MileHighM
Posts: 400
Joined: 10/8/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:
ORIGINAL: MileHighM
Listen, if you knew the actual rate of fraud, that would mean that you are in control of it. Nearly every discussion that comes up with regard to system fraud leads to the same excuse being made by the state agencies in charge. They nealy always complain that they are understaffed and cannot adequately monitor their cases on an individual basis. That is because they ARE desperately understaffed..Have you ever worked with a social agency?? I mean, on the front lines day in and day out not just read an article or ten or here say ?? Well, the wife does every day. All in the cases of victims assistance, child health and custody case, as well as social service evaluations etc. I help her with the paperwork and compliance issues for her business. The system is fucked. The case loads they claim are the result of over staffing are about the same per month as she sees and deals with on monthly basis. yet she is looking for an even greater case load
You dont want to pay money for bigger government, you dont want to pay decent wages to people working for social agencies, but you demand they HAVE to perform on cracking fraud numbers
This is bad, because there isn't a quantifiable or accurate understanding of how bad the problem is or isn't. How often do you give someone a raise before they do a better job. Only in the government, do people claim they can't do a better job till they get a raise. Everywhere else you have to do the better job first.
So you admit, your "guess" about fraud is just that, an ill informed guess Personal experience would dictate otherwise
However, any underegulated program is rife with fraud because it attracts the greedy and so forth (isn't that the same arguement you make against greedy underregulated capitalists?). the financial amounts and corruption are far larger in scope and depth. Plus have you ever seen the paperwork required for "unregulated social programs?"Fraud is fraud big or small, scale excuses nothing. Yes I have seen the paperwork. IT pales in comparison to getting a Class 3 liscence from the government.
quote:
name one person who has called for reform, that didnt include cuts to any benefit?
Irrelevant, I am not even going to look into it, because it doesn't preclude you from be open to any discussion of reform. You are acting like a teabagger with statements like that.
Belive me I am no bagger.... I would feel insulted, but Ive been insulted by much smarter than you. mhm there goes any chance of reform then I guess because YOU
dont want to discuss it..why? its irrelevent??????...not to me it isnt.
Why are only YOUR points worth discussing?? its certainly not because they are any more important or true than mine.
I would discuss your point if you were making one. It doesn't matter if some politician has or hasn't done something. That is a distraction from addressing fundemental need reform. You didn't make a point you tried to get into a my politician is better than your hypethetical politician arguement.
Can't raise taxes, no way, Raise taxes on those who can afford them, those who rode the backs of the workers that they threw out of their jobs as soon as they need to make more money, creating the unemployed and unemployable Fact: even if you taxed all wage above 1mil a year you still wouldn't close the budget gap, its that big.
then refuses to discuss how the gov't can pay its debts. If the system were perfect the issues with poverty would be solved, therefore, it is always open to reform arguements.
No country has perfected the art of getting rid of poverty, when you blame the wrong people, you will never find the answerGreat you admit it. That means we should constantly be evolving and trying to improve the system.
quote:
how many cuts have been made to benefit recipients since the republicans got back into congress
how many benefit recipients have gotton an increase thru republican bills since november
Well, none. Congress hasn't done shit on the front of Welfare in the past year (I think at most there is one being kicked around in some committee).
What about the coming cuts to benefit recipients, how many millions in budget cuts, how many food programs have been cut, how many millions were up for ransom at the deadline clusterfuck? This is the result of broad not specific cuts. These are not limited to aid programs...I thought you wanted to be specific. The actual cuts in welfare have been at the state level, and can be attributed to democrats and republicans. IM not disputing that, but how many womens health programs have been cut by dems...compared to republicans?wqould you like to say anything about the cuts to the poor , women and families affected by the attempts to shut down planned parenthood? Everything with you is D v. R, as if that makes for moral justice. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Untill you learn to break from the lockstep of one side or the other you will always be supporting some evil in some way or another. Your arguement is based on whether I agree with the Republicans, I dissagree with both the Rs and Ds. Taking the position of a D does not in anyway put me in the R camp.
Notably, California (Dem gov, dem legislature), has been slashing the time one can be on welfare. The state has a very high tax rate and yet major budget deficits. State wide deficits and requirements that they balance their budgets are the driving force for welfare benefit cuts, not political agendas.
please read the below comments from the CBO
An Update on State Budget Cuts At Least 46 States Have Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy
The cuts enacted in at least 46 states plus the District of Columbia since 2008 have occurred in all major areas of state services, including health care (31 states), services to the elderly and disabled (29 states and the District of Columbia), K-12 education (34 states and the District of Columbia), higher education (43 states), and other areas.
States made these cuts because revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, and other revenue sources used to pay for these services declined due to the recession. At the same time, the need for these services did not decline and, in fact, rose as the number of families facing economic difficulties increased.
These budget pressures have not abated. Because unemployment rates remain high — and are projected to stay high well into next year — revenues are likely to remain at or near their current depressed levels. This has caused a new round of cuts. Based on gloomy revenue projections, legislatures and governors have enacted budgets for the 2011 fiscal year (which began on July 1, 2010 in most states). In many states these budgets contain cuts that go even further than those enacted over the past two fiscal years.
Cuts to state services not only harm vulnerable residents but also worsen the recession — and dampen the recovery — by reducing overall economic activity. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, reduce payments to businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. All of these steps remove demand from the economy. For instance, at least 44 states and the District of Columbia have reduced overall wages paid to state workers by laying off workers, requiring them to take unpaid leave (furloughs), freezing new hires, or similar actions. State and local governments have eliminated over 400,000 jobs since August 2008, federal data show. Such measures are reducing not only the level and quality of services available to state residents but also the purchasing power of workers’ families, which in turn affects local businesses and slows recovery.
rape and pillage isnt any better because both sides do it..its a bloody disgrace.
Now explain to me again why, what I feel, is irrelevant?
Why is what you feel irrelevant to me? because it is wreckless. While the right is claiming the programs should be eliminated (something I disagree with), you and many other lefties are in denial about the state of these programs. Both positions are dangerous. While one would effectively create shanty town and desperation overnight, the turn a blind eye to the problems approach, slowly devalues the system, fosters corruption and ignores the true needs of the people on the system (many of whom are not looking for money to be just thrown at them but to get actual help and guidance on how to be successful and independent). The arguements you offer me are based on the moral relativism. You assume I belong solely to one political camp. Then you assume virtue by associating yourself with people who have been slightly less evil by your moral code. I am looking at this from the stand point of: It can be better, lets find a way. If you actually looked at what I was saying with some objectivism you would see we happen to agree on a number of points, but since we disagree on a some others you throw me into the enemy camp and selectively read what I have to say. Both you and tweak saw one sentence I wrote out of many and went off the handle. I will not appologize because it wouldn't offend any honest person who isn't out to defraud the system. It doesn't claim or generalize that everyone is out to defraud the system, and it points out that people of true need are getting edged out of limited resources because there are others on the system who shouldn't be there. I would imagine that you would agree that anyone of legitimate should not be denied help.
|
RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social S... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread