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 horse****.

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?