Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:I think this would be a great new thread to discuss the topic. I never understood the concern of charity by government...

 

Do you believe that the government owns the earnings of it's citizens?

Quote:Anchorman is a fair poster I give him the benefit of doubt. The number doesn't really matter the point he is trying to make is the vast majority use the system within the confines of the law. Which would be rather hard to disprove in all honesty, you can only really measure the people caught using the system outside it's legal confines so there's a real unknown variable there.

Now we can argue that the confines are not strict enough or the validity of the system itself but to focus on the exact percentage of abuse is kind of missing the point.

Even if the system produced 100% legal compliance the problem still persists, a vast majority of the population is incapable of the most basic task to human nature feeding their household. The solution we've presented is a broad check with no incentive to either make financial changes, or find other avenues of self sufficiency.

It's not the abuse that's the problem it's the laws themselves.

Quote:Trust him he did the research.  Can't provide a link but ask you to google it and spend a "couple" of hours re-researching it you will come to the same conclusion because the great state of California says so.

 

I respect The Anchorman and his points of view, even though I don't agree with much of it.  He does provide spirited debate during the discussions that we have on this forum.  I have no reason to disbelieve him regarding the research and doing the study.

 

That being said, I was hoping to read a report on the subject at hand.  I would like to know how cases of fraud were known/reported.  My gut feeling is that the actual number is higher than 5% because there is surely fraud that happens that never gets caught and/or reported.

 

Quote:It's not the abuse that's the problem it's the laws themselves.

 

I would say that it's a combination of both.

Quote:It's not the abuse that's the problem it's the laws themselves.

Exactly they're poorly written poorly managed and horrible over funded

Quote:It's not the abuse that's the problem it's the laws themselves.

I agree wholeheartedly in this.  This statement sums up my frustration to a "T".  

Quote:Caseload         8. Total cases open during the month (Item 8a plus 8b: also Items 6 plus 7)...... 59 46,892 60

185,229

 

 

 

Section III.  Investigation Results CalWORKs


(1)  8. Denials (Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 142 1,179  9. Benefits reduced (Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 147 472 10. Discontinuances (Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 152 414 11. Referred for prosecution………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 157 125 12. Referred to Administrative Disqualification Hearing (ADH)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 162 22 13. Restitution action………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 167 361 14. Benefits reduced (not Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 172 132 15. Benefits discontinued (not Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 177 320 16. Fraud found, no adverse financial impact………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 182 276
 

 

Gotta head to work.  But here's a quick glimpse of July 2013 in California.  I have a feeling this table won't come over as I hope...  But I'm crossing my fingers...

 

 

 

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG281.htm

 

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG365.htm

 

There ya go copycat.  Have fun..  My data that I pulled was for July of 2013.  I took the total case load from the first link and then took the total fruad cases from the second link.  That methodology would actually skew the "fraud" up because the case load I'm looking at is only CalWorks (The welfare for work program), while I'm looking at the total fraud cases for all programs, including foodstamps.  

 

As you can see, the total case load of Calworks for the month is 185,000.  The total cases of fraud found is about 10,000...  You do the math.

 

So there you have it.  The truth is that the concern that there are hundreds of millions of Welfare Queens abusing the system at an alarming rate is just not found when you do the research.

 

Why did I use California?  Well, couple reasons...  Honestly, they make their data tables easily accessable.  Try finding this data at the Florida website!  I couldn't.  And the US Deptartment of Health and Human Services website was also very difficult to navigate.  Now, Cali is a great sample to use, in my opinion for a couple reasons....  First, it's a huge state with a large population.  Second, the population has many subcultures (Hispanic, Black, White, Natives, those you have moved to Cali from other states, etc) so it gives a good representation of all of America.  Second, California has alot of resources available, it's a fairly rich state (compared to other states) with alot of resources.  Obviously, that why they have data so easily available.  So I don't think looking at the low levels of fraud in Cali is an outlier for the rest of the country.  I think it shows that the fact is, welfare abuse is not what the politicians on the right would have you believe. 

Quote:http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG281.htm

 

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG365.htm

 

There ya go copycat.  Have fun..  My data that I pulled was for July of 2013.  I took the total case load from the first link and then took the total fruad cases from the second link.  That methodology would actually skew the "fraud" up because the case load I'm looking at is only CalWorks (The welfare for work program), while I'm looking at the total fraud cases for all programs, including foodstamps.  

 

As you can see, the total case load of Calworks for the month is 185,000.  The total cases of fraud found is about 10,000...  You do the math.

 

So there you have it.  The truth is that the concern that there are hundreds of millions of Welfare Queens abusing the system at an alarming rate is just not found when you do the research.

 

Why did I use California?  Well, couple reasons...  Honestly, they make their data tables easily accessable.  Try finding this data at the Florida website!  I couldn't.  And the US Deptartment of Health and Human Services website was also very difficult to navigate.  Now, Cali is a great sample to use, in my opinion for a couple reasons....  First, it's a huge state with a large population.  Second, the population has many subcultures (Hispanic, Black, White, Natives, those you have moved to Cali from other states, etc) so it gives a good representation of all of America.  Second, California has alot of resources available, it's a fairly rich state (compared to other states) with alot of resources.  Obviously, that why they have data so easily available.  So I don't think looking at the low levels of fraud in Cali is an outlier for the rest of the country.  I think it shows that the fact is, welfare abuse is not what the politicians on the right would have you believe. 

Color me impressed.  You certainly did the research.  My humble apologies!  With that said, I don't think you will ever find the kind of abuse I am talking about on a report like those.

 

For example:  Due to my work hours I tend to visit a local Walmart at aprox. 4:15 am on many mornings.  On smany occasions I have run into a family (grandmother, daughter and 3 children) loading up 2 shopping carts full of what I would consider junk food.  Donuts, chips, sugary drinks ect.  The adults each have a cart full with these items and legitimate food items as well to be fair.  They pay with an EBT card then roll the carts out to a 2012 Cadillac El Dorado.  This has been going on for two years now.

 

Tell me in this example how there is not some kind of fraud, waste or abuse going on here.  Spare me the examples of how this could be legitimate I certainly get that it could be however we all know that in all likelihood that it is not and this type of abuse is quite common.  I think I speak for all those that feel as I do this is the source of our ire.  Blue collar workers busting their tails 5 days a week or more driving 10 year old vehicles barely getting by and seeing examples like this on a regular basis.

 

I do agree with Senor Fantasico that the real issue is the way the laws are written.  The problem there is any attempt to clean these laws up is met with demagoguery from the left and a biased media about starving children and abusing the poor.  

 

Again my apologies for calling you out.  You have put me in my place and I tip my hat to you.

Quote:Color me impressed.  You certainly did the research.  My humble apologies!  With that said, I don't think you will ever find the kind of abuse I am talking about on a report like those.

 

For example:  Due to my work hours I tend to visit a local Walmart at aprox. 4:15 am on many mornings.  On smany occasions I have run into a family (grandmother, daughter and 3 children) loading up 2 shopping carts full of what I would consider junk food.  Donuts, chips, sugary drinks ect.  The adults each have a cart full with these items and legitimate food items as well to be fair.  They pay with an EBT card then roll the carts out to a 2012 Cadillac El Dorado.  This has been going on for two years now.

 

Tell me in this example how there is not some kind of fraud, waste or abuse going on here.  Spare me the examples of how this could be legitimate I certainly get that it could be however we all know that in all likelihood that it is not and this type of abuse is quite common.  I think I speak for all those that feel as I do this is the source of our ire.  Blue collar workers busting their tails 5 days a week or more driving 10 year old vehicles barely getting by and seeing examples like this on a regular basis.

 

I do agree with Senor Fantasico that the real issue is the way the laws are written.  The problem there is any attempt to clean these laws up is met with demagoguery from the left and a biased media about starving children and abusing the poor.  

 

Again my apologies for calling you out.  You have put me in my place and I tip my hat to you.

 

First of all, I don't think that anyone "put you in your place".  Reasonable suspicion arose and you expressed it.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

I personally don't see your observations regarding the family in Walmart buying groceries and getting into a nice vehicle as evidence of fraud.  I'll use my own experience as an example.

 

I have a daughter, 29 years old that is a single mother after a divorce.  She is unable to provide for herself and my grandson on her own, so she lives with us at this point in time.  She does receive food stamp benefits because of her personal financial situation.  She works in a part time position and does her best, but it's not enough for her to survive on her own.  My wife does take her to the grocery store in order to get food for herself and my grandson (we have separate budgets when it comes to food).  She has her own budget for groceries (something that we enforce) and can choose how she spends her "food stamps".  My wife and I both tell her and "get on her" when she makes what we consider poor choices regarding what she buys.  We don't "forbid" her buying sodas or frozen dinners, but we do try to "educate" her regarding getting "smart choices" when it comes to food.  She has learned how to cook things like rice, beans, mac and cheese as well as other things.  She is learning how to "stretch" her budget regarding food.

 

While we don't have a Cadillac, we do have a late model SUV that is very nice.  Someone watching my wife and daughter might say the same thing about us.  Paying with an EBT card and getting into a nice vehicle.  However, I would bet that I pay more in taxes per year than most of the critics earn in a year.

 

Can we afford to support my daughter and her son without them being on public assistance?  No question in my mind, yes we can.  However, we chose one of the most difficult decisions that we ever had to make, that being let them take care of themselves (somewhat).  I feel like in the end, my daughter and grandson will be better off.

 

The bottom line is this.  Don't judge people just by what you see.

Quote:For example:  Due to my work hours I tend to visit a local Walmart at aprox. 4:15 am on many mornings.  On smany occasions I have run into a family (grandmother, daughter and 3 children) loading up 2 shopping carts full of what I would consider junk food.  Donuts, chips, sugary drinks ect.  The adults each have a cart full with these items and legitimate food items as well to be fair.  They pay with an EBT card then roll the carts out to a 2012 Cadillac El Dorado.  This has been going on for two years now.

I think they quit making the El Dorado in 2002.  

Quote:For example:  Due to my work hours I tend to visit a local Walmart at aprox. 4:15 am on many mornings.  On smany occasions I have run into a family (grandmother, daughter and 3 children) loading up 2 shopping carts full of what I would consider junk food.  Donuts, chips, sugary drinks ect.  The adults each have a cart full with these items and legitimate food items as well to be fair.  They pay with an EBT card then roll the carts out to a 2012 Cadillac El Dorado.  This has been going on for two years now.

 

Tell me in this example how there is not some kind of fraud, waste or abuse going on here.  Spare me the examples of how this could be legitimate I certainly get that it could be however we all know that in all likelihood that it is not and this type of abuse is quite common.  I think I speak for all those that feel as I do this is the source of our ire.  Blue collar workers busting their tails 5 days a week or more driving 10 year old vehicles barely getting by and seeing examples like this on a regular basis.

 

Are you following this family through the checkout line, watching over their shoulder to see what card they are swiping, then out into the parking lot to watch them get into a vehicle that's at least 13 years old...every time you see them in Wal-Mart over the past two years?

 

The value of a family vehicle is not considered when determining program eligibility. Do you know the history of the vehicle - how it was acquired, who paid for it, how much it cost?  Also, you don't know if it's the grandmother or mother who receives the benefits. How do you know if Grandma isn't just taking her daughter and grand children to the store?

Quote:I think they quit making the El Dorado in 2002.  

 

I think that his point was, they were getting into a late model Cadillac.

Quote:I think that his point was, they were getting into a late model Cadillac.

I think my point was that if he can't be sure of the model of the car, I don't see how he could be sure of the year.  Not many people can tell the year of a car just by looking at it.

Quote:Are you following this family through the checkout line, watching over their shoulder to see what card they are swiping, then out into the parking lot to watch them get into a vehicle that's at least 13 years old...every time you see them in Wal-Mart over the past two years?

 

The value of a family vehicle is not considered when determining program eligibility. Do you know the history of the vehicle - how it was acquired, who paid for it, how much it cost?  Also, you don't know if it's the grandmother or mother who receives the benefits. How do you know if Grandma isn't just taking her daughter and grand children to the store?

Why is that you liberals cannot even acknowledge that abuses occur?  

 

Since you ask though, it is approximately 4am.  At that time there is only 1 cash register open.  (though lately they have finally opened up the self checkout lines) When I would get caught behind this family what I have observed is 1st one pays with their card, then the other pays with their card.  As I am purchasing a pre-made salad since I was too lazy to make my lunch the night before, I easily catch up with this pair.  

 

Does that answer your questions?  Now again I ask why is it taboo for you that we cannot even discuss holes in the system?

Quote:I think my point was that if he can't be sure of the model of the car, I don't see how he could be sure of the year.  Not many people can tell the year of a car just by looking at it.

Next time I see them I will make sure.  No it is not an El Dorado, brain fart on my part.

Quote:I think my point was that if he can't be sure of the model of the car, I don't see how he could be sure of the year.  Not many people can tell the year of a car just by looking at it.

 

Does the model or year of a car really matter as it pertains to the current discussion?

Quote:Why is that you liberals cannot even acknowledge that abuses occur?  

 

Since you ask though, it is approximately 4am.  At that time there is only 1 cash register open.  (though lately they have finally opened up the self checkout lines) When I would get caught behind this family what I have observed is 1st one pays with their card, then the other pays with their card.  As I am purchasing a pre-made salad since I was too lazy to make my lunch the night before, I easily catch up with this pair.  

 

Does that answer your questions?  Now again I ask why is it taboo for you that we cannot even discuss holes in the system?

 

Abuses do occur.  We live in a society full of humans.  The point I'm making, and I think the rest of us are trying to make is that poor people are not all criminals and cheats.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of them are law abiding citizens that for whatever reason are in need of help.  

 

If you don't want to help the working poor and the flat out poor because you hate the government (or think it bad, or whatever) then just say that.  But don't try and rationalize it by saying "all these poor people are a bunch of cheating thieves stealing our tax dollars, so let's stop funding social programs." 

 

Just be honest.  

 

Look, I get it.  We all bust our butts to support our families.  And I'm with you, people that slide by and cheat the system make be pretty mad as well.  I'm not trying to take that away from you.  I'm all about my class.  I'm a working chump, just like the rest of us on this website.  But I'm not gonna sit here and take an approach that isn't based on reality, especially when it comes from politicians that seem to bend us all over for the past 30 years.  

 

I've done the research, I've thought it through, and it makes sense that poor people, are a sub-set of the overall population.  They are not any more or any less likely to be law breakers and cheaters.  And they do it at about a 5% clip...  Let's say that some of them are even so good at abusing the system that they don't get caught.  Let's say it's as high as 20% (which it isn't, but just for the sake of the argument), that would mean 80% of the poor are doing it the correct way and really do need our help.

 

So do we just cut off all help for the 80%, just because some jerks--an overwhelming minority of them--- are abusing the system?  Maybe you think that we should.  But just admit that it's because you don't want them to get help.  Not because a few are abusing the system. 

Quote:Abuses do occur.  We live in a society full of humans.  The point I'm making, and I think the rest of us are trying to make is that poor people are not all criminals and cheats.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of them are law abiding citizens that for whatever reason are in need of help.  

 

If you don't want to help the working poor and the flat out poor because you hate the government (or think it bad, or whatever) then just say that.  But don't try and rationalize it by saying "all these poor people are a bunch of cheating thieves stealing our tax dollars, so let's stop funding social programs." 

 

Just be honest.  

 

Look, I get it.  We all bust our butts to support our families.  And I'm with you, people that slide by and cheat the system make be pretty mad as well.  I'm not trying to take that away from you.  I'm all about my class.  I'm a working chump, just like the rest of us on this website.  But I'm not gonna sit here and take an approach that isn't based on reality, especially when it comes from politicians that seem to bend us all over for the past 30 years.  

 

I've done the research, I've thought it through, and it makes sense that poor people, are a sub-set of the overall population.  They are not any more or any less likely to be law breakers and cheaters.  And they do it at about a 5% clip...  Let's say that some of them are even so good at abusing the system that they don't get caught.  Let's say it's as high as 20% (which it isn't, but just for the sake of the argument), that would mean 80% of the poor are doing it the correct way and really do need our help.

 

So do we just cut off all help for the 80%, just because some jerks--an overwhelming minority of them--- are abusing the system?  Maybe you think that we should.  But just admit that it's because you don't want them to get help.  Not because a few are abusing the system. 

 

I don't think anyone is advocating "cutting off" certain programs.  I believe that many people would agree that there is a need for some reform.

 

Reform should not include "throwing more money at the problem", which is a standard among liberals.  Their idea of "reform" is to spend more money and pay for it by taxing the rich.

 

Reform should include taking the steps necessary to reduce and ultimately eliminate the fraud that occurs within the system.

 

Reform should also include the steps necessary to influence people to make better decisions and better choices.  What I'm talking about is perhaps using the money that we currently put into these programs to perhaps further limit what could be purchased.  I'm not talking about just eliminating the ability to purchase alcohol or tobacco products, but also perhaps direct people to be able to buy say chicken rather than lobster or steak.  The WIC system somewhat does this.

 

Reform should also include drug testing.  In order to get a job in most places, a potential employee must pass drug screening.  Why should it be different if they are going to be "employed" and paid using my tax dollars?

Quote:I don't think anyone is advocating "cutting off" certain programs. I believe that many people would agree that there is a need for some reform.


Reform should not include "throwing more money at the problem", which is a standard among liberals. Their idea of "reform" is to spend more money and pay for it by taxing the rich.


Reform should include taking the steps necessary to reduce and ultimately eliminate the fraud that occurs within the system.


Reform should also include the steps necessary to influence people to make better decisions and better choices. What I'm talking about is perhaps using the money that we currently put into these programs to perhaps further limit what could be purchased. I'm not talking about just eliminating the ability to purchase alcohol or tobacco products, but also perhaps direct people to be able to buy say chicken rather than lobster or steak. The WIC system somewhat does this.


Reform should also include drug testing. In order to get a job in most places, a potential employee must pass drug screening. Why should it be different if they are going to be "employed" and paid using my tax dollars?

So long as you drug test all the ceo's and chairman of boards of all the military contractors that are making millions off our tax d dollars, I'll think about it. Until then, it's just class warfare...

Quote:So long as you drug test all the ceo's and chairman of boards of all the military contractors that are making millions off our tax d dollars, I'll think about it. Until then, it's just class warfare...

 

While I can't say that CEO's and chairmen of boards are drug screened, I can pretty much guarantee that people that work for military contractors are drug screened.

 

I don't see how it's "class warfare".  After all, in a lot of occupations you must pass a drug screen in order to be employed.  The way that I think about it, people that we are helping through these social programs are trying to get better employment, and thus would have to pass a drug screen.  If they have to pass a drug screen to get good employment that would help to lift them out of poverty, why should they not be required to pass a drug screen in order to get our tax dollars?

 

I'll even go a bit further with the argument.  Drugs cost money.  If these people don't have much money, then how would they be able to acquire/purchase drugs that would make them fail a drug screen?  In my mind, if they can afford to buy drugs that would cause them to fail a drug screen for employment, then they can afford to buy their own food.

Quote:I don't see how it's "class warfare".  

 

Because leeches who sponge off the productive are exactly the same as citizens who return a product or service in exchange for their compensation. The liberal mind at work ladies and gentlemen...