rickyp wrote:You've made the ridiculous assertion that there are women out there getting pregnant repeatedly for the welfare checks.

Not that Tom needs to be defended, but it's not ridiculous. If this were a court of law, I could provide a humongous stack of affidavits.

In a country of 350 millions . . .

Now, that is ridiculous. I don't know any survey that shows our population that high.

. . .. I suppose you can find an exceptional person like that. But where are the facts backing this assertion up to where its a measurably and well known and experienced phenomenon. ?

No one said it is "a measurably and well known and experienced phenomenon."

Think about what you're asking. Who is going to do this study? Who is going to admit it?

If you have any real solid evidence to bring to the table perhaps I'll change my mind about whether or not there is genuine welfare abuse at a significant level. But if all you have is your anecdotes and personal experience - I'll go with the real information.

You've offered no proof that welfare fraud does not occur. Much of what is welfare fraud never gets prosecuted because it's not what DA's are interested in. They will throw deadbeat dads in jail, but have no appetite for welfare moms.

rickyp wrote:I went out to see if this was a valid point. It might be.. The only way to know would be to compare other nations and see.

I don't know what makes that THE valid standard. What I do know is that "sex education" in public schools involved everything but bringing porn stars or prostitutes into the classroom for demonstrations.

It would be difficult to find a State more liberal with regard to sex ed than MA, and it hasn't hurt our teen pregnancy rates.

The US has the highest rate of teen preganancies in the western world. What is so very different?

I think it's the water.

In any event, thanks for disproving your assertion about lack of sex ed being the problem.

SO what does this mean? Is it the US's uniquely religious nature versus other western nations?

Nah, I think it's because we have so many single parent families or families in which both parents are too busy pursuing careers to pay any attention to their kids.

Ricky, Rochester is where I live. But I have plenty of family and friends in Philadelphia and is where I was both born and also lived for several years after college. Is that a big enough city for you?
And here's something for you, they are in America! The place you pretend to be an expert about.
Yes, young women here do indeed get pregnant over and over to 1. Get more welfare and 2. because they know even though they can not afford the children, the government will step in and make it easier on them. The government is in fact rewarding poor behavior. I can rattle off at least half a dozen (very) young girls at my wife's church alone who are in this situation. These young ladies are from middle class families, I have spoken to several of them, it's tough but thanks to government programs they can afford to have the kids! Straight from their mouths. Please do us all a favor and stick to the way things are in Canada, you simply have no freaking idea of how things really are here, if you did, you would have a much different tune.

and Ricky, still no suggestion on how to break the cycle. Several of us pointed out making things tougher would possibly break the madness, your suggestion???
...Do nothing but accept it and continue to "rescue" these "unfortunate souls" Yeah, it sounds so nice and decent of you but what are you really doing other than forcing them to live in a permanent cycle of sucking on the welfare teet?

steve

Not that Tom needs to be defended, but it's not ridiculous. If this were a court of law, I could provide a humongous stack of affidavits.

But neither of you can find one source that actually provides some kind of authority for your claims ? One statistical report? One study?
Nope.

Steve

Think about what you're asking. Who is going to do this study? Who is going to admit it?

Sociologists would study this...

steve

You've offered no proof that welfare fraud does not occur

.
I'll refer you back to the information that showed that virtually all federal welfare goes to single women with children. You;'ve agreed that single women with children deserve help.
Please refer me to where you've been able to quantify that a significant percentage of these single women with children are commtting fraud.

Steve

In any event, thanks for disproving your assertion about lack of sex ed being the problem

Its amazing how persuasive actual evidence is, isn't Steve?
Yopu and Tom should try and back your claims up with more than just your personal insights.

A long time ago...

Green Arrow wrote:Danivon,
Others bring up other statements that don't have anything to do with fraud. Remember Denmark?

Do I think that mothers of school age children be forced to work? Not for the first 2 years, while they are on my opinion of welfare reform. That is unless they are physically disabled. Then there should be long term assistance.

Interesting answer. I was also thinking of pre-school children.

Later GA said

RickyP,
Yes, I would support 2 years of Welfare, IF it were limited to that two years for a lifetime. Have we come to an agreement position? Kumbaya, RickyP.

Which is a totally different thing. And totally not what the whole concept of national employment insurance is all about.

I'd respond to all the generalisations about single mothers, but frankly I don't have the energy. You guys just know that loads of girls get up the duff just for the money, even though the money isn't actually that good. You also seem to think everyone is perfectly rational in their decision making, which suggests you haven't met many teenagers, drunks, drug addicts or people with personality disorders.

And yes, I've been to US inner cities. They really are nasty places. I felt more comfortable in deprived parts of London or Manchester, and even in Morocco, which is proper Third World.

Green Arrow wrote:http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=116443274&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10222

Is paying bail to get out of jail an acceptable us of welfare dollars? Apparently in Washington it is.

Do Danivon and RickyP support welfare benefits being used for bail?

I don't know that it's government's place to over-define what people can spend their money on. Sure, it comes from welfare, but once you give it over it's theirs to spend.

danivon wrote:

Green Arrow wrote:http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=116443274&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10222

Is paying bail to get out of jail an acceptable us of welfare dollars? Apparently in Washington it is.

Do Danivon and RickyP support welfare benefits being used for bail?

I don't know that it's government's place to over-define what people can spend their money on. Sure, it comes from welfare, but once you give it over it's theirs to spend.

If it is the Government's money, then restrictions can be placed upon it. Are you saying that the Government should place restrictions on things? That is a new one from you...

rickyp wrote:steve

Not that Tom needs to be defended, but it's not ridiculous. If this were a court of law, I could provide a humongous stack of affidavits.

But neither of you can find one source that actually provides some kind of authority for your claims ? One statistical report? One study?
Nope.

You're thick as a brick. What a surprise.

Google "welfare fraud statistics"

. . . Accurate statistics on welfare fraud are difficult to obtain. . . The Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 that twenty-four percent of new welfare applications in San Diego County contain some form of fraud. However, this statistic was misreported and the actual figure is probably considerably lower [6]. The US Department of Labor reported that 1.9% total UI payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program.

Statistics are hard to find, but they do exist:

$69 million in California welfare money drawn out of state
Las Vegas tops the list with $11.8 million spent at casinos or taken from ATMs, but transactions in Hawaii, Miami, Guam and elsewhere also raise questions. Officials say budget cuts hinder investigations.
October 04, 2010|By Jack Dolan, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Sacramento — More than $69 million in California welfare money, meant to help the needy pay their rent and clothe their children, has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami.

State-issued aid cards have been used at hotels, shops, restaurants, ATMs and other places in 49 other states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, according to data obtained by The Times from the California Department of Social Services. Las Vegas drew $11.8 million of the cash benefits, far more than any other destination. The money was accessed from January 2007 through May 2010.

Steve

Think about what you're asking. Who is going to do this study? Who is going to admit it?

Sociologists would study this...

Sociologists . . . yeah, about that--check out what the NYT says:

The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1.

The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

You act as though there are a group of politically neutral sociologists out there who would be concerned about such a thing. Guess again.

I'll refer you back to the information that showed that virtually all federal welfare goes to single women with children. You;'ve agreed that single women with children deserve help.

No one "deserves" help. Some single moms need help. There is a huge difference.

Please refer me to where you've been able to quantify that a significant percentage of these single women with children are commtting fraud.

You don't get it. You're either playing dumb or are. Here's the truth: a woman can get away with welfare fraud. She simply says she's not getting support from the father when she is. When he proves his innocence, he'll be released from jail but she will not get arrested.

So, how do you prove welfare fraud when it is only prosecuted in the most egregious cases?

Again, this isn't statistical, but it is more than anecdotal:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneger says welfare recipients can no longer use state-issued debit cards at medical marijuana shops, psychics and other businesses whose services have been deemed "inconsistent with the intent" of the program.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Schwarzenegger sent a letter to county welfare directors Monday announcing that ATMS and point-of-sale card readers in such businesses will be removed from the network that accepts California's Electronic Benefits Transfer cards.

Other businesses affected by the ban include bail bond establishments, bingo halls, cruise ships and tattoo parlors.

In June, Schwarzenegger barred welfare cards at casino ATMs following a Times report that CalWORKS cards were being used to withdraw cash in more than half the casinos in the state.

Yopu and Tom should try and back your claims up with more than just your personal insights.

I've got a long history with this. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. Here's another bit of evidence from a different state:

DENVER (AP) – A bill to ban the use of public assistance cards at strip club ATMs got initial approval from lawmakers but not before a light-hearted debate.

. . .

The law already prohibits people from using their public assistance cards at ATMs in casinos, racetracks, and liquor stores.

There's a reason these laws are on the books. It's because the boundaries they set have been previously broken and some lawmaker was chagrined to find out no one was charged.

]. The US Department of Labor reported that 1.9% total UI payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program.

This is UI. Is this the number you want to go with Steve? 1.9% fraud?
The line before that is pretty unclear. If 24% of applications are fraudulent lets assume that those applications were denied huh?

As for the next? Also unclear. Drawn Out of state might mean for all kinds of reasons.....many valid. The casino cash looks sketchy but you have provided no context here Steve. What portion of welfare payments do these out of state represent? From what I could find California's state budget is 8.55% of State GDP and welfare is about 1.31 % of GDP.
Federal govenrment spent 488 billion on welfare and the states another 203 buillion
The numbers you are presenting aren't clearly "fraudulent". They are simply out of state...
If all the Vegas ATM withdrawals could be considered "fraudulent", whats 11 million in the grand scheme of 691 billion. ?
source for numbers: usgovernmentspending.com

OK Ricky, how about statistics proving that fraud is irrelevant?
If we could point to the actual cases they would be prosecuted, so people tend to, oh I don't know ...hide it? And you are again changing the goalposts, please look at the topic, what the rest of us have been talking about, welfare abuse, not fraud ...big difference!~ And proving abuse with statistics is impossible. I pointed out how many already, but those are simply anecdotes? I know a handful of people on assistance and every single one of them is working the system (legally) as best they can. It's an epidemic

tom

And proving abuse with statistics is impossible

really? Does this mean that the abuse is so small relative to the amount given that it can't be measured?

tom

I pointed out how many already, but those are simply anecdotes?

yes.
adecdote: a short account of an interesting incident often biographical..
While your insight might be interesting, without any context its merely an isolated event, which you may be reporting acurately or you may be embellishing...Whether it reflects a common occurrence requires corroboration, and I don't mean from another witness of the same event, I mean something that actually measures the relative waste you seem to think is so large, but somehow can't find a measure of ....

tom

It's an epidemic

And yet you can't find official statistical evidence of this epidemic?
Yell me this Tom, you keep bringing up the urban myth of the welfare motehrs who keep having babies in order to get welfare checks... Where did you read about this? WHo's reporting the names and incidents? How often?
Urban myths like this exist in the ether or they are constructed for political purpose. Look up Ron reagans use of the "Cadillac Woman on welfare from his election campaings in the 80's. Journalists tried to find out who this woman was for a couple of years...she never existed.

tom

OK Ricky, how about statistics proving that fraud is irrelevant?

The absence of statistics indicating fraud - is exactly that.

And again Tom, I'm not saying that fraud doesn't exist. I'm simply saying that you could go to herculean effort to root out all the fraud and it wouldn't amount to a lot.
There is always some "slippage". Just as in the retail world, there is going to be loss from theft (external and internal). When the effort to eliminate "slippage" becomes so great that it harms the delivery of the product or service in an efficient and/or effective manner....

rickyp wrote:

]. The US Department of Labor reported that 1.9% total UI payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program.

This is UI. Is this the number you want to go with Steve? 1.9% fraud?
The line before that is pretty unclear. If 24% of applications are fraudulent lets assume that those applications were denied huh?

Only you would choose to rely on those statistics alone. That is the uncovered, prosecuted fraud. What about all the fraud that no one cares about--such as the lying about child support?

As for the next? Also unclear. Drawn Out of state might mean for all kinds of reasons.....many valid. The casino cash looks sketchy but you have provided no context here Steve. What portion of welfare payments do these out of state represent? From what I could find California's state budget is 8.55% of State GDP and welfare is about 1.31 % of GDP.

So what? Why do you suppose such laws exist? Because there is a problem. They don't pass laws like this unless there is some known abuse.

Federal govenrment spent 488 billion on welfare and the states another 203 buillion
The numbers you are presenting aren't clearly "fraudulent". They are simply out of state...
If all the Vegas ATM withdrawals could be considered "fraudulent", whats 11 million in the grand scheme of 691 billion. ?
source for numbers: usgovernmentspending.com

You see the trees. Can you see the forest? California welfare recipients don't have any business being in Vegas.

rickyp wrote: adecdote: a short account of an interesting incident often biographical..
While your insight might be interesting, without any context its merely an isolated event, which you may be reporting acurately or you may be embellishing...Whether it reflects a common occurrence requires corroboration, and I don't mean from another witness of the same event, I mean something that actually measures the relative waste you seem to think is so large, but somehow can't find a measure of ....

Yet, there are more than anecdotes. There are also laws enacted by many states. Why is that, Ricky?

Look up Ron reagans use of the "Cadillac Woman on welfare from his election campaings in the 80's. Journalists tried to find out who this woman was for a couple of years...she never existed.

Really? I have three responses:

1. That is an anecdote. Please prove it by statistically proving journalists "tried to find out who this woman was for a couple of years . . ." There must be dozens of stories, right? I looked. Surprisingly, they're anecdotal!!!

2. She has been located. She's Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles).

3. I actually posted a story about a woman who stole enough to buy a Cadillac. Reagan did not say EVERY welfare recipient drives a Cadillac.

tom

OK Ricky, how about statistics proving that fraud is irrelevant?

The absence of statistics indicating fraud - is exactly that.

Not at all.

Allow me to illustrate: we know there is waste in military spending, right? Do you believe we know the full extent of it? If not, does that mean it does not exist or is not significant?

That is exactly the "logic" you are using with regard to welfare.

steve

Only you would choose to rely on those statistics alone

Just to be clear Steve, these are numbers you chose to buttress your arguement.
One indicates that there is attempted fraud. But seems to also indicate that the attempts failed.
And the other indicates an official estimate of 1.8% fraud in UI.
That neither supports your contention that there is significant fraud or abuse didn't seem to occur to you when you refered to them.

But I have found some evidence of "misapprpriated welfare payments Steve"

Questions of class warfare aside, there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with welfare cheating. In 1991 less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them, and this figure includes errors committed by the welfare agency. (1)

source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm