The Welfare State Mentality....

I know several people on disability that are working for cash on strenuous jobs.Landscaping and lawn maintenance in particular.But,they will limp in to the doctors office and put their back brace on long enough to get it extended.

I also know dozens of people who could retire,but work to get health insurance.So,if the government provides the health insurance they will quit.Instantly making them a net loser instead of a net gainer for the treasury.

I just do not understand the la la land that some of the liberal thinking comes from.It's like don't let logic, common sense and obvious human nature get in the way of what I believe.(Or gets me votes)
 
So how do you explain the Democrats revised "Children's" State Health Insurance Program wanting to include 25yo "poor children" that make up to $82,000 per year? It's nothing more that bribes for votes. The Dems are trading "free" health care in return for more votes for Democrats. And they are widening the scope to include children who aren't even children and poor people who aren't poor because they want more people voting Democratic. It's bribery with my money. Your money. Plain and simple.

A family of 4; two 25 year old parents with two children, who make a combined total of $82,000 annually, can all be covered by this new S-CHIP bill "for the poor children. Does it matter that they are raping the taxpayers for free health care when they aren't poor and aren't children? No. The only thing that matters is that it's a new family of Democratic voters. And that makes it OK.
 
So teaching them by example to keep making the same mistakes as their parents helps....how?
Click to expand...
And if you could point to where I suggested any such thing I'll gladly send you my next paycheck. :)
How exactly are we supposed to wipe away the mistakes of their parents by teaching these new children it's OK to just rely on someone else to keep you alive and well? How about a little tough love and good old American spirit and show them how to pay and take care of themselves. I'm all for helping someone who is truly down. But the moment that person stops trying to help themselves and just sit back and relies on others, that person needs to be taught a harsh lesson. I'm not sure how, but there has to be a way to say "we'll give you 1 or 2 helping hands, but after that you're on your own" and actually mean it and stick with it. Unfortunately, todays Welfare State is "vote for us and we'll give you as many helping hands as you want, just keep voting for us".


Sooner or later, the ones actually paying for these endless "helping hands" are going to get tired of it.

And something will happen.
Click to expand...
And still you - nor anyone else for that matter - has shown concrete evidence of their complaints.

Please, tell me how many people are on welfare. How many of them are just "sitting back" and waiting for a check? How many of them are physically or mentally disabled? How many are trying to get off the system but simply can't for one reason or another? How many have paid into the system? How many years can you be on welfare before they cut you off? What is required to apply for welfare?

So until you or anyone else can answer at least some of those questions then none of these complaints about "the welfare state" are holding a drop of water.
 
I don't see the "think of the children" argument going over well here.
Click to expand...
Sadly, you're right.
But the other point is certainly a good one; I think many people have a distorted view of just how easy it is to get government handouts...especially to do so legally. Sure, G-Cym's outstanding work ethic keep him in a job and off of unemployment. But the fact that pulling unemployment requires actually seeking work, accepting suitable work offered, and generally carries time limits and a boatload of restrictions (if you want to draw it legally) would probably push him in the direction of a job regardless. In most states, drawing welfare (and many other government handouts) comes with a work requirement, and/or time limits.
Click to expand...
And in many you'll be outright refused for many services if you don't have children. Simply put, I can't just quit my job and run down to the nearest government building and start collecting checks or food stamps.
Then of course there was his "you should just save up for your own health care" argument. A valid one, depending on your economic leanings...except that applying that attitude to people drawing Medicare today neglects the fact that those people would have had a much easier time doing so had they not had money taken out of every paycheck for most/all of their working lives to pay for the Medicare and Social Security programs. Oh, but I forgot..."most" of them didn't pay anything in. Sure. Right.
Click to expand...
I do believe in people taking care of themselves, my beef is with those that do nothing but complain about all these "low-lifes" and "scum" and "leeches" that are just sucking up the workin' man's money when the simple fact of life is that sometimes people get screwed over. Sometimes people are dealt really crappy hands and sometimes kids grow up with bad influences. Simply cutting people off and dismantling the system isn't a solution, nor is relying on private charities.

There does need to be a balance and right now there are problems on both sides of the equation. But before people whine and moan they need to understand the problem and not get all in a tizzy throwing out ridiculous scenarios like someone hopping out of a gold plated Escalade in front of the welfare office.
 
I work with a guy who uses his paycheck to buy records and turntables. And he still goes down to the state health office to get free drugs for his OCD. I have even heard him remark "I wonder what other programs I qualify for". I deliver pizzas to section 8 government housing and pass 5 or 6 Escolades, BMWs and Lexus' in the parking lot. People driving $30,000 cars try to pay for pizza in the store with Bridge cards. I drive by the local pregnancy and children help center and see people loading free and donated cribs, strollers and formula into 2006 extended cab pickups and SUVs. I live in and work in Ypsilanti Michigan, and I see people every day that really on taxpayer programs to get what they need, so they can spend their money on stuff they want. It's disgusting.
 
I know several people on disability that are working for cash on strenuous jobs.Landscaping and lawn maintenance in particular.But,they will limp in to the doctors office and put their back brace on long enough to get it extended.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure this is illegal. Have you reported them? Taken some pictures?

And in many you'll be outright refused for many services if you don't have children. Simply put, I can't just quit my job and run down to the nearest government building and start collecting checks or food stamps.
Click to expand...

Even if you have children, generally most services are difficult to qualify for if you don't have at least one working family member. We actually looked into what benefits we might qualify for when my wife thought she might be pregnant...and without one of us holding a job (I was in school, she obviously would have been taking care of the child) we didn't qualify for much of anything. Of course, we were lucky and she wasn't so it was all good.

As for BMWs and Escalades sitting in parking lots of public housing, I'd wager that many of those are paid for with illegal income...as in, dealing drugs or other criminal enterprises (either the owner or a friend/family member).

Which, going back to the first quote, suggests that much of the abuse of public assistance systems stems from fraud and other illegal activity...not the existence of the system itself.

Let's see yours.
Click to expand...

Okay. Like I said, my wife and I looked into public assistance, and didn't qualify for jack unless I dropped out of school and went to work. Which, of course, would have a pretty significant impact on our finances for decades to come.

Also, for an example of a beneficial use of public assistance...my deployment to Iraq (with the National Guard) ended leaving me with no job until the start of school, which was three months away. Nobody would hire me for three months. In the long run, I'd contribute much more to the economy (including in taxes paid) by finishing my degree than dropping out and working at a low-wage job. So, by drawing unemployment (as, again, I was unemployed through no fault of my own and unable to find temporary employment) for three months to pay my bills until school started, the net effect on the treasury in the long run was likely positive. Especially since I've paid (indirectly, through my employers) into unemployment insurance programs since I was like 15.

Hence, a use of public assistance (unemployment insurance) for a temporary time in a way that benefits both myself and, in the long run, the economy and the treasury.

But I'm sure the standard boilerplate rhetoric about Lexuses (Lexii?) parked in front of public housing trumps the thousands of reasonable and responsible uses of public assistance that occur every day.
 
Another poster mentioned earlier that this thread has more emtion in it than the "9mm vs 40 cal" thread. :eek:

I think that poster was 100% correct:D... continue the debate..
 
Redworm,what you are asking for is impossible.What are you gonna do,ask somebody "Are you taking advantage of the system?"And they are going to answer.I know people that go to great lengths to screw the system.Sure the government knows it happens, but the only evidence they have is anecdotal.If they had hard evidence they would cut them off.
All of that is incidental cost.What's left of welfare is a small drop in the ocean.Go to the GAO website and look at the budget.Sure there are people getting SSI benefits that shouldn't.But,the vast amount is legal legislated entitlements where our government has not made the necessary changes in benefits vs. taxes to make the math work.
 
JuanCarlos: As for BMWs and Escalades sitting in parking lots of public housing, I'd wager that many of those are paid for with illegal income...as in, dealing drugs or other criminal enterprises (either the owner or a friend/family member).
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The rule (at the time that I had the misfortune of living in the PRK) was that a person receiving welfare could not own a vehicle worth more than a specified amount. They didn’t own them; they leased them. Leasing didn’t count as ownership.

Since their housing and food was supplied by the state it didn’t take all that much income to lease a car.
 
If Medicare is not a welfare program, then how do you explain the millions of seniors now on Part D (the drug benfit) who never paid anything in to cover for Part D?

If we are to be fair, and if we don't want to consider Medicare "welfare", then shouldn't Part D only apply to those people who have actually paid for it?
 
I'm fairly sure this is illegal. Have you reported them? Taken some pictures?
Click to expand...
They are actually friends of mine that I see 3 or 4 days a week.Yeah,that's what I am going to do.
Click to expand...
Yes. So since your friends abuse the system (in a way that's likely illegal) and you're not willing to do anything about it, we should instead care when you come onto an internet forum and say we need to do away with the system for everybody.

Makes sense.

Oh, wait. Not it doesn't.

You (and, of course, your friends) are part of the problem. Hey, since they're working for cash I imagine they're not bothering to pay taxes on that income either. They're probably just screwing everybody else over in all kinds of fun ways. I'd say that until you're willing to man up and deal with these friends of yours (or at least not call them "friends") maybe you shouldn't advocate making decisions that screw over the many people who use the system responsibly. I guess it's just easier screwing over strangers.

Not necessarily. The rule (at the time that I had the misfortune of living in the PRK) was that a person receiving welfare could not own a vehicle worth more than a specified amount. They didn’t own them; they leased them. Leasing didn’t count as ownership.

Since their housing and food was supplied by the state it didn’t take all that much income to lease a car.
Click to expand...

Ah. See, and this sounds like a rule in need of changing. I'm not claiming that the systems in place are perfect; I just don't think that the idea of having some form of safety net for unforeseen or extreme circumstances is a horrible one.
 
we should instead care when you come onto an internet forum and say we need to do away with the system for everybody
Click to expand...

And just exactly where did I say that? Unlike most of the moronic posts on one side or the other,the only thing I have said is that which ever way the entitlements lean,eventually the pay in vs. the payout is going to have to balance.
I'd say that until you're willing to man up and deal with these friends of yours (or at least not call them "friends")
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word.
 
Other side of the coin

Since so many are sharing anecdotes about people cheating the system, here is one about how well the system takes care of those who truly need help.

A woman and three children living in a cabin in the woods, miles from a paved road, no electricity, no running water. Husband left months ago, no job, no way for her to get one. The only assistance she "qualified" for was foodstamps, and if she earned the huge sum of $300 in a month, they cut off her benefits entirely.

No system is ever perfect, and what we have now is not even remotely close, but as long as one man, one vote is the rule, what can be done? Back in the days of the dead white guys (Founding Fathers) there were lots of things that today are considered social injustice, but not everything back then was wrong, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten the start of where we are today. One thing they did in those days was there was a monetary standard for having the vote. One had to be worth a certain amount of money, or equivalent in property, before you could vote. It could never be allowed to fly today, but in those long gone days, it was considered proper. The reasoning behind it was simple. Only people with a direct stake in the nation voted. After all, anything the Govt was likely to do would have a direct impact on their property, so they were the ones who deserved a direct say in what the Govt did.

Today, with Govt so deeply involved in everyone's business and in virtually everyone's pocket, we all have a stake, but is the way we do it now actually fair? The argument "one man, one vote, what could possibley be more fair than that?" is fine sounding, and that is what socialism is all about. Sounding all fine and noble while basically screwing us in the name of "equality". We are a social democracy today, only a shadow of the republic our founders envisioned. Anyone who lives in any state where the geographical distribution of the population is unequal knows what I am saying. And if you don't, get your head out of wherever it is and look around.

Some states have 50% or more of the people in certain areas, in one part of the state. That part generally carries enough of the vote so the rest of the state (the rural areas) have to make do with whatever leftovers the cities don't spend.

And our wonderful SSI system is built by people who likely will NEVER have to rely on it. I hope everbody is aware that Congress has their own system. They are exempt from the system the rest of us have no choice (under the law) but to use. Want to fix the problems with SSI? Simple, just make Congress have to use it like the rest of us.

And one more thing, don't bitch about "all the old folks on Medicare". check the laws. We don't have any choice. By law, after you turn 65, Medicare takes over as your primary insurer. The private health insurance you have been paying for your whole life? They must take a back seat to medicare. And you still have to keep paying them. great system isn't it.:barf:
 
The problem with Medicare now that Bush has added drug coverage is that millions of people are now receiving a benefit for which they never paid.

Medicare and social security need to be revamped. At the time they were conceived, people lived less than 70 yrs on average. Now that people are living longer, the age when benefits start needs to be increased. I would support adjusting the law so that benefits for Social Security and Medicare kick in about 2 or 3 years prior to the date of your expected death.
 
What if social security and medicare are responsible for the increased longevity
Click to expand...

It is obviously responsible in part for the increased longevity because it gives people the ability to pay for treatments developed by the private sector.

However it is also obvious that as longevity increases either the working life or amount of tax on the citizen will have to increase correspondingly,or the benefits will have to be cut.

The AARP resists any change and the politicians demagogue the other party on any suggestions trying to gain votes.

Bush added to the burden with prescription drugs,an unfunded liability.Hillary is running on healthcare initiatives saying you can pay for it with reduced waste which is BS .

They are all completely irresponsible.But,it is really the peoples fault who have some delusion that none of this will ever have to be corrected and will not vote for people who will make the changes.

I am not a doomsday type,but these unfunded liabilities will wreck the country before Iran,or China or the boogey man du jour.
 
Redworm,what you are asking for is impossible. What are you gonna do,ask somebody "Are you taking advantage of the system?"And they are going to answer.
Click to expand...
No more impossible than determining that 2.5 million crimes a year are stopped by guns. Genuine research into such things can provide valuable data. There are many ways of putting data together and for all we know the data might support exactly what folks here are claiming.

The bottom line is that no one actually has this data and have no foot to stand on in their arguments. Little anecdotes don't mean a damn thing because for every welfare Escalade story you can tell me I can give you three stories where the social safety net saved a child's life.
I know people that go to great lengths to screw the system.Sure the government knows it happens, but the only evidence they have is anecdotal.If they had hard evidence they would cut them off.
Click to expand...
We would hope so however that's not true. But if there's no evidence then how exactly can anyone here claim people are mooching off the system? If someone wants to complain and moan about all these moochers then they should provide a shred of proof, not just pointless conjecture.
All of that is incidental cost.What's left of welfare is a small drop in the ocean.Go to the GAO website and look at the budget.Sure there are people getting SSI benefits that shouldn't.But,the vast amount is legal legislated entitlements where our government has not made the necessary changes in benefits vs. taxes to make the math work.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree that the government could use better bean counters. :p Maybe take some of those NSA mathematicians and put them to use figuring out the cash flow issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top