by Bangalore 170 Replies latest jw friends
People taking advantage of the system through fraud does make my blood boil.
I am sick at home today instead of playing golf (dammit!) and I just got through watching (2nd time) Inside Job. Compared to the excesses of greed and thievery on Wall Street, I can't get too exercised by 'welfare queens.'
No one on this thread is against fraud, Burns.
The institutionalized program was set up to be an offset measure for those in need, not a complete replacement of income and benefits.
YES! But when "they" realized what it could actually DO, certain factions of our society actually encouraged it to become a replacement! Why? Because: it keeps "them" OUT of "our" neighborhoods... AND off "our" JOBS! Do some of you not SEE?
The downside to this is that as the economy continues to take a nosedive, so does the available means for those living with minimal income.
Doesn't even take the economy to nosedive, dear Skeet (peace!); a "natural disaster" can cause it. Let me give you an example: in January 2006, I used by my winter break from school to volunteer with regard to Hurrican Katrina. There was a nationwide call for law students to help with legal cases in Lousiana and Mississippi. I was sent to Gulfport, Pass Christain, and Biloxi. Why? Because, after the hurrican blew the southern seaboard to smithereens... landlords were unilaterally evicted tenants. Why? Because the rich people... whose beachfront houses were blown away/severely damaged... were offering them 10 times the rent so as to be close to their property while things were being repaired!! Literally, landlords were turning tenants out onto the streets! "Gettin' $500/month on that 2-bedroom, are ya (it was Mississippi, ya'll - $500 was average)? Well, whad'ya say I pay you $5,000?"
Add it up folks: still less than what insurance would have to pay for a hotel... at, what $200/night? Or... $6,000/month? Insurance companies were saving $1,000/month... or new renters were pocketing $1,000 a month. Either way, families with children, elderly folks, and disabled folks were being put on the streets. WITHOUT [adequate] DUE PROCESS. Yes, they went to court. In Mississippi, however, judges don't have to be lawyers - they have to be popular enough to be voted to the bench. Apparently, those extra $1,000s were padding more than the insurance company/clients' pockets.
So... some of us headed down there to sit in the courtrooms and take notes... in preparation for a class-action suit. Apparently, our presence put a stop to most of it. It didn't help those poor people... receiving benefits or not... who were put out, though. Either by means of this travesty... or due to the loss of their own home (rented). While homeowner's insurance might cover something like this, renter's insurance usually doesn't. And insurance companies were dragging their feet as to multi-family structures. Just wasn't enough money to go around, FEMA had it's own hands full, etc., etc., etc. LOT of tents, people living in cars, etc.
A family of 4 cannot live on $900 a month.
Especially if their rent is $900 a month, which it would be here, at least. To heck with lights, heat, phone, petrol... clothes (including work/shoe uniformes), shoes, diapers, soap, detergent, bleach, laundry, pencils, papers, books... cough medicine...
Yes, people defraud the government and gov't programs. People defraud. On ALL levels. If we're gonna go after the "welfare queens," we GOTTA also go after the tax evaders, insurance defrauders, gold-diggers, and gigilos. Oh, and we can't forget WALL STREET and the BANKS. Let's go after them, too. Oh, wait... the "Occupiers" already are! GOOD for them!
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
No one on this thread is against fraud, Burns.
FHN, I know you mean everyone on this thread is against fraud. I thought I'd jump on that before they jump on you.
NC
For everyone annoyed by commenters who are against welfare fraud, from skeeter's post:
Additionally, criminal activities meant to defraud the SRS program greatly limit the available funds for those who truly need and make the regulations stricter, in some cases too strict, eliminating the benefits for those who truly need it.
You folks should be for GREATER oversight and protection of what the government disburses, not less.
Now what would BTS call this? Oh yeah---STRAW MAN. Not one person on this thread has argued in favor of fraud, and yet you act like that is the argument.
...my post was just a complete cut & paste from Georgia's website. I didn't comment on it...
Skeeter
I'd say the lady in the picture just above must live an absolutely miserable life.
Does anyone with more intelligence than gravel think she enjoys living like that, that she prefers to remain in that condition?
I'd like to raise a related concern that perplexes me. The sheer number of pregnancies wihtout marriage and the pregnancy rate for schizophrenia, which is genetic (most of the time). I will never forget when Ringo Starr's son popped out too early to be a preemie. My Catholic crowd girls were crying, going into church to pray. The stigma was enormous in the 1960s. Now, it is considered quite normal to have children out of wedlock. Marriage is not my concern. It is the idea that children don't merit mothers and fathers. No long term commitment exists. B/c even with a marriage certificate, the divorce rate is so high. Those are people who swore in church or to a legal official to stay married. Birth control is so available and yet many do not use it.
A teenager does not have a complete brain in place. They lack impulse control as a biological fact. It isn't their just wild. They are wild for physical reasons. I want to scream for the children. If I know the woman/girl, I might sit down and just talk in general about having some power in your life. I believe so strongly that every woman should live on her own or with gfs for a few years before moving in with a man. In my generation, the woman always dropped out of school and supported the man who typically dumped her once he made his way in the world.
The Supreme Court once upheld forced sterilizations. So did Nazi Germany. It seems that education and public awareness campaigns are the answer. The fundamentalists want to deny that sexual impulses exist so their viewpoint is imposed on society.
Women can bear children but should we breed as though we were livestock. I am certain these girls love theri babies every bit as much as an older woman. Why can't welfare benefits be contingent on using birthcontrol if there is no religious problem. I don't see any solution that makes moral sense. Children deserve so much. The children having children........ Yet I don't want the police to come and fix the problem. I've even thought of a credit card rewards program for cool stuff. It is very confusing to me.
Government welfare checks going straight to wally world.
