What degree is welfare fraud?

[Zylka]

I have been graced another reality of my situation in life, simply on a spring day of shopping downtown. Dread had its' part in such thought, however... which came as a pang of guilt to switch hands and make the "Holt Renfrew" tags a little less visible to another sharing the sidewalk. This "other" was an elderly lady who could barely walk, her rickety shopping cart of treasures most would never understand; an impromptu cane. The guilt increased when I (for a moment) thought that handing her a cotton washed monetary scrap would make us both feel good inside.

Knowing full well that our thorough social welfare system (Liberal?) would well accomadate her dire needs, it became obvious that pride, stigma, or mental illness was to blame for this uncharacteristic sight. I say uncharacteristic only in comparison, as the USA seems to provide this epidemic in masses for anyone brave enough to pass through the less desirable streets.

Now I'm not asking for a solution, but am simply a little pissed off... our government is good and naieve enough to provide financial assistance to those in trouble, yet they simply can't reach those who need it most for the aforementioned reasons.

The worst part (at the same time), are those on the other end. Those who are able inifinitely beyond the elderly cart lady, beyond a single mother of 3 children, beyond an immigrant struggling for work with Punjabi as his only communication tool.

I'm talking about the ones who make up a reality of corruption beyond the horror stories; of a 20 something, able bodied man who decides to move to the mountain resort for a season and be a federal sponsored ski bum. Of a 50 year old grandmother collecting $45,000 from family ties a year who also recieves full unemployment benefits. Of those perfectly able who feel the right to complain when their goverment decides to discontinue support in the FAR future. Of those who could tough it out in any inifintely available sh*t job and still make more than sitting around at home on cheques for SEVERAL MONTHS, justifying a need for "something better"

In Canada, these people are everywhere, and the stories do not contain a dark tone when told, but rather an airy gloating. These people make me f*cking ill - especially when you see the unfortunate falling through our system firsthand

I can only imagine seeing this type of sh*t go on when poverty rages in the open urban air. Yanks out there, what problems do you percieve of social welfare abuse? Any stories or examples of those who could legitimately contribute, but milked as much as they could to take time off?

[David Floyd]

out there, what problems do you percieve of social welfare absuse?

It's mere existence in the primary problem. Eliminate social welfare, and you obviously eliminate social welfare abuse along with it.

[Zylka]

Maybe we should eliminate cancer treatment as well. The cancer might not dissapear, but those little sh*ts scamming fantanyl lolipops will sure know what's up!

[David Floyd]

Maybe we should eliminate cancer treatment as well. The cancer might not dissapear, but those little sh*ts scamming fantanyl lolipops will sure know what's up!

No no, cancer treatment is fine, as long as I'm not forced to pay for someone else's treatment.

[DarthVeda]

It is a shame that those who do not need taketh anyway.

Really... a million dollar pension and you're still drawing social security checks? Is there something wrong with that or what?

[orange]

welfare should exist, but only with strict regulation and a watchful eye. For people to be on welfare, they should be exhausting all other outlets. I despise welfare abuse, because I think it is a sign of laziness and theft. But welfare in and of itself is a positive thing. The government creates a system in which the wealthy can prosper, I do not think that it is wrong for the government to tax them (charge a price) for this, and redistribute that money to those who are less forutnate...becuase in many cases it is them whom society has failed.

[David Floyd]

The government creates a system in which the wealthy can prosper,

You mean the government graciously ALLOWS these people to exercise freedom? Oh, dear me, what a grand concession. By all means, these people owe a debt to less lucky, but equally free, people

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No no, cancer treatment is fine, as long as I'm not forced to pay for someone else's treatment.

Bleeding heart hippie!

[orange]

You mean the government graciously ALLOWS these people to exercise freedom?

In a word...YES!

Oh, dear me, what a grand concession. By all means, these people owe a debt to less lucky, but equally free, people

You know as well as I do that 'equal opportunity' is a load of flaming horseshit.

[David Floyd]

In a word...YES!

I see. I think that our difference is that "allowing people to exercise freedom" is a moral imperative - and indeed the whole point - of a government.

You know as well as I do that 'equal opportunity' is a load of flaming horseshit.

I wasn't aware that a poorer person possessed less freedom than a rich person. He might own less stuff, but that's irrelevant to the idea of freedom.

And equal opportunity? If my family got rich through hard work, and passed it on to me, then why should I be denied this in the name of "equal opportunity"? All equal opportunity means is that no ones rights are being infringed - no state-sponsored discrimination, for example.

[Dis]

I'm with David Floyd on this one.

I hate saying that, but I do support libertarianism with regards to economic policy.

[orange]

I see. I think that our difference is that "allowing people to exercise freedom" is a moral imperative - and indeed the whole point - of a government.

So do I...but it shouldn't be free. It's a service.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by David Floyd


It's mere existence in the primary problem. Eliminate social welfare, and you obviously eliminate social welfare abuse along with it.

lets kill the patient to get rid of the cancer. im not talking about chemo, im talking about a bullet to the brain.

[David Floyd]

It's a service.

No, a service is giving you a ride to the hospital in an ambulance, which you then pay for out of your own pocket, going into debt if you have to.

Protecting individual rights against the majority is the imperative FUNCTION of government, and is certainly not a service in the sense that you mean it. Now, if the police provide you some protection, you should certainly pay them, but that's different. You are trying to say that because the government fulfills it's moral imperative, and because I am also rich, I must have a moral AND legal imperative of my own to give money to the poor.

But that doesn't make sense.

[orange]

Protecting individual rights against the majority is the imperative FUNCTION of government, and is certainly not a service in the sense that you mean it. Now, if the police provide you some protection, you should certainly pay them, but that's different. You are trying to say that because the government fulfills it's moral imperative, and because I am also rich, I must have a moral AND legal imperative of my own to give money to the poor.

But that doesn't make sense.

But Floyd, I thought these rights simply existed in nature? Why does a government needed to enforce them?

Furthermore, should a government be forced to provide these rights to the people? No, it has the option to charge a price, does it not? Otherwise the people would be forcing the government to provide it with a service without compensation. That would be immoral, would it not?

[David Floyd]

But Floyd, I thought these rights simply existed in nature? Why does a government needed to enforce them?

A government is needed to prevent people from violating the rights of others. You see, not everyone wants to behave morally - that's why we have a murder rate. The point of government is, in part, to prevent and punish murder.

Furthermore, should a government be forced to provide these rights to the people?

Certainly, as I can see no other ultimate purpose for government.

No, it has the option to charge a price, does it not?

Certainly. It can, should, and MUST charge a price for things such as police and medical service, and this price MUST be paid by those who use it.

Otherwise the people would be forcing the government to provide it with a service without compensation. That would be immoral, would it not?

Certainly, and I've never advocated free medical service. That's your position, remember?

[orange]

A government is needed to prevent people from violating the rights of others. You see, not everyone wants to behave morally - that's why we have a murder rate. The point of government is, in part, to prevent and punish murder.

Completely false. You've invented a definition for government. Sure, it'd be ideal if government existed to prevent people from violating the rights of others. But even still, it shouldn't be 'forced' to do so for free. That's a violation of rights in itself.

Certainly, as I can see no other ultimate purpose for government.

But that's a violation of its liberty! Just because it may not be able to serve another purpose doesn't mean it should be forced to serve that purpose.

Certainly. It can, should, and MUST charge a price for things such as police and medical service, and this price MUST be paid by those who use it.

Argument ends here. The government can charge any price it wants for these services. If it is making a profit and decides to use that profit to redistribute to the poor, that's its choice because it's the government's money. We also must define 'those who use it'. Doesn't everyone use law enforcement protection? Doesn't everyone (in theory) use medical services?

Certainly, and I've never advocated free medical service. That's your position, remember?

No, they'd pay for it in higher taxes. Possibly not even higher taxes, if the government simply prioritized better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But Floyd, I thought these rights simply existed in nature? Why does a government needed to enforce them?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by orange
welfare should exist, but only with strict regulation and a watchful eye. For people to be on welfare, they should be exhausting all other outlets. I despise welfare abuse, because I think it is a sign of laziness and theft.

...and how difficult can it honestly be to recognize and halt obvious cases of abuse? One poster I know from a music site forum, was an able middle aged man without children, responsibility (apparently) or any ailment holding him back from getting a job - and he lived in a major city! Instead he sat on his ass with his girlfriend recieving cheques for MONTHS on end. He even once had the audacity to b*tch about potentially being cut off due to nationwide restructuring, and eventually PUT OFF desirable employment offerings to avoid being disqualified for a full term of benefits

That's my definition of a scumbag taking more than needed. Go figure, the guy labeled himself a "communist" too - who woulldn't want a free cheque in the mail every month when believing that Marxy garbage

Man I'm glad I don't visit that site anymore. At least poly has some decency...

[MRT144]

this is why i support welfare reform. so welfare is a safety net, that people bounce back up from. if you cant hack it after welfare then maybe you should consider moving back in with your parents and getting 2 jobs. or you can live on the street and recieve food stiepens.

[notyoueither]

I have seen the odd bag person myself. I do not understand why, with our system of handouts, these people still need to seek warmth when the temperature hits -20c. But they are still there, and so are those who suck the *** while they could work. Oh, but don't worry, we'll open the undergrounds and let them sleep there when it gets too cold.

I don't think we have perfected Nirvana yet.

[St Leo]

welfare should exist, but only with strict regulation and a watchful eye.

It is already overregulated and overwatchful.

I despise welfare abuse, because I think it is a sign of laziness and theft.

Yes, but chronic welfare abuse is a sign of an insufficient welfare rates.

[Sava]

@ Floyd... "Justice for those who can afford it"

[Felch]

Floyd, you can't deny that the rich benefit more from government than the poor do. Without the security provided by a governing structure, the rich would be robbed of everything they worked so hard to accumulate. Furthermore, the bread and circuses that we provide the desperately poor with are more a tool to prevent them from needing to rob the rich than anything else. I recognize your dispute, but you have to realize that the welfare state exists to profit those who have power.

That's the inherent problem with what Zylka observed. If welfare were truly intended to help the less fortunate he wouldn't have run into the bag lady. I don't know much about the intricacies of welfare, especially not in Canada, but I'm willing to bet that a series of altruistic reform measures could diminish what he saw.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by St Leo
It is already overregulated and overwatchful.

So what.

[Jac de Molay]

this is why i support welfare reform. so welfare is a safety net, that people bounce back up from. if you cant hack it after welfare then maybe you should consider moving back in with your parents and getting 2 jobs. or you can live on the street and recieve food stiepens.

The problem is people on welfare live with a host of socioeconomic problems to begin with. You can push people to work, but what about day care? adequate public transportation? adequate health care? Job training?

People here want good jobs for the good things their families deserve, but the kind of quality work that brings that about is few and far between. The idea that people don't want to work is largely a myth.

Most people on welfare don't have the luxury of "moving back in" with someone else when there's mouths to feed and backs to clothe. Here in Michigan, when a follow-up was done concerning how people fared under welfare-to-work reform, an interesting phenomena occured- many enrolled in the program simply disappeared. No one knows what happened to them, where they went, or how they support themselves when the aid was cut off. I have a feeling they're not in a better state of affairs.

[Sava]

Good post DetroitDave

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Government welfare only becomes fraudulent when there is no other alternative (ie. private rretirement funds, private charities, etc.) Taxes are the fee which every citizen is supposed to pay to live in this country. The government can then take those taxes and do what it likes with them, as long as they do not ban private practices. And if you dont like paying taxes, no one is forcing you to live in America. Go live somewhere else, like the Cayman Islands, where there is no income tax.

[orange]

It is already overregulated and overwatchful.

In the states? Not really...

Yes, but chronic welfare abuse is a sign of an insufficient welfare rates.

Or society's failure in general...i think there's a better way to tackle the problems of the Urban Class than handouts through welfare...

[orange]

Taxes are the fee which every citizen is supposed to pay to live in this country. The government can then take those taxes and do what it likes with them, as long as they do not ban private practices.