Posts tagged welfare
Posts tagged welfare
It’s sad to see how those who abuse the system to get welfare, food stamps, disability, etc. undermine the needs of those who really need it
So instead of just being sad about it, did you report those who are abusing said resources?
Here’s the link to report: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/how-can-i-report-snap-fraud
If you’re speaking generally about those welfare kings and queens that supposedly exist, here’s the facts:
I’m tired of the idea that people on different types of government assistance are shiftless layabouts who are thrilled to receive it.
I don’t want to be poor enough to qualify, but guess what? I’m thrilled to receive it, not because it’s OMG FREE MONEY, but because it allows me to exist without fear of hunger and as a healthy, functioning human being who contributes to society, and would love to make enough income to pay taxes to help others do the same. Never mind those who aren’t able-bodied, children, and the elderly — who actually make up the bulk of recipients and are the most vulnerable to any sorts of cuts or reductions. We all deserve basic sustenance and health care as a human right.
So stop acting like everyone’s just SO STOKED to get welfare. Yeah, maybe they are, but it’s because those few hundred dollars mean maybe, possibly, barely surviving, you judgmental fucks.
Oh, now I get it — only moms of means are worthy of praise. Moms who accept public assistance produce indolent kids who lead unproductive lives.
Yeah, I don’t have kids, but I feel pretty good in saying Romney and his faux “mommy war” outrage can kiss off. I love being lectured by a rich guy about welfare in general. It’s not like I actually want a living wage or anything…
(h/t to ThinkProgress)
This is just tragic:
A desperate Texas mother who was denied food stamps is dead after taking a state welfare worker hostage and then taking her own life. According to police, Rachell Grimmer walked into a Laredo, TX welfare office with her two children Monday and pulled a gun. Over the course of the seven-hour standoff, Grimmer released her hostage but then fatally shot herself and wounded both of her children.
"They were all barefoot," said Esther Jaimes, who saw the family waiting at a gas station in October. "They looked dirty, like they hadn’t showered in days, and the little girl was holding a puppy. They were just looking around just trying to see if anyone would help them or something," she said.
The family of three moved to Laredo in July and lived in a small RV in extreme poverty.
Desperation can cause people to do horrible things. Reports also state she had attempted to qualify since July and was first denied because her 18 page application lacked some information, though what was lacking isn’t clear. Her mother said she may have been dealing with mental illness as well. This is an all-around awful event and I hope her children make a full recovery.
As a side note, the benefits in Texas are typically $294 a week for a family of three. It’s not much, but for many, it’s the difference between starvation and barely adequate sustenance. It’s horrifying that Rachell Grimmer felt she had to take the route of shooting herself and her children after this benefit was denied.
An Ohio Democratic lawmaker is proposing to drug-test elected officials, in response to a Republican-backed bill calling for drug-testing of welfare recipients.
Rep. Robert Hagan’s bill would require statewide officeholders, legislators, members of Gov. John Kasich’s jobs board and recipients of federal bailout money to pay for their testing for un-prescribed pharmaceuticals, illegal drugs and alcohol. Officials testing positive would have to undergo treatment or be booted from office.
Hagan says it’s hypocritical for lawmakers to say they’re protecting taxpayer money by testing welfare recipients for drugs if they themselves won’t submit to testing.
Well, well, well… isn’t this just marvelous? Of course, I’d prefer not drug-testing welfare recipients, but let’s make it more equitable, shall we? He suggested anyone who receives taxpayer dollars should be tested if welfare recipients are tested - simple as that. Let us not forget how drug-testing folks applying for welfare turned out for Florida…
Oh, and he supports the Occupy Movement. He spoke at Occupy Youngstown:
"Wall Street started the war, and we the people will finish it," Rep. Robert Hagan of Youngstown told a fired-up crowd.
BAMF credentials established, sir.
Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum, in his column “Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American” for The American Thinker.
I literally do not know what to say this, other than the subtlety used in the past by folks like Vadum is dead. They do not want those in poverty to vote for fear their rich cronies will no longer be able to buy political clout. The richest 1% have 1% of the vote. 99% of the vote belongs to those outside of the top income brackets.
Never fear, Mr. Vadum. Citizens United v. FEC has your back. I’ll tell you what’s un-American: Decrying the empowerment of the impoverished via the last vestiges of the democratic process we have left in this country. To insist that a person is defined by what one owns versus who one is - that’s profoundly un-American.
You sir, are attempting to establish a new aristocracy in this country, a pseudo-royalty if you will. I believe the Founding Fathers might have a bigger problem with that than with the poor voting.
Uh-oh. Looks like Florida’s mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients is costing the taxpayers more than they’re actually saving.
Governor Rick Scott had praised the program when he signed it June 1st of this year, proclaiming, “It’s the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don’t want to waste tax dollars.”
However, the numbers are not adding up. From WFTV:
Just six weeks after Florida began drug testing welfare applicants, WFTV uncovered numbers which show that the program is already costing Central Florida taxpayers more than it saves. 9 Investigates’ reporter George Spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs. The Department of Central Florida’s (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed.
Governor Rick Scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle. “We have a diminishing amount of returns for our tax dollars. Do we want out governor throwing our precious tax dollars into a program that has already been proven not to work?” Derek Brett of the ACLU said.
DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test and the state reimburses [the applicant] if they test negative. Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140. Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.
I’m not at all shocked by this, and the ACLU is planning to file suit. Oh, and they’re also saying to Rick Scott: “We told you so.” Literally.
The sad part? These measures scare people off from applying for benefits. If people test positive for drugs, it means two things: Either they ingested that substance at least once, and maybe only once, within the testing window - or it’s a false positive. Here’s a short list of things that can cause a false positive:
Huh. So drug tests aren’t infallible and they’re not saving Florida any money? As the ACLU points out, Florida should have learned this 10 years ago, when they tried this program and had to dump it for cost reasons.
I’ll indulge the governor for a moment, though. Let’s say there’s parents who have used some kind of drugs in the period before the test. Why deprive children of quite possibly the only support they’ll receive because their parent(s) may or may not have used drugs voluntarily or involuntarily in the testing period? I’m not comfortable with that thought, and any other person with an iota of compassion should not be thrilled with that proposition either.
Cost of one Tomahawk cruise missile: Approximately $756,000-$2,000,000 per missile
Congress appropriated $6,734,000,000 for WIC in fiscal year 2011.
Let’s compare these numbers for perspective:
When Operation Iraqi Freedom began, more than 725 Tomahawk cruise missiles had been fired into Iraq by early 2003. That’s an approximate cost of $548,100,000 to $1,450,000,000 - nearly 20% of WIC’s 2011 budget in a matter of weeks.
War is expensive, but for some reason, it’s easier to to write those costs off than the costs of helping families in need. War is also profitable, whereas assisting the impoverished, well, not so much.
The study’s author, Suzanne Mettler, a Cornell professor of American Institutions, attempted to explain the difficulties the Obama Administration faced in trying to reframe the debate about the effect of government social spending on the economy and on the quality of life of all Americans. [Read the study: The Submerged State]
Mettler argues that most of the effects of social spending are hidden, which she calls the “submerged state.”
To illustrate the difficulty President Obama would have - and is having - in surfacing the submerged state so that we can have a rational discussion about it, she included the results of a 2008 government study asking recipients of government social spending if they had ever used a government social program.
The results are an indictment of American civic literacy.
To wit, 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 41 percent of military veterans, 43 percent of unemployment recipients, 40 percent of Medicare recipients, 43 percent of college Pell Grant recipients and 27 percent of welfare recipients all said they had never used a government social program.
But those programs are not the submerged state, as Mettler describes, instead they were included to illustrate that even obvious government programs are not so obvious to their millions of beneficiaries.
Her main point had to do with other, hidden forms of government spending, such as the home mortgage interest tax deduction. Six out of every 10 respondents to the survey didn’t recognize the deduction as government social spending.
I’d like to see how many people acknowledge corporations benefit from government spending that’s affecting the social programs Americans benefit from every single day. Let’s see how those numbers stack up.
I used to watch channel 4 news regularly because I thought they were an unbiased source. I realized about a year ago that this assumption was untrue. Some of the pieces they have done are not only bogus but contribute to the smoke and mirror antics of the far right republicans. I’m not sure who owns the station, or who can fix this problem, but until it’s fixed, I’ll get my news somewhere else.
Wow… From the link above:
KMOV ran a story this week as part of their loaded “Is This Why We’re Broke?” series alleging “questionable spending” by TANF recipients because some happened to use their EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cardsin other states. KMOV “reporter” Chris Nagus doesn’t have any evidence the money was used in a “questionable” manner, but he doesn’t let that slow him down.
The argument goes like this:
- Sometimes the working poor leave Missouri.
- Some of the places they go are in states that happen to border an ocean.
- Cue the beach footage.
At no point in the KMOV story does “reporter” Nagus say which cities or stores were the recipient of Missouri dollars. In fact, "reporter" Nagus posted his source material online here, and he doesn’t even have that information. But he does have Brian Hook of the conservative Missouri Watchdog organization to tell him it’s a “gold mine” for “people who say this just allows for government waste.”
Nagus and Hook just have numbers broken down by state, and manufacture their stories from there. Was the money spent at a Piggly Wiggly in Tallahassee? At a convenience store across from a hospital in Sacramento? They don’t know, and don’t seem to care.
Even if Nagus and Hook could look down their noses to receipts proving that some money was spent in places they’d like to visit, what would they propose? There are already limits on what can be purchased with EBT cards. Do they want tracking devices implanted on the working poor so their movements can be monitored from the KMOV studio? Should recipients of agriculture subsidies be subjected to the same scrutiny?
This whole piece of shit argument can be filed under “poor people can’t have nice things.” Here’s a hypothetical for you: What if they went for a job interview? Or went to visit a dying relative?
Here’s a great quote from the original story, headlined “Missouri welfare benefits being spent in Hawaii”:
Hook: The first thing that jumps to my mind is where did they get the money to get to Hawaii and Alaska.
So how about it doesn’t fucking matter where the money is spent because it’s none of your business?
Good catch, my friend. Folks, if you watch this “news” channel, I suggest you let the free market talk and get your news somewhere else.
There are so very many things wrong with this here… It flat out disgusts me.
What could possibly be wrong with getting rid of union MTA workers only to have them replaced with welfare recipients? It’s nothing but a big race to the bottom where the Wall Street bankers in New York get their tax breaks and after saying the layoffs are necessary because the city’s broke, union workers get replaced by those with no protections in place working for minimum wage. And if these welfare recipients are single mothers, just who is supposed to be paying for their daycare while they’re out there cleaning the subways in New York City? And just what type of meaningful job training are you giving anyone by teaching them how to push a broom? Looks like none to me.
One of my favorite images that I used in blog post.
Yes. This is the rebuttal to Capitalism.org.
Yay! Welfare state!