posted on February 10, 2001 07:29:37 AM new
Linda_K
No, that is not what I was referring to.
You are in favor of giving aid to the "responsible" needy. My question is
how do you determine who is qualified and
at the same time avoid leaving the children
of those that you consider "irresponsible"
with nothing to eat?
posted on February 10, 2001 07:36:20 AM new
linda_k,
Sites don't equal cases, and cases don't equal proven instances. Saying that there are so and so however many sites concerning welfare fraud in any state or across the nation is meaningless. Perhaps all of them describe the freedom from fraud.
Please post 69,408,653 URLs in support of your statements about California for our review. After that, we can work on the rest of the states.
posted on February 10, 2001 07:38:15 AM new
Helen - You keep saying that you don't put words in my mouth. Yet, you keep posting that I have said this or that. When I ask you to show me where I said that, you never do. You just ask another question doing the same thing. Makes it very hard to communicate.
Last example: You state: You are in favor of giving aid to the "responsible" needy.
posted on February 10, 2001 07:42:52 AM new
Well, krs, I don't know what to tell you. All I can say is there are plenty of sites about the welfare fraud that each state *is* dealing with on the internet. Available for anyone who wants to see.
I choose CA since we lived there until recently. On the welfare sites from just that state alone, they were listed by CA counties....maybe just take a look at one. Say....welfare fraud in LA County.
posted on February 10, 2001 07:47:09 AM new
Linda_K
You state,"They were intended to provide temporary support, not to become a lasting entitlement. There were generations of families using welfare for support instead of taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families, when they are physically and mentally able to do so. And there are tons of statistics that support welfare fraud had gotton out of hand.
That's what a lot of people, myself included, are against....not giving a helping hand to people in need."
posted on February 10, 2001 07:56:04 AM new
krs - My how you love your games.
No, there is documented proof of what I've said on the internet, easily available to anyone who runs a simple 'welfare fraud' search.
You don't want to do so?? That's okay with me. I just don't think that by stating since I don't provide a link, then what I've said doesn't exist. It does.
posted on February 10, 2001 08:06:15 AM new
Linda_K
I don't consider this a game. I was really interested in your answer. You accused
me of putting words in your mouth. When
I provided a copy of your words, then you
still refuse to answer my question.
posted on February 10, 2001 08:08:46 AM new
Helen - I'll try again.
I am not in favor of:
People who are quite capable of working, collecting welfare benefits for long periods of time. Wefare was meant as a temporary hand of help, not one to become forever dependent on.
Said another way: When people are in a situation where they have fallen upon hard times, they need our help. BUT they must also take personal responsiblity to care for themselves and work to improve their situation. Not expect tax payers to support them.
Those who are not capable of working, should IMO be taken care of by any and all of the social services that are offer to them in our country.
posted on February 10, 2001 08:33:38 AM new
Linda_k
So, you have restated your responsibility argument.
And you also stated previously,
"No child should suffer because of his/her irresponsible parents. If they are not being properly cared for....do what used to be done....
take the child away. If parents knew there would be consequences to their neglect, things would change."
Now, I'm beginning to understand your position. But, of course, I don't agree.
posted on February 10, 2001 08:35:54 AM new
Nothing in there, Fred, about irresponsible parents. It's about theft, reporting, and illegal trafficking in food stamps and payments.
posted on February 10, 2001 08:41:22 AM new
linda_k,
"People who are quite capable of working, collecting welfare benefits for long periods of time. Wefare was meant as a temporary hand of help, not one to become forever dependent on".
Define, would you, your meaning in "capable of working".
Do you mean four limbs, two eyes, and like that? Would you say that a woman, without job skills, left by a man or husband with one or more children is "capable of working" in all such cases?
posted on February 10, 2001 09:08:57 AM new
Just for Helen and Krs
Search under the:
1996 Personal Responsibility Act
It's called welfare reform, inacted by Congress under Clinton.
(This speaks to the issue of taking personal responsibility, under our laws). Has nothing to do with fraud.
The states are requiring PERSONAL RESPONSIBILY AGREEMENTS be signed before a TANF (temporary assistance to needy children) case is opened.
Some of the things they must agree to, if they want help, are:
A willingness to establish paternity.
Cooperate with getting child support from the father.
Apply for other benefits they may be entitled to, like child care, transportation, domestic violence help, alcohol/drug abuse help...etc.
Meet work requirements - or be willing to be trained to work.
Each state was able to set other guidelines also. One state will reduce funds to families where the teen mothers don't attend school.
There is a lot of information about The 1996 Personal Responsibility Act on the internet too.
One quote from a NY welfare administor said, "We now have permission to be real with clients, to make them understand they have an obligation to work, to help themselves.
The Rockefeller Inst. has lots of info on the 1996 Personal Responsibility Act too.
posted on February 10, 2001 09:15:56 AM new
Yes, linda_k, so how could it be possible that there are so many irresponsible lazy mothers using food stamps to purchase captain crunch? Where's the proven cases of welfare fraud that you mention?
posted on February 10, 2001 09:23:30 AM new
Linda_K
Again, you have evaded a question by Krs.
"Define, would you, your meaning in "capable of working".
Do you mean four limbs, two eyes, and like that? Would you say that a woman, without job skills, left by a man or husband with one or more children is "capable of working" in all such cases?"
By bringing up this 1996 responsibility act, a clearly simple and ineffective attempt
to reduce fraud in the system, you are avoiding a very important question.
posted on February 10, 2001 09:24:48 AM new
Hello all -- I have been reading these Bush threads for about a week but have hesitated to weigh in because I haven't posted here in a long time, but I just can't help myself any longer.
We are all colored by our own life experiences and mine have made me really resent the welfare system as it is now.
When I had an infant I didn't work and my husband made between $50-80 per week. After paying rent, buying baby stuff, and paying on doctor bills (we had no insurance) we were lucky to have money to eat beans and cornbread -- some weeks it was just beans. Our next-door neighbors, on the other hand, had a two year old daughter, never worked, but ALWAYS had steak, candy, cokes, beer, Jack Daniels, etc. etc. This family made no effort whatsoever to support themselves -- why should they??? The government did it for them. Both parents were able-bodied.
Later on in life, I met a family who lived in government housing and had 4 teenage children. The thing I remember most about their house is that they NEVER had toilet paper. However, there was always a plentiful supply of crack cocaine and alcohol. They also had a stereo system/entertainment center that was worth at least $5000, but they rarely had food in the house. Most of their food stamps were traded off to supply their drug habit. Both parents were able-bodied. I took the 17 year old son to live with me (no I didn't get any reimbursement from anyone to do this) and they were angry, not because of him leaving, but because they would no longer have his entire paycheck from his part-time job so they could buy drugs.
We all have grocery store stories, I'm sure -- last week a lady in front of me was buying T-bones (which I can rarely afford) as well as the usual assortment of bags on Hershey bars, Doritos, etc. When she had paid for all this with food stamps, she purchased a carton of cigarettes and a case of beer with cash.
The argument that children should be able to have candy and chips because the "rich" kids get them is totally fallacious. Feeding your children these kinds of foods is KILLING them, whether they are rich or poor. No refrigerator? Fruits, canned meats, and many veggies don't have to be refrigerated. No stove? All the above can be eaten raw. Peanut butter and bread don't have to be refrigerated. I know this, because I have lived with no refrigerator. I know what it's like to live in total and abject poverty, and I did it without food stamps or any assistance. I lived perfectly fine with no Little Debbie's and no Doritos. We don't "deserve" to eat junk food just because the neighbors do.
The only people I have known who lived on SSDI were 3 alcoholics. At the first of each month, they would get a motel room and party hardy until the money ran out -- then they were back on the streets and in the churches and shelters begging for handouts until the next check.
On the other hand, my parents have a neighbor who became a single mother when her two sons were in their early teens. She lived on government assistance for 3 years while she finished school and now she is making a nice living as a hospital administrator and she is OFF welfare. This is the kind of person who deserves assistance.
And yes, ANYONE who is able-bodied can work. Giving someone handouts without asking anything back destroys their sense of responsibility, makes them lose their self-respect, and forms a "they owe me" mentality which is passed from one generation to the next.
I truly believe that anyone receiving welfare can do SOMETHING in return unless they are totally non-functional. If a regular job is not feasible, then community service, babysitting for other welfare parents who are working, etc. can be done.
One big problem in my view is that fact that the welfare system penalizes people who want to work. If you go to work at McDonalds you can't make a living for your family but you lose your benefits -- why not pay people MORE welfare who are working or going to school? Why does the government force people to stay ignorant and in poverty?
I know this is long, sorry -- but yes I believe there is alot of welfare fraud. The money doesn't bother me so much as the lives it destroys, and the generations of people who know how to do nothing but make a career of living off the government.
posted on February 10, 2001 09:31:22 AM new
krs - Where's the proven cases of welfare fraud that you mention?
On the internet, under welfare fraud like I said.
Now you want to travel to the food issue again? Well, if the parents want to feed their children chips and candy, then their children will suffer. And since these same children will also probably be receiving free dental care, then you and I will pay for those fillings I guess.
But I, too, have been at the grocery store many a time when young people are using food stamps to pay for their food. They have looked healthy enough to me to be working. And I know you can't always judge by the way someone looks. Then I see them getting in to a brand new car....and do wonder if they are truly needy.
posted on February 10, 2001 09:42:37 AM new
[i]By bringing up this 1996 responsibility act, a clearly simple and ineffective attempt
to reduce fraud in the system[/i]
What? The 1996 PR Act does not reduce welfare fraud. It gets people off welfare and taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families.
You ARE getting as good as krs at taking two different posts and putting them together to form another question. I must commend you.
Oh, but Helen, you are sooooo wrong.
If you read the Rockefeller Inst. site you will see that it is working, and working very well. The welfare numbers are dropping, more women are going to work or being trained.
The Rockefeller Inst. is the one who is reporting on how this act is going. And they're keeping track of how it's working.
posted on February 10, 2001 10:02:45 AM new
Welcome back xellil -
You were speaking to the issue of the working poor whom at least are trying, and the fact that they weren't any better off than those collecting welfare.
On the Rockefeller Inst. site I spoke of, they seem to be seeing this as something that needs to be changed. They are beginning to see (after the first years study) that those who were getting off welfare and working, were feeling they weren't any better off than before. They had suggested one change might be that more aid be given to those who are at least trying to become self-suffient.
posted on February 10, 2001 10:12:12 AM new
linda_K,
I certainly agree with you that the Clinton democratically inspired act you mention has a MUCH greater potential for successful result, than ANY republican punitive take-from-the-poor-to-give-to-the -rich act EVER has.
But, after all these months it would take an extreme act of personal benevolence and forgiveness on my part to let you off with "On the internet, under welfare fraud like I said".
posted on February 10, 2001 11:06:07 AM new
krs - But many disagree with that statement. While he did sign the bill, some actually think the Republicans finally got it past his vetos.
"Despite Clinton's many promises, welfare reform did not happen until Republicans took over the Congress. The last person who should be taking credit for welfare reform is Bill Clinton."
posted on February 10, 2001 12:05:58 PM new
Hi Linda_K -- you say the study "...suggested one change might be that more aid be given to those who are at least trying to become self-suffient."
I am always amazed that it takes studies to determine things that should be so self-evident. But if the study is able to sway folks opinion to make changes, all the better. I have never understood why we reward people to sit on their behinds and do nothing, and penalize them for trying to work and support their families.
posted on February 10, 2001 01:59:57 PM new
Since the goal of most working people is to be able to sit on their behinds and do nothing in retirement, why wouldn't it make sense for some people to seek out a shortcut to that goal?
posted on February 10, 2001 03:02:29 PM new
Linda_K:
I've just run a search on "republican" and "moron" which has turned up nearly 8,000 hits.
Since you contend that doing a search and having a large number of hits on "welfare" and "fraud" proves that there is rampant welfare fraud...
-gaffan-
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
