my Son-in-law has been unemployed for several months now so he went in and applied for food stamps today. the Government case worker told him to stop collecting his unemployment and she would put him on several government programs and he would actually make more money than just collecting his unemployment.

That's what screwed up with our system. social workers telling people how to screw the system. and this isn't the first time I've heard of something like this from someone.

not to take all the fun out of this little story, but did the nice social worker tell him how long he could collect these benefits, and also, would the level of benefits ever be considered sufficient to actually live in any sort of real comfort or economic stability?

I don't think comfort or stability enters their calculus. Many will still work for cash money, start a small business but not pay themselves any salary but still have a company car to drive around in, company paid utilites, company paid insurance....all of which get written off as business expenses. So the clever recipients can live quite well.

[CUDA]

another story: a few years back when they were talking about revoking the green cards of some people in this country. I had a co-worker that was from Guatemala, his Government case worker told him IF it came down to him being deported that he should get as many Credit cards as he could and Max them out and just take the merchandise with him, because there would be no way that the CC companies would be able to recover their money.

How much credit do green card immigrants have?

cant answer that. but is that the point?

[Will Robinson]

another story: a few years back when they were talking about revoking the green cards of some people in this country. I had a co-worker that was from Guatemala, his Government case worker told him IF it came down to him being deported that he should get as many Credit cards as he could and Max them out and just take the merchandise with him, because there would be no way that the CC companies would be able to recover their money.

How much credit do green card immigrants have?

More than you might think. Bank of America was issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants, they probably still do.
With just a utility bill they can get a drivers license and voter registration...after that they can get anything the government hands out and do business with just about anyone. So a legal immigrant should have no trouble getting a credit card at all.

[flip]

I dunno Will, if you give credit to people who are invested in this country and might actually pay back then you would keep the dollar value high and stable.

[Will Robinson]

I dunno Will, if you give credit to people who are invested in this country and might actually pay back then you would keep the dollar value high and stable.

I'm not making any judgement regarding their ability to get credit. I just pointed out that thinking a green card immigrant wouldn't have a credit card is wrong.

[flip]

I don't consider illegal immigrants to meet either one of those requirements. Any money they do obtain falls through the cracks and can not be accounted for. If a large amount of that happens, can in itself be disastrous to a nations economy.Thats one of my biggest gripes against drug dealers and maybe why I quit smoking altogether until I can grow my own. Illegal immigration has the same effect on our economy as the illegal drug trade. Put the 2 together and the problem is just compounded, add a war on one and apathy towards the other, it gets even worse.

[Jeff250]

cant answer that. but is that the point?

No point--just wondering how much someone could actually take. I know people who are citizens who can't get credit cards because they have no credit, but this is post housing crisis.

[callmeslick]

I don't think comfort or stability enters their calculus. Many will still work for cash money, start a small business but not pay themselves any salary but still have a company car to drive around in, company paid utilites, company paid insurance....all of which get written off as business expenses. So the clever recipients can live quite well.

like to take a stab at what percentage of overall recipients live this little dream? yeesh!