Green Arrow wrote:

danivon wrote:

Green Arrow wrote: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...

I think you may have missed a 'not' in there somewhere, because otherwise your paragraph appears to be saying you think I'm a libertarian (I am more libertarian that you probably think I am).

You present a false dichotomy here. I talked about how the government probably should not 'over-define' what people do with money it gives out. That is not the same thing as opposing all restrictions.

What's more, it is not 'fraud' to spend money you've been given on stuff if it's not been proscribed in advance. Perhaps you want to make an exhaustive list of all the things that people should not spend money on. Then you could pay bureaucrats to check up that people keep to the rules, and lawyers to prosecute any breaches, and you can feel secure that all that extra cost will mean that someone can't buy a fizzy drink with food stamps or keep themselves out of jail.

Ummm, Ricky
I spelled out numerous examples of people who are "working the system" all quite legally.
Try finding statistics supporting this? Impossible, they simply don't have any but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen now does it?

You really have no freaking clue how bad it is here, the illegal part of welfare fraud is bad enough but this legal part is a way of life for these people, you simply can't deny it ...IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, and of that, we know already you most certainly do not, you simply cherry pick statistics that support your impossible claim

Doctor Fate wrote:

$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.

So, let me see... A few questions:

1) How much was issued in total on those cards in the 3 years and four months covered by the period? What is $69M as a proportion
2) How much was taken from ATMs?
3) How much was taken in neighbouring states?
4) Do the rules of the scheme mean that people are not allowed to leave the State of California?
5) Do the rules specify what the money can be spent on, or is there just intention

In other words, how much of the $69M is actual fraud, how much is just not known. And how much time and money do you want to spend to find out?

Now, I don't think anyone said there was no fraud. Clearly there is (and there is fraud in all walks of life - there are military men who defraud, there are dirty cops, there are men of god who fleece their flocks, there are dodgy lawyers, doctors, politicians, people who pilfer from the tills where they work...

The issue is what should be done about it. It seems one issue in your story is that 'budget cuts hinder their investigations'. Because dealing with fraud costs money, but if budgeters don't look properly at the Cost-Benefit side, they can cut areas that save money.

And we should prosecute fraud of all kinds. But I get the impression that this is a Trojan Horse argument. You and GA and Tom are coming up with 'abuse' (much of which is supposed and anecdotal, rather than statistically derived) which may not actually be real fraud, and leading towards the idea that we should cut welfare to all. The implication being that loads of it is fraud, that all it does is create poverty (because, as we all know, there was zero poverty before welfare came along :roll:), so let's get rid of it.

Ricky made his point crassly, but it is not that different from noting the large amount of fraud by corporations who get military contracts and suggesting that as a result we should stop buying weaponry.

Perhaps what is needed is better definition of what fraud is and is not, a clear set of rules, and some investment in rooting it out and prosecuting it?

Or does that not satisfy the envy of the middle class American* towards the poor?

(*not that we don't have the same tendency in this country, people who assume that their comfortable lot in life is all down to themselves, and who resent having to subsidise the worse off).

GMTom wrote:Ummm, Ricky
I spelled out numerous examples of people who are "working the system" all quite legally.
Try finding statistics supporting this? Impossible, they simply don't have any but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen now does it?

It's only impossible if you give up. It is perfectly possible to obtain statistics, if you are prepared to spend some time and money.

And I have no objection to doing that (and in the course of it, cracking down on fraud). Problem is, you've already decided how much there is before then, and what the solution is (cut cut cut, demonise single moms, blame the poor for their poverty, cut cut cut).

Who needs facts, when we have prejudice, huh?

You really have no freaking clue how bad it is here, the illegal part of welfare fraud is bad enough but this legal part is a way of life for these people, you simply can't deny it ...IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, and of that, we know already you most certainly do not, you simply cherry pick statistics that support your impossible claim

So you are saying that welfare fraud is a US phenomenon, and us foreigners from other lands can't understand it? Oddly enough, I've seen similar arguments to yours here, and in other countries. Oddly, it seems to be more marked in places with less generous welfare systems. Of course, that's anecdotal, but for you guys that trumps stats, right?

If these people are working the system LEGALLY, then how can you do any sort of statistics checking? And regarding my comment, people scam systems all over the world, but in other countries they have different systems, different ways of doing things, to claim our system is just like anyone else simply shows you too have no real idea how bad it is over here as far as welfare fraud and scamming goes.

Keep telling me how it is, you and Ricky seem to know more about America than we do. The two most outspoken people on this issue are "experts" that have no frikkin idea!

rickyp wrote: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.

You seem unclear on a couple of words--"alone" and "buttress." I did not rely on statistics alone. You did. So, when I buttress my argument with statistics, I'm not doing what you did.

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.

You cannot understand English. That is clear.

When you asked why no sociologist has ever done a study to prove welfare fraud, I told you. Welfare fraud is massively under-reported, under-prosecuted, and under-investigated. Liberals are in charge of such things, generally (or enough to gum up the works), and they don't care about welfare fraud. Period.

Who's going to investigate it? Social workers? Cops? The DA's office?

GMTom wrote:If these people are working the system LEGALLY, then how can you do any sort of statistics checking?

Some people really have no imagination...

And regarding my comment, people scam systems all over the world, but in other countries they have different systems, different ways of doing things, to claim our system is just like anyone else simply shows you too have no real idea how bad it is over here as far as welfare fraud and scamming goes.

Of course your system is different. It's more complicated, but generally less generous than those in Europe. So, if you insist that yours is more prone to fraud than ours, what does that suggest to you may be one way to deal with it?

Keep telling me how it is, you and Ricky seem to know more about America than we do. The two most outspoken people on this issue are "experts" that have no frikkin idea!

Yeah, because we don't have the exact same debates here. It's only America where you poor hard-done-by comfy middle class dudes have to pay for those evil single mothers. :roll:

I should point out, I'm a little sensitive to the debate. My dad was brought up by a single mother, who relied on some assistance. I know plenty of people who have a similar background, for various reasons. I find it offensive to see the blithe assumption that it's a conscious career choice for all but a few (and these tend to be the idiots). But still, I hear it, from you, from people here, and it's always the same. You don't produce facts, it's all supposition and anecdote and extrapolation. You then claim that the facts can't be gathered (or perhaps that they are fixed), because those that arise don't conform to your prejudice.

And then you shoot the messenger.

danivon wrote:And then you shoot the messenger.

It's the violence inherent in the system!

No, it's inverted class envy.

danivon wrote:I should point out, I'm a little sensitive to the debate. My dad was brought up by a single mother, who relied on some assistance.

My dad was raised by a single mother. She worked. The kids went to work early. My dad joined the military.

I was raised by a single mother. She worked. I joined the military. I spent my adult life making sure my kids were not raised by a single mother.

I have great empathy. I think we, as a society, should help those who cannot help themselves or need temporary help, not those who will not help themselves. It's not prejudice. Everyone makes choices and sometimes there are consequences that involve hard work. That's not society's fault.

Not everyone has such freedom of choice. My grandmother, for example, was not able to work, and not through choice.

Sometimes, in order to ensure that you help those who deserve it, that means inadvertently helping some who do not. No system can be perfect, but to err the other way means avoiding helping those who do not deserve it and at the same time denying some who do.

Perfecting the system (reducing the people who fall on the wrong side of the line) is not easy. It costs time and money. So while we should agree that we should seek a better system, that isn't the same thing as moving the line.

Like I say, it's easy to moralise when you assume that it's all down to your own work and choices, and that luck had nothing to do with it.

danivon wrote:Like I say, it's easy to moralise when you assume that it's all down to your own work and choices, and that luck had nothing to do with it.

And, it's easy to assume that luck has everything to do with it. That's how one becomes a liberal--one believes the system is rigged, that success is a matter of luck, and not of hard work.

As I said, there are exceptions--like your grandmother. I would never say she should get tossed out on the street. What I am saying is that she is an exception, not the rule.

Here's the thing, I live in America and I do not pretend to know how things work in the UK. What I do know is the way Americans on Welfare take advantage of the system, I also know of an entire culture that has learned to live on welfare, learned not just to accept it as a temporary helping hand but rather a lifestyle that demands it for as long as they like. Maybe you guys do have more of this or that, I don't pretend to know how they compare. But for you guys to pretend things are the same??? Not when you say the things you do, no way do you really understand the American poor, not a chance!

Some work their way out of it, some try to avoid taking handouts, but a great many feel it's their right and they take everything they can get and quickly learn to live with it and learn ways to gain more without any attempt to get off welfare.

Steve, I never said it was all luck. I said it wasn't all down to free choice and work. By the way, if the system is rigged then that isn't luck either. I guess I'm trying to get across the idea that it's not so simple.

Tom, if you reall do think America is so different, then perhaps you could try to take on the point I made about how other countries with more generous systems do not (in your view) have it so bad.

Or would that require you to get out of your parochial mindset?

No, if you would actually read what I said....
I said I do not pretend to think I know all about other nations systems, if I do not know too much about it, how can I claim "America is so different"?
I did say I know how it is over here, I know people are working the system and I know we have an entire culture of welfare survival, people that demand their payments that they are "entitled to". I make no claims about how it is in Europe, it is you and Ricky who make the claims you know how it is over here. All I said was I know how it really is and your statements show you clearly have no idea what you are speaking of.

Because you have "more generous systems" means nothing to me. So what?
You want to jump to conclusions based on what you THINK, because you ASSUME it must be so, go right ahead, but you clearly show you have no clue when you make these accusations!