RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Politesub53 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 5:49:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I`m still laughing at his claim that a pregnant woman under 20 has six kids.



Why? Completely outside your experience and conceptions of rational behavior? That stuff happens. There are Fertile Myrtle types too dumb to use birth control.

Granted, being pregnant with number 7 at age 20 indicates a very early start, but I've encountered a mother of 8 who was 24 when somebody finally talked her into getting an abortion, and her tubes tied. It's also a lot easier to get started on the next one, when Family Services took the last newborn away immediately for being born with drugs it's system.


More because the poster who made the claim has a habit of posting bullshit. Note he hasnt posted any evidence or even contradicted me. The authorities here would take a close look at anyone who had had three kids by the age of sixteen due to the underage sex laws.

Eight kids by the age of 24 is more feasible but still unlikely, for the same reason.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:06:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

So there is an actual real-life scenario that I actually lived through.
My step-daughter, who is 23 and single, has been told she'll have to wait until she's at least 25 before she will be accepted to go on the housing list and there is a minimum 6 year waiting time.
She sees this type of scenario almost every week with immigrants and assylum seekers that haven't been in the country five minutes.



You are aware, are you not, that local councils receive (I think) £150,000 for every asylum seeker or refugee family that they manage to successfully resettle into permanent accommodation?

Would that explain anything to you?




I`m still laughing at his claim that a pregnant woman under 20 has six kids.


Not just an idle "claim" taken from some red-top newspaper.
I was stood at the next window at the housing office to all those mentioned in my post.
I actually had a conversation with all of those who were stood with me in that housing office.
So it's not chinese whispers or some rumour that I heard - I was there, I was part of it, I personally witnessed it.

If you want to claim it's BS, that's up to you.
I know what happened on that day.
And being "escorted" outside by two burly security guards left bruises on my arms.




thishereboi -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:16:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

96 months of being pregnant or between time... (given full term pregnancies and 6 weeks between before becoming pregnant again)...

20 - 8 = 12. She would have had to have the first one at that age.

I can buy the 8 at 24 years.....

Meh.... what do I know...


Unless of course she has multiple births. I went to school with a triplet who had 2 sibs 2 years younger and a sister 1 1/2 years older.

Now that is not to say if what he said was true or not, but it's not impossible.

I think one of the biggest problems is that no one ever talks about the thousands of families who are really in need and do everything they can to stretch the money and work for a way to become self supporting. The ones who tell their kids they don't have enough for them to get something to eat and then turn around and spend 20 or 30 bucks on the lottery make the headlines. Or the ones who drive expensive cars and buy lunch everyday with their foodstamps and then complain when the card runs out before the end of the month. Those are the ones people focus on.




Owner59 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:17:58 AM)

A few extreme examples do NOT make up or represent the whole situation.


If we`re going to have a safety net,it`s going to be abused.That`s a given.


To then shine a spotlight on those extreme examples and say that`s why we shouldn`t have welfare is wrong and dishonest.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:24:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
More because the poster who made the claim has a habit of posting bullshit. Note he hasnt posted any evidence or even contradicted me. The authorities here would take a close look at anyone who had had three kids by the age of sixteen due to the underage sex laws.

Eight kids by the age of 24 is more feasible but still unlikely, for the same reason.


Just because you can't visualise 6 kids at age 19 and being pregnant with the 7th doesn't make it BS.

That means she started at around 15 or so.
So it's not actually that unreasonable.

There was a 12yo girl at my school that had a baby.
If she did what this girl did, as in having as many kids as she could to claim the benefits, she would have had 8 kids by the time she was just 18 and if she carried on, she would be having her 10th one at almost 20.
Not common, I agree. but certainly not unusual or impossible.
And no, I'm not counting multiple births.

For Tazzy: pregnancy is only 9 months, not a whole year.
I know many women that have had babies from week 34 onwards.
Heck, both of my kids were born at 32 weeks. That makes the gestation period just under 8 months.





PeonForHer -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:38:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
It was reported recently in the BBC news that many working families don't have more kids because they just can't afford them.
Yes, there are some genuine cases out there but I haven't come across a single one yet. All the ones I have met have done it deliberately to play the system to get more money in benefits.


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


And being "escorted" outside by two burly security guards left bruises on my arms.



Most people who are thrown out of an office by security guards deserve it because they're acting like lunatics or animals. There are some genuine cases out there but I haven't come across a single one yet. Just saying.




lilmissdefiant -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:39:58 AM)

Speaking as someone who is on welfare benefits (Disability Support Pension) and living in Public Housing in Australia. I think that I do get enough money from the government to live on.
Its all about living within your needs, not living within your wants.
You shop at no name places, you go shopping when the sales are on and you save up for the things that you really want.
This means that I can't have take away more than twice a week, it also means that going to the movies happens once a month.
And going to expensive restaurants is only an option after saving up for a month or two.
I am very lucky that I have a close supportive network of people in my life, such as family and close friends.
I don't ask for money because I don't always need it.
if I blow my budget then that's my fault and I and I alone must suffer the consequences.
as I said, its about living within your means




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:45:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
A few extreme examples do NOT make up or represent the whole situation.

I quite agree.
But these extreme examples do exist and are more frequent than you would give credit for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
If we`re going to have a safety net,it`s going to be abused.That`s a given.

Yep. I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
To then shine a spotlight on those extreme examples and say that`s why we shouldn`t have welfare is wrong and dishonest.

I think it's right to shine a light on these extremes and get those in power to close the loopholes so they can't take advantage of them any more.




jlf1961 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:47:32 AM)

I find this funny, not because it does not happen, but more to the effect that it is funny as hell the extremes people will go to in order to get a free ride.

I have seen with my own eyes people try to get disability for being overweight, adult ADD/HD, chronic headaches, a bad back (this one was interesting because he went to the gym 6 days a week) and one because he was a habitual criminal.

Then there was the TV show about a family in Tennessee I believe where they bragged about getting disability checks for having a mental disorder.

I will admit that I am on Social Security disability, however I did not apply for disability on the problem when I originally injured my back. I actually worked for 25 years and dealt with chronic pain for the entire time. I was raised to believe that you worked until you literally could not get up to work. I applied for disability when the back problem reached the point where I was a danger to myself or others in my job.

I have since been looking into every retraining program in the area, and have found out that in all the programs, I seem to be over the preferred age limit.

This is where I have a problem, what does age have to do with the desire to get off disability and back in the work force?

The problem as I see it, for younger adults and even teens on disability there should be a retraining program to get them back in the workforce. There really is no state or federally funded program with this as a goal, thus putting people on disability for the rest of their lives.

As for welfare mothers, and my opinion will get me attacked by women on these boards, I believe that repeatedly having children with the goal of getting welfare money is a crime, and these women should have either mandatory birth control OR have their tubes tied.

And these people that pull their kids out of school or literacy classes to get government checks are IMO unfit parents. By doing that they leave the children unprepared for a productive adult life.

Welfare fraud is rampant in this country, and I do agree with the idea that there is a percentage of people on welfare that feel the government owes them a living, and I also believe that we are not teaching our children the value of an honest day's work.

Even worse is the cycle of welfare that exists in the inner cities. The education systems in the larger cities of the United States is not up to a standard to give quality education to the number of students enrolled in their schools. It is also true that there is a percentage of teachers in the inner city schools who are just marking time until their retirement, they are burned out or worse, have grown complacent because of the lack of funding for school programs.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the money being wasted on people who purposely do things to qualify for long term welfare should be used in other areas and those people should be taken off the welfare rolls and made to get jobs, and retraining programs need to be put in place to return disabled people to the workforce, without consideration of age.

Conservative estimates puts welfare fraud cost at 9 to 13.5 Billion dollars annually, and that was in 2010. It is also estimated that 60% of the cases of welfare fraud is not reported.

In 2008 it was estimated that Social Security was paying 11 Billion dollars in benefits to people who were no longer disabled. And it does not help that the Social Security Administration is behind on investigating these cases and does not have the manpower to adequately investigate the cases they do get to.

It is also known that doctors have falsified reports for people who are applying for disability.

It is also estimated that 45 to 60 billion dollars could be saved in the Social Security fund by retraining disabled people to return to the workplace, and that estimate was made in 2002, I have not been able to find current estimates, if someone can, it would be helpful.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 6:53:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lilmissdefiant

Speaking as someone who is on welfare benefits (Disability Support Pension) and living in Public Housing in Australia. I think that I do get enough money from the government to live on.
Its all about living within your needs, not living within your wants.
You shop at no name places, you go shopping when the sales are on and you save up for the things that you really want.
This means that I can't have take away more than twice a week, it also means that going to the movies happens once a month.
And going to expensive restaurants is only an option after saving up for a month or two.
I am very lucky that I have a close supportive network of people in my life, such as family and close friends.
I don't ask for money because I don't always need it.
if I blow my budget then that's my fault and I and I alone must suffer the consequences.
as I said, its about living within your means



Perhaps the benefits in Australia are better than the UK.

We can't afford a takeaway at all unless something else suffers for it.
Going to the movies is just one of those things we dream about. The last time I could 'afford' to go to the movies was... um... about 15 or more years ago??






TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 7:23:46 AM)

FR

Some interesting issues getting raised in here. I'll plan to address some of them after work.




tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 9:28:51 AM)

But Social Security officials can take into consideration a claimant’s age, skills and ability to retrain when determining eligibility. So one question is: How many of these beneficiaries could work, given the right services and workplace accommodations? Social Security officials say relatively few.

Nicole Maestas, an economist at the Rand Corporation, has examined Social Security data with fellow economist Kathleen J. Mullen, and concluded that in the absence of benefits, about 18 percent of recipients could work and earn at least $12,000 a year, the threshold at which benefits are suspended.

Other economists say that even among those denied benefits, a majority fail to go back to work, in part because of medical problems and a lack of marketable skills.

“In an atmosphere in which there is a concern about fiscal problems, it’s always easy to point the finger at groups and say, ‘These people should be working,’ ” said Prof. John Bound, an economist at the University of Michigan, “exaggerating the degree to which the disability insurance program is broken.”

Even if claimants have more ambiguous medical cases, once they are granted disability benefits, they generally continue to collect. Of the 567,395 medical reviews conducted on beneficiaries in 2009, Social Security expects less than 1 percent to leave because of improved health.

The benefits have no expiration date, like the current 99-week limit for collecting unemployment. And because many people spend years appealing denials and building their medical case before being granted benefits, their skills often atrophy and gaps open on their résumés, making it more difficult for them to get back to work.

Beneficiaries, who also fear losing health care coverage, may view their checks as birds in the hand. “Even if you’re taking just $800 or $900 a month, that’s better than nothing,” said Bruce Growick, an associate professor of rehabilitation services at Ohio State University.

Shortly after Mr. Howard’s benefit checks started arriving, he received a four-by-six-inch card from Social Security informing him of services to help him return to work. Confused by the bureaucratic language and fearing the loss of medical coverage, he discarded it. When he called the local office, he said a staff member did not seem to know what his rights were or what help was available.

“I thought it is just better to get what we are getting,” he said.

In fact, Social Security offers disability beneficiaries some incentive to ease back into the work force. For nine months after starting a job, they can earn any amount without threatening their benefits. For another three years, if their income falls below $1,000 a month, they can immediately receive full benefits again. And they can keep Medicare coverage for eight and a half years after going back to work, something few beneficiaries may realize.

In 1999, Congress passed a law authorizing the Ticket to Work program, which offers beneficiaries practical help with a job search. Social Security also waives medical reviews for those who participate.

So far, the program has had little success. Out of 12.5 million disabled workers and those who receive benefits for the disabled poor, only 13,656 returned to work over the last two and a half years, with less than a third of them earning enough to drop the benefits.

A Social Security spokesman noted that some other beneficiaries had returned to work without using its Ticket to Work program. In 2009, 32,445 recipients left the benefit rolls because they were earning enough in jobs.

Officials say they have streamlined and simplified the Ticket to Work program. But even with more awareness, they say not enough people could go back to work to make a difference in the disability trust fund.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/business/economy/07disabled.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Not exactly an answer to your question.... but interesting information.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 10:10:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

But Social Security officials can take into consideration a claimant’s age, skills and ability to retrain when determining eligibility. So one question is: How many of these beneficiaries could work, given the right services and workplace accommodations? Social Security officials say relatively few.

Even if claimants have more ambiguous medical cases, once they are granted disability benefits, they generally continue to collect. Of the 567,395 medical reviews conducted on beneficiaries in 2009, Social Security expects less than 1 percent to leave because of improved health.

The benefits have no expiration date, like the current 99-week limit for collecting unemployment. And because many people spend years appealing denials and building their medical case before being granted benefits, their skills often atrophy and gaps open on their résumés, making it more difficult for them to get back to work.

In fact, Social Security offers disability beneficiaries some incentive to ease back into the work force. For nine months after starting a job, they can earn any amount without threatening their benefits. For another three years, if their income falls below $1,000 a month, they can immediately receive full benefits again. And they can keep Medicare coverage for eight and a half years after going back to work, something few beneficiaries may realize.

In 1999, Congress passed a law authorizing the Ticket to Work program, which offers beneficiaries practical help with a job search. Social Security also waives medical reviews for those who participate.

So far, the program has had little success. Out of 12.5 million disabled workers and those who receive benefits for the disabled poor, only 13,656 returned to work over the last two and a half years, with less than a third of them earning enough to drop the benefits.



Obviously the whole benefit system in Australia is completely different to the one in the UK.

Here, you go to the jobcentre and sign-on as unemployed.
You sign a form to say you're looking for work and are available.
They pay you every 2 weeks.
That's just about it.
They don't take into consideration what skills you have or your chances of finding work.
All they want to know is if you are able and available for work.


For most disability payments, you usually have an interview every 3 months.
If you cannot satisfy the interviewer that you are still sufficiently disabled as to not be working, you are re-allocated to the 'working' group and go through the normal unemployed channels.


For housing allocation, they ask how many adults and kids in the family.
Every person adds point to your claim.
If you don't have a permanent place to live or are in overcrowded conditions, that gets you more points.
The total number of points tells them where you go on the housing list.
They don't take into account whether you are an immigrant, a refugee, seeking assylum, or a native Brit.
Like the game show says - points make prizes!!
And the prize is a house to live in.

Thats why the system is soo unfair and many scroungers play the system for all its worth.




tj444 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 10:13:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
a bad back (this one was interesting because he went to the gym 6 days a week)

I have scoliosis.. a very bad curve to my spine.. I would spend 2 or 3 weeks in bed in agony from the pain.. No doctor helped me with my "bad back"... I finally went to a chiropractor who took away some of the pain.. not all since my back will always have that curve to it.. when i walk, i walk fast and my limp is not noticeable by anyone (even me), unless i walk across a hard tile surface, then the sound gives away my definate distinct limp.. over the years, i have gone to a chiropractor and gone to the gym 7 days a week (at the same time!).. and i still have a curve to my spine and get back pain.. to conclude that someone with a bad back can not possibly have a bad back cuz they go to the gym is erroneous.. some people can.. going to the gym can help a bad back be less bad.. it wont necessarily cure it tho...




jlf1961 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 10:13:57 AM)

Tazzy, I am quite aware of the present social security programs.

However, let me point out something from my particular case.

I have been building computers most of my adult life, in fact, my first computer was a Heathkit that you had to build from a kit. When PC parts became readily available, I began building my own desktops, and continued throughout my entire life. The only brandname computer I ever bought was a HP Laptop.

There are 12 Independent and two chain computer stores/shops in the town I live in.

Now all of them want a CompTIA A+ certification, which I do not have. I have all the skills required, and doing a tech job would not be detrimental to the reasons I was granted disability, AND I would make more money.

There is a program that offers the certification classes and tests, HOWEVER, the state Vocational Rehabilitation agency says I am outside their "Preferred age limit" for aid to go to the classes that I cannot afford, but will offer help in getting a job using the skills I have. Please refer back to the requirements for employment that I listed.

Now, here is another interesting point, of those people that voc rehab sent to the classes, not one of them stayed local. The shops locally usually have just the owner doing the tech work, and one or two other people handling part sales or the sale of a custom system. Most shops locally have a six week turn around on tech jobs simply due to the number of people needing work done.

Now, the reason they want their techs to have the certification, so that they can be authorized to do warranty work locally, if the repair is one that does not need a factory refurb.

Now my "marketable" skills are simple, I was a long haul trucker for 12 years, I spent 5 years restoring wooden hulled yachts and pleasure craft. And I am a trained chef.

There is no jobs for a chef in this town, and even cooking jobs they have a problem if you have a history of back problems. Something about liability.

See what I am talking about?

The usual jobs for people returning to the workforce following going on disability are often call center jobs, and other jobs that do not pay anything close to what they were making in their chosen profession.

A recovering drug addict fresh out of rehab has a better chance at job training than someone that has been on disability. Actually, there are more federal programs for single parents of either sex to go to vocational school, tech school, get an associates degree or go into nursing.

Not that there are problems with those programs. I just think the job training programs in the US are lacking and do not address all ages or problems.




tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 10:22:58 AM)

quote:

Now all of them want a CompTIA A+ certification, which I do not have. I have all the skills required, and doing a tech job would not be detrimental to the reasons I was granted disability, AND I would make more money.

There is a program that offers the certification classes and tests, HOWEVER, the state Vocational Rehabilitation agency says I am outside their "Preferred age limit" for aid to go to the classes that I cannot afford, but will offer help in getting a job using the skills I have. Please refer back to the requirements for employment that I listed.


Apply. When turned down, appeal. You will get a hearing. At least you will be heard.




PeonForHer -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 10:33:46 AM)

quote:

They don't take into account whether you are an immigrant, a refugee, seeking assylum, or a native Brit.


The original point of the entire system was to help people according to what they need, not what they deserve (for whatever reason it's thought they deserve it). Immigrants need the same basic things as native Brits - so it'd make no sense to differentiate.




Politesub53 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 10:39:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
More because the poster who made the claim has a habit of posting bullshit. Note he hasnt posted any evidence or even contradicted me. The authorities here would take a close look at anyone who had had three kids by the age of sixteen due to the underage sex laws.

Eight kids by the age of 24 is more feasible but still unlikely, for the same reason.


Just because you can't visualise 6 kids at age 19 and being pregnant with the 7th doesn't make it BS.

That means she started at around 15 or so.
So it's not actually that unreasonable.

There was a 12yo girl at my school that had a baby.
If she did what this girl did, as in having as many kids as she could to claim the benefits, she would have had 8 kids by the time she was just 18 and if she carried on, she would be having her 10th one at almost 20.
Not common, I agree. but certainly not unusual or impossible.
And no, I'm not counting multiple births.

For Tazzy: pregnancy is only 9 months, not a whole year.
I know many women that have had babies from week 34 onwards.
Heck, both of my kids were born at 32 weeks. That makes the gestation period just under 8 months.




Your earlier post said I could believe you or not...... Not will do nicely.




Politesub53 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 10:41:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

A few extreme examples do NOT make up or represent the whole situation.



Dont be silly, you know one extreme example is all it takes for the right to think its true. [;)]




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 10:42:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
A recovering drug addict fresh out of rehab has a better chance at job training than someone that has been on disability. Actually, there are more federal programs for single parents of either sex to go to vocational school, tech school, get an associates degree or go into nursing.

Not that there are problems with those programs. I just think the job training programs in the US are lacking and do not address all ages or problems.


Same here in the UK.
If you are a druggie coming out of rehab, or a crook coming out of prison, you can get loads of help through many various agencies and government departments.
But, if you are a 'normal' person struggling to find a job or a home, you are on your own; no help whatsoever.
We were told by the housing department that we could sleep in a shop doorway even though we are both disabled. The 'system' doesn't treat us any differently to a 'normal' person.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875