Which of these (hypothetical) people would you cut from welfare benefits?

[Wayward Clam]

Okay, I am providing four "case examples" of hypothetical people living on welfare. I honestly want to know which of these four people the Windrivers crew demographically believe should be cut their welfare benefits.
(You can check more than one if you feel more than one should be cut.)

If you want more information regarding a specific "case", post a question here, and we will decide for the case of argument what the hypothetical answer to your question is.

There is a box provided for those who believe all the cases should be kept on benefits as well.

[Wayward Clam]

Thanks guys! I was starting to be afraid nobody would answer this...

[TechZ]

I'm too nice to be a politician. :(

[paraflyer]

Sounds to me like Bob doesn't want to change his career path from whatever he used to do....

[corturbra]

Ooops, realised I had voted but not given reasons....

Case 1 There are jobs available for single mums with children and wanting the state to provide because she feels child care is too expensive is not a valid reason. IF she was to get a part time job, she should receive assistance towards childcare, but not at the present time.

Case 2 I feel that Bob, given his age and illness would find it difficult to obtain employment, it would be helpful to know what his rsi actually is from (typing?). He does seem as though he should put more effort into trying to find work, but he's paid his dues over the years and has an illness so should receive a benefit

Case 3 Carla - In a situation of her own doing for the best part. Why should the state provide because of her drug dependencies/reckless youth? The fathers should be found and made to provide. Harsh I know but you make your bed, you lie in it....

Case 4 Dave, well obviously he lacks the mental capacity to get work through, so in this case, without question he should receive assistance.

Bring on the flamers.... :devil: What's your views on this Wayward_Clam? Who have you decided should receive benefit?

[Cleetus]

Bob and Anne both, even though I only voted for Bob. The government should help those seeking to help themselves. Those that aren't need to find somewhere else. But once again, as long as you are seeking to do something on your own as well, better for you.

[techs]

Before I vote I have some questions.
Anne:
Does available work minus child care expenses exceed what she would get on welfare (including health benefits on welfare). Cause if she wouldn't get or couldn't afford health care for her children by working I think she should be able to stay on welfare ( of course the best answer would be she could work and her children still get health care). One other thing, my answer is contingent on what state she's in. In Vermont 99.9 percent of children are covered. In Vermont even if she worked but didn't get or couldn't afford to get health care Vermont provides it.(We are the only state that does, and we have average taxes)

Bob:
What happened to his Soc. Sec disability claim? Did he have a "Substantial Impairment? What jobs did they suggest he could do?

Dave should be eligible for Social Security disability. Since that is not an option I will keep him on.

[Diver01]

I need more info....

Anne: Insurance company refuesed to pay? um Why? Was it Arson? Did Anne burn down the house in an attempt to kill her husband? Maybe she should go to jail instead of collecting welfare?

Bob: Needs to get over himself. Lighten up dude. Take some stress management classes. At the rate hes going welfare is going to do him no good, the stress is going to take care of him just fine. Sounds to me like he refuses to change.

Carla: Stupid drug using idiot. All she wants to do is stay home and use more drugs. Screw her!

Dave: The only truely person deserving of some assistance, but not from wellfare. I certainly hope in his condition that there is some family member that is taking care of him and hes not by himself. He does not need wellfare he needs Social Security Assistance...


Have a nice day!

:devil: :devil: :p ;)

[Cleetus]

Whatever dude, Carla is the only one trying to make something of herself on the list. She is exactly what welfare was designed for, help them to help themselves find the American dream. Kick her out, and you no longer have an ideal left.

[corturbra]

Whatever dude, Carla is the only one trying to make something of herself on the list. She is exactly what welfare was designed for, help them to help themselves find the American dream. Kick her out, and you no longer have an ideal left.

Perhaps she should have tried it a bit earlier and then wouldn't need the system now? I hear what you're saying but I still think she's made herself a victim of her own recklessness.

If it's all about helping people achieve the American dream, what is that dream? Why should an ex-criminal, ex-drug using person have more rights in the system than someone who has always tried to help themselves?

[Matridom]

I think case 1 only should be pulled for support, She is the only one who is not looking to improve her lot in life.

All the other cases, even though they where ultimatly responsible for their condition (well, in some cases) This does not mean help should be revoked cause of bad decisions in the past. "you made you bed, lie in it" just does not site well with me.

I'm a firm believer in the "work for welfare" program. You want welfare, then come do community work for the gov to earn it... something for something. If they want to spend 10 years on it then, atleast they earned it, and it's technicaly "employment" of a form or another.

I have issues with people who sit at home, get their gf/bf/husband/wife/friend/neighbour to bring their sin card to the local employement center so it looks like they are trying to search, yet have not.

Something for something, nothing for nothing, tis my motto

[Cleetus]

Perhaps she should have tried it a bit earlier and then wouldn't need the system now? I hear what you're saying but I still think she's made herself a victim of her own recklessness.

If it's all about helping people achieve the American dream, what is that dream? Why should an ex-criminal, ex-drug using person have more rights in the system than someone who has always tried to help themselves?
So nobody can improve, they can't work past their former mistakes?

Well at least you weren't also trying to sell me that you are a good christian too, with that attitude.

[corturbra]

So nobody can improve, they can't work past their former mistakes?

Well at least you weren't also trying to sell me that you are a good christian too, with that attitude.

Nope not saying you shouldn't improve, just don't expect my (well yours) tax dollars (pounds) to pay for it.

Christian I'm not... gave up on that bollocks a long time ago. I do have a chip on my shoulder, no-one has ever helped me to get where I am, and I've always played by the book, done the right thing and it pi$$es me off when people who have no respect for others or themselves get better training/housing/help then I ever could.

It should be all about what you put in, I put in loads to the system, volunteer my services to schools/local music projects, yet get/take nothing out apart from knowing I have helped people less fortunate than me. However, why should someone like Carla who has already taken so much, be able to take out more?

Hell man this is cool, like a whole thread about fictional people!

[Cleetus]

SO you'd rather her go back to giving head and quickies to pay for the blow and diapers for the kids?

[Diver01]

I think case 1 only should be pulled for support, She is the only one who is not looking to improve her lot in life.

All the other cases, even though they where ultimatly responsible for their condition (well, in some cases) This does not mean help should be revoked cause of bad decisions in the past. "you made you bed, lie in it" just does not site well with me.

I'm a firm believer in the "work for welfare" program. You want welfare, then come do community work for the gov to earn it... something for something. If they want to spend 10 years on it then, atleast they earned it, and it's technicaly "employment" of a form or another.

I have issues with people who sit at home, get their gf/bf/husband/wife/friend/neighbour to bring their sin card to the local employement center so it looks like they are trying to search, yet have not.

Something for something, nothing for nothing, tis my motto


I absolutely aggree with this!

Simply throwing money at teh problem isnt a solution. In Carla's case, lets say she stays on welfare and completes her rehab and is clean and sober. Whats to prevent her from falling back into the same circle of friends that was part of the problem to begin with? Send her to work every damn day. No Community service, no welfare check for her.

[corturbra]

SO you'd rather her go back to giving head and quickies to pay for the blow and diapers for the kids?

Again not saying that, but if after all the welfare what happens if she decides that real life is a pain in the a$$ and it's better where she was before? Some people you just can't help, and why waste the effort?

Why not put the money/effort into finding the fathers of the children and get them to pay and face up to their responsibilities?

Imagine for a moment that Carla had robbed your house or mugged your wife/kids to pay for a fix, how pleased would you be to know that you're now paying for her to live in a better house than yours?

Yep she should improve and learn from her mistakes, but she needs to prove herself first and put right some of the wrong she did. So if it came down to her and Bob, who would you give the welfare to?

Someone who has taken all and more or someone who has given all their lives?

[meatwad]

I voted for Bob, but the Anne situation is really confusing. Why no insurance? Insurance can't just refuse to pay, they have to offer a reason or else they would lose in court. Plus she has three kids. I would be for cutting Anne's personal benefits IF the state provided daycare services for the children in addition to the fact that the kids can attend public school. Then there would be NO reason for her to not work. She could even work at a job while the kids were in school. If she had any family, I would hope that they would help her with raising the kids. There really isn't enough information provided to make an educated decision on her.

[Cleetus]

Again not saying that, but if after all the welfare what happens if she decides that real life is a pain in the a$$ and it's better where she was before? Some people you just can't help, and why waste the effort?

Why not put the money/effort into finding the fathers of the children and get them to pay and face up to their responsibilities?

Imagine for a moment that Carla had robbed your house or mugged your wife/kids to pay for a fix, how pleased would you be to know that you're now paying for her to live in a better house than yours?

Yep she should improve and learn from her mistakes, but she needs to prove herself first and put right some of the wrong she did. So if it came down to her and Bob, who would you give the welfare to?

Someone who has taken all and more or someone who has given all their lives?
Yep, I'd cut from Bob and from Dale before her. She is trying, and if we are to just let her alone to do it all alone, chances in my mind that she has a greater chance to fail. But if as a community we help her out, get her past her past and as a productive citizen she will contribute well beyond the measly few cents of your taxes that actually went to her.

Dale should be in a home.

Bob lived his life and now wishes to quit, Carla is still beginning hers.

[kato2274]

just bob. mainly because of failing vocational re-training programs 3 times. that seems to say he's not interested in doing anything other than what he used to do which he can't do anymore.

on Annes case, being the sole parent for one child is a full time job. being the sole parent for 3 is probably insane. I have no problem letting the state pay her to be a stay at home mom provided she is putting forth the maximum effort to raise upstanding citizens and is willing to seek work at such a time that it is more viable for her (kids in school - olders kids being able to babysit younger ones etc) sending her kids to childcare and her to a welfare to work program does the state no good if her kids end up on the street collecting welfare as adults because they had no parental figure in their life and were raised in daycare while mom worked all day. . . it just costs the state more money in the end. if she collects welfare and is serious about being a good mom, that is a job, and probably the most beneficial job to the state because her kids will grow up as useful members of society.

if the crack addict with babies from different fathers is willing to look for work and change herself then by all means she should have the benefit.

we all make mistakes in life some much bigger than others. And I'm sure we can say we always recieve help from someone or something (family, friends etc) to overcome those mistakes. even if it's as simple as someone in the hospital billing department setting up a payment plan for that bill you just can't afford to pay right now, or the credit card company wiping out the charge on your card for the ebay purchase that never showed up. . . . .we all need and receive help from time to time to get us out of binds.....there is no reason that a person willing to work and willing to change shouldn't get assistance - that doesn't just mean money - but job training, education etc.

[corturbra]

Yep, I'd cut from Bob and from Dale before her. She is trying, and if we are to just let her alone to do it all alone, chances in my mind that she has a greater chance to fail. But if as a community we help her out, get her past her past and as a productive citizen she will contribute well beyond the measly few cents of your taxes that actually went to her.

Dale should be in a home.

Bob lived his life and now wishes to quit, Carla is still beginning hers.

So Bob is past it and deserves no help? Dave who is mentally unstable through no fault of his own should get less help?

Guess we have to agree to disagree then... :thumbs2:

I have to say Cleetus, it's good to see an intelligent debate here for once. I'm almost enjoying my first leap into the world of politics... :thumbs:

[Cleetus]

So Bob is past it and deserves no help? Dave who is mentally unstable through no fault of his own should get less help?

Guess we have to agree to disagree then... :thumbs2:

I have to say Cleetus, it's good to see an intelligent debate here for once. I'm almost enjoying my first leap into the world of politics... :thumbs:
I probably came across wrong, sorry

Bob if willing to improve himself to get back on his feet, then deserves a helping hand to get there. But if he chooses to feel sorry for himself, then no, it isn't a helping hand anymore. Exactly with what I am saying with Carla.

I believe in helpig the person make it on their own, take the assistance so you can regain pride.

As far as Dave, well, I honestly thought guys like that are in homes or in special communities or something and not really on welfare as someone with a 7 year old mentality can't function on their own.

[kato2274]

Dave should be in a home.

If the situation was real he probably already is. no way someone with the intellect of a seven year old can maintain a life paying bills, rent, cooking meals etc.

but those homes, even state sponsered ones still cost the patients money and a lot of times that money comes from welfare / social security (disability)

so if you cut dave's, benefits, he can't be in a home and will be out wandering in your neighborhood sleeping on the streets and probably quickly dead. . . . . so he needs those benefits as much as anyone on the list.

[Cleetus]

If the situation was real he probably already is. no way someone with the intellect of a seven year old can maintain a life paying bills, rent, cooking meals etc.

but those homes, even state sponsered ones still cost the patients money and a lot of times that money comes from welfare / social security (disability)

so if you cut dales, benefits, he can't be in a home and will be out wandering in your neighborhood sleeping on the streets and probably quickly dead. . . . . so he needs those benefits as much as anyone on the list.
Ok, thanks, didn't know that. Thought the money came from somewhere else.

[nunob]

I think that refusal should be on a case by case basis. Not one of these people are as bad cases as some I know. There people using food stamps to buy .05 cent candy taking the change then buying beer. Or trading the food stamps for sex or lying about a disability so they can collect money and sit in the bar. The system isnt perfect it needs to be policed maybe if these people had to do public work for this money it wouldn't be so attractive. Maybe some of the mothers could watch the kids for reimbursement from the state so the others could do other jobs. Dont know if thats an answer but it might be a direction to look, but then of course lots of these people dont really want to work anyways do they?

[Major Kong]

Well let's see...the one closest to my heart is Dave, because that is my son, though he is 26 and functions at a 5 year old level. He lives at home and has been recieving SSI since he was 21. He does get some home benefits from the State of Alaska. Putting him in a home has never been an option for my wife and I.
Anne - This one is awfully close to my sister's situation in 1997 after her husband died tragically. She fought with the Insurance Company for over a year before they paid. Actually she never did go on the dole and the kids earned survivor benefits through SS until they were 18 (about $890 a month per then it's now about $1080 per now). Sorry Anne your off the roles.
Bob - Hmmm...interesting case that is like my wife's situation (she has MS). As was mentioned before his SSD benefits should be in place along with his long term disability insurance through work that should kick in (usually 50%-60% of his averaged salary over a 3 year period). Sorry Dave there is no reason for you to be on welfare - hell in most places you wouldn't even be eligible. Even if your LTD is suspended you are still recieving SSD and most likely Medicare.
Carla - I agree with Cleetus, but she should stay for only so long. It's funny about the tattoos there is now a program in place in several different States that will pay to have tattoos removed from individuals 21 and under. I see the criminal record as the biggest problem. I know where I work now and where I worked in AZ a "felony" precluded you from the hiring process.

So Dave and Carla are in. Bob and Anne are out. Since I can only vote for one it will be Bob.

[silencio]

That's not a fair pole. Maybe if you add these people..

Ann - 22 single with one child, not seeking work, saw child as welfare ticket.

Mary - 48 married but seperated, husband in jail for rape, spent her entire life getting jobs, filing false comp claims for a back injury, now has decided to just go on welfare.

Bob - injured in a car accident, now in a wheelchair, doesn't want a job, doesn't care, is happy to remained stoned the rest of his life (not on welfare but SSI).

Jim - injured in a car accident, disability has run out, was at fault and drunk in the accident, seeking a job after completing an associate degree but unable to keep the job due to his drinking.

There's no hypothetical here. These are people I knew.

[Wayward Clam]

EVERYBODY: Thank you! This is one of the most interesting discussions I have seen around here in a while. I am very impressed with the reasoning behind everybody's reasons, even if I disagree with many of you and you're all disagreeing with each other. :D

Further information as requested by people:

Major Kong: You CAN vote for more than one person to cut, I guess you didn't notice that. I dunno if NooNoo can help or if your vote is locked in stone at this point.

OVERALL: I haven't attempted to nail down a particular state (or even country) that they are all from. Laws are different in different places and I don't have any idea how Texas is different from Newfoundland, etc...

ANNE: Anne is obviously not living in Vermont, I am very pleased to hear that Vermont has such progressive child care. Anne is either living somewhere where the only child care available is paid or for some reason she has been denied by the gov't the requisite access/funding for it. In terms of the insurance, for the case of the example, the insurance company IS at fault and SHOULD have paid the claims. She is attempting to take them to court but cannot afford the legal bills for the case and it is in its third year so far of dragging through the courts. (I've heard so many horror stories about this sort of thing...)

BOB: When I created this example I was thinking of two men I know, one who was in the same computer program I started in, and a guy who helps out at the local food bank. Both have back injuries, not repetitive stress, but I gave Bob RSI so RSI the example will continue to be. In terms of his Soc. Sec. Disability Claim, either it has been denied or they haven't given him enough money to live on. In terms of what jobs were recommended to him, I would assume they are jobs that one or more of his retraining programs were intended to prepare him for.

I envisioned Bob as someone who gave it a college try to get retrained to do something else, but couldn't handle learning new things, mostly due to his age, but possibly due to his injury. However, in the example, he has indeed stopped trying.

CARLA: Carla has no hope of finding the biological fathers of her babies. Either she didn't know them that well or they disappeared when they found out she was pregnant. For the sake of having a complete example let's go with one of each.

DAVE: Dave does not have any family members available or willing to take care of him. I know people like this IRL.


That's not a fair pole. Maybe if you add these people...

I admit that your people DO exist, and that few people would say keep them on benefits, the only disagreement is what percentage of people on benefits are like them...

I was also asked what my own views were on this... and I have to confess I am not sure. Carla and Dave I would definitely keep on benefits. Anne I have sympathy for; I would keep her on benefits but attach a condition that they are repayable if the insurance company is forced to pay her. Bob I wouldn't have sympathy for except that like I say, I know two people in the situation, and it seems to be a lot harder for an older person to retrain than it looks... I honestly don't know what I would do about him, and that's why I haven't answered my own poll yet.

I'll admit, using silencio's examples makes the decisions a lot easier...

[meatwad]

I have a question. Is there a doctrine of guidelines over what qualifies for what benefits and are there people who's job it is to specifically check up on whether or not people receiving these benefits are deserving of them?

[jitBob]

...BOB: When I created this example I was thinking of two men I know, one who was in the same computer program I started in, and a guy who helps out at the local food bank. Both have back injuries, not repetitive stress, but I gave Bob RSI so RSI the example will continue to be. In terms of his Soc. Sec. Disability Claim, either it has been denied or they haven't given him enough money to live on. In terms of what jobs were recommended to him, I would assume they are jobs that one or more of his retraining programs were intended to prepare him for.

I envisioned Bob as someone who gave it a college try to get retrained to do something else, but couldn't handle learning new things, mostly due to his age, but possibly due to his injury. However, in the example, he has indeed stopped trying...
It sounds to me as if Bob should have counciling for his obvious mental depression. One does not give up trying after a lifetime of work without some sort of serious issue, and a mental issue can be more debilitating than a physical one.

I would force Bob into paid counciling for a finite time with the understanding that it is his last chance.

[techs]

Ten percent of you (as of today) would cut a guy with a mental intellect of 7 years? I can't believe anyone would advocate that.
Geez, isn't that heartless?

[Wayward Clam]

That seems like a reasonable response, JitBob, and I might have to agree with you... benefits continue as long as he is in counselling and continuing to try to improve himself. If he refuses to attend counselling, then cut him off.

Techs... Diver01 voted to cut EVERYBODY from benefits, so I suspect there might be a belief there that something is wrong with the benefit system entirely. However I do have to confess I am interested to see what the other two's reasons were as neither of them felt that Bob or Carla should be cut and only one of them cut Anne. I don't believe calling Amyb and Gazzak "heartless" is productive, though.

Amyb and Gazzak, do you feel inclined to explain your reasons? Obviously there's no requirement to do so, but I am curious too (that's why I started this poll)...

[Larommi]

I would cut them all but the retard.

[techs]

I would vote to cut off the large corporations which receive Billions in corporate welfare.

[Wayward Clam]

I would vote to cut off the large corporations which receive Billions in corporate welfare.

Back off, get your own thread! :p

I mean, it's not like you've shown that you're having trouble creating them... :cool:

[Jediab]

I voted to keep em all simply because the Liberals wouldn't want any of them to be kicked off welfare. There would be a large stink raised and politically it would be suicide to do so. Any attempt to change the welfare system no matter how drastic or minor is going to bring the Libs out from the rocks they live under.

Who wants more of them in the media? :p

[3fingersalute]

I voted to evict all but Carla:

Anne - Based on her children's ages, they are all in school full time, so I see no reason she can't get some sort of full time job during school hours - so the school would be providing the childcare for free while she worked. (There is actuallly 2 factories around my area that offer a 9-2:30 part time shift for mothers with children in school).

Bob - Looks like it's time to work in a convenience store or some sort of other small retail store where he can sit at a cash register all day or even a telelmarketer position where he can sit at a phone all day. There are plenty of jobs out there that require almost no physical activity at all, so time to suck it up and move on.

Dave - There are other programs in place for people like Dave, he needs to get off of welfare and onto something more appropriate. Also, I don't know about elsewhere, but we have a company here that hires mentally challenged people and takes care of them, but actually pays them to do small tasks like sort bolts and nuts, put small things together, etc., so maybe he could even find something like this to give him some meaning in life.

I think Carla deserves to stay on it while she is in rehab and the equivelancy program, because she is trying to better herself and right her life. I have been through and seen some MAJOR struggles with drug addictions, so I can personally tell you that the mentallity of "Once an addict, always a addict" is not always true.

Plus, working for an Adult Educational Department like I do, I have seen many success stories of people coming back for thier GED's, then continuing on to college or trade schools and finding great employment. Most of these people are collecting welfare or assistance while in this schooling, and are very thankful for the help they receive and are anxious to get off the assistance and into the workforce upon completion of training/schooling. Hats off to Carla!!!!

[thorian]

I will add 2 more profiles for people i know that are on public asistance and if i was president they would be cut immediately. Oh and there both white if it matters.


Mr X. is a 25 yr old widower. Has no drive to do anything since his wife died due to a hospital error, was in volved in a single car accident and claims back pain. has been known to move large pieces of furnature singlehandledly and be fine afterwards. basically is lazy only wants to work at one place best buy and hasn't submitted an application. Thinks that sponging off of scociety is fine.

Ms Y. Is a hypocondriac, and also has lived on public assistance her entire life. She claims that she cannot work due to a neck problem that would keep her from typing. Spends the entire day on the internet (sounds like an office job to me). dosent like to get up before 2.

My problem with the people you have placed on there would be they all seem to have a valid reason if those were the circumstances. But they probally arnt i agree with the above poster Carla is the only one on there that should be on welfare.

Personally with those whom i have known recieving anykind of public assistance it just breeds laziness.


No one ever helped my parents when times were tough ( 4 people living off of light duty mechanics pay) why the hell should i pay some lazy sonofabitch to sit on there *** and play everquest. (think when i go home im gonna kick Mr.x in the *** just because this topic pisses me off) It just made us stronger and my brother and i both have a work ethic that was tempered with hardship. Im 26 and make more then both of my parents combined. My brother is 20 and owns his own business (machine embroidery) Mr. X and Ms. Y only seem to want to bum smokes

[King Grover]

I think they all deserve the benefits.

Since i started working for the county, one of the main locations that i support is DHS (dept. of Human Services) aka the welfare office and i see all sorts, i mean ALL sorts, of welfare cases and these 3 are, to me, legitmate clients. The ones that i have a problem with are the ones that come into the office reaking of booze or spend all the welfare moeny on crack so they can't get a job becuase they are high on crack or looking for crack becuase they are crackheads on crack. I've also seen some roll up in escalades and wearing fur coats too and going to claim welfare to feed the kids they got but they got money for coats and shoes and necklaces and Cadiallacs?

your examples are legit.

[Tacklebox]

Anne can go find a job while the kids are in school.
Bob Should get off his lazy a$$ and stop making excuses.
Carla can get daycare through the state and pay just pennies a day, and go work at getting her life back together.

Silencio's and Thorian's examples are pretty good too, because there are alot of women out there that get pregnant, say they don't have a daddy, get a section 8 apt, then when the kid is old enough say he/she's got ADD and get a KooKoo check.

[meatwad]

Anne can go find a job while the kids are in school.
Bob Should get off his lazy a$$ and stop making excuses.
Carla can get daycare through the state and pay just pennies a day, and go work at getting her life back together.

Silencio's and Thorian's examples are pretty good too, because there are alot of women out there that get pregnant, say they don't have a daddy, get a section 8 apt, then when the kid is old enough say he/she's got ADD and get a KooKoo check.

I want a KooKoo check. :sad:

[Tacklebox]

I think that's how you spell it.

Anyway, they know how to work the system.

[King Grover]

I think that's how you spell it.

Anyway, they know how to work the system.


exactly. it's all aboot working the system!

[Cleetus]

What is wrong with working the system?

It ain't like the top execs and CEO's aren't doing it from the other end everyday, screwing us more then the welfare folks.

[King Grover]

nothing at all is wrong with working th esystem. that;s what it's thereere for. it's waht america is all about. work the sytem yo. hack teh planet!

[Jediab]

What is wrong with working the system?

It ain't like the top execs and CEO's aren't doing it from the other end everyday, screwing us more then the welfare folks.


Not unless you invested in the company or work there. Sure tax dollars might be spent on the trial if they get caught, but that is not quite as direct as scamming the welfare and SSI systems.

[Wayward Clam]

Perhaps a separate poll needs to be made, in which we ask what percentage of people on benefits are legit and what percentage are scammers in everybody's best guess/opinion?

[Zil]

Perhaps a separate poll needs to be made, in which we ask what percentage of people on benefits are legit and what percentage are scammers in everybody's best guess/opinion?


Yes, that would be fun too :D

[Seeker]

I voted for case one to be taken off...but only because of the age of her children. They are all school age and the 12 year ols is legally old enough to watch the other two kids 9 and 6 after school untill mom gets off work. I am sure something could be worked out if she tried.

If her kids were younger then I would say she should be able to get daycare assistance. But I know from watching what my sister went though that daycare assistance is not easy to get if you already working.

I was iffy about case two. He could probably find work if he really wanted too. 52 isn't that old anymore.

Case three is the exact reason we have welfare. She has not made the best choices in life but she is trying. For thoughs of you that said she should not receive welfare, how many of you are Pro-life? Because if you are and you think she shouldn't get welfare then you are one huge contradiction.

Case 4 should receive SSI.

[meatwad]

#3 Royally f***ed up her life. I mean seriously seems to have made just about every stupid decision she could have made. But I didn't vote to take her off because she is an EX-drug addict who is at least making what appears to be a real effort to find work. She seems to realize that she's f***ed up and is making a serious effort to turn her life in the right direction and be a positive member of society. When she does find work, her taxes will help to payback what she had to take. :thumbs:

[ilovetheusers]

Perhaps a separate poll needs to be made, in which we ask what percentage of people on benefits are legit and what percentage are scammers in everybody's best guess/opinion?

I bet those preying on the system is rather low compared to those who need it. My present GF had a deadbeat drunk for the father of her child and she found a job that paid just enough for them to get by with help from others (friends and family). But, the child lacked insurance and they lived next to the crackhead hooker, etc. She knows all too well that if you make a modicum of effort that the government abandons you. This is the major flaw with our welfare system in the US.

Those who are trying have a difficult time at best and barely making it find themselves not qualifying for most of the benefits that others might get for doing nothing. I just have a major problem with that. I do understand that there will always be people that need to be taken care of and that we do need a safety net. I just think that it should be designed to give only truly needy people a major leg up in life and not be meant to live off of (unless mentally deficient or injured and not able to work at all).

I think that our heart stings get pulled by adversity and we don't see that in all of history that people ever had a way out. Things have sadly never been better for the poor which isn't saying much at all. To be honest, this is one of the topics I gladly ignore because it depresses me so much.