patrick.net

If 19,000 people were getting $400 a month and that's only 4 percent of welfare recipients, that implies $2,280,000,000 per year on this program, and that there are 475,000 recipients.

The MA budget says it only spent $850M on this program in FY 2012. Sounds like somebody might be fudging numbers to try to argue a case that doesn't really exist.

The state also reports only 160,000 welfare recipients, not 475,000. 160,000 recipients sounds much more in line with that $850M budget number.

If there are only 160,000 recipients, it seems unlikely that there are actually nearly 20,000 cases of fraud (15%, not 4%) "Not being able to locate" someone isn't the same thing as fraud, as this opinion piece implies. Poor people move a lot.

Based on other articles I've found online, the governor's office said that 11,262 of those 19,000 unaccounted for were not receiving benefits, period. So that leaves 7,738 who had moved (forwarding addresses) -- voila, now we see what "4%" actually means.

But, well, 7,738 people receiving $37,142,400 per year who no longer live at the address that they applied for benefits from sounds way less interesting than claiming that there is $91M of welfare fraud going on, doesn't it?

I don't even live in MA and have only visited there once in my life, but I was able to locate these numbers on publicly available websites. You'd think someone trying to argue against a broken system would actually bother to look up some real numbers.

Kevin says

"Not being able to locate" someone isn't the same thing as fraud, as this
opinion piece implies. Poor people move a lot.

---------------------------------
If you were a taxpayer here in Mass like I am, would you feel confident that your state is sending out 19000 mailers that are getting returned? I'm sure not. I mean, the state is automatically pushing massive amounts of money electronically to thousands of EBT cards. You'd think they'd know where these people lived, right? Your excuse that "poor people move around alot" is piss poor. If my state is shelling out $400 per month per person on average, I'd sure as shit want them to keep tabs on these folks. Maybe put the onus on the recipient to prove their existence and need for the taxpayer $$ every month? It seems like I'm asking too much.

Why doesn't the state have a handle on EXACTLY who is geting free taxpayer $$?

Why are democrats here in Mass so opposed to welfare reform?

Back in the 90's, mayor Guiliani of NYC did a little welfare reform, and required all welfare recipients to actually show up to pick up their benefits. And what happened? 25% didn't show up. This saved NYC millions in tax payer money. Why can't the democrats do that here in Massachusetts? They can sure find over $275K to send out these mailers to make sure they register to vote(for the Democrat hand that feeds them(wink-wink, nudge-nudge): ... Why would they be opposed to confirming these #'s?

Whether the wasted amount is 91 million or your 'less interesting' 37 million, it's still an absurdly large amount of $$. If the honest # is somewhere between your 37 million, and the Herald's stated 91 million, do you still think there's a major problem? I do. You apparently think everything is cool.

Do you think the democrats running my state should do something, or do you agree w/ them, that hiding this fact (until forced to reveal this via 'Freedom of Information" request by the Boston Herald) is OK. Are you OK w/ my state not working to find/remove 37-91 million in waste and fraud? It seems that my state gov't is more interested in protecting illegal aliens, layabouts (and its vote factory), than it's own citizens it supposedly works for.

I trully wish I had the time to pour through some #'s as diligently as you did. Kudos for that. But that still doesn't solve or white-wash this problem.....My argument is that I prove welfare fraud exists, where libs say it doesn't. They then back-peddle w/ "Well, it's not THAT bad". Yes, it IS that bad. Your tone sounds very similar.

I demand welfare reform now! Get all RepConTeas off any govt. assistance.
They will destroy this country.

AverageBear says

..My argument is that I prove welfare fraud exists, where libs say it doesn't. They then back-peddle w/ "Well, it's not THAT bad". Yes, it IS that bad. Your tone sounds very similar.

I'm generally in favor of government run welfare, so I probably fall into the "lib" pigeonhole you refer to. I agree with you that there are cases of fraud and that it's bad/wasteful/shameful and should be controlled or stopped. I also take a pragmatic approach so I accept that there will be some fraud and that it's not possible to prevent all of it. Take retail sales as an example. There is shoplifting and employee theft, both of which are a real drag on the profitability of retail business. You have to work to curb it, but it's a fact of life and no matter what you do you aren't going to get rid of it completely. Do your reasonable best, and get on with pursuing your primary goals. (ie don't throw the baby out with the bathwater)

Is $30 million a lot of money? To me, yes -- but to the state of MA representing 4% of the welfare program, not really. Could they do better? Probably so. If they can spend a few hundred thousand and save half of the fraud -- great, let's get to it! If the benefits are outweighed by the cost, at some point you have to accept a certain amount of overhead as part of the deal. Is there some appeal in making welfare recipients show their face somewhere in order to get aid? Sure. It probably does help reduce fraud, but there are likely other unintended consequences that make it a net negative.

AverageBear says

If you were a taxpayer here in Mass like I am, would you feel confident that your state is sending out 19000 mailers that are getting returned? I'm sure not. I mean, the state is automatically pushing massive amounts of money electronically to thousands of EBT cards. You'd think they'd know where these people lived, right? Your excuse that "poor people move around alot" is piss poor. If my state is shelling out $400 per month per person on average, I'd sure as shit want them to keep tabs on these folks. Maybe put the onus on the recipient to prove their existence and need for the taxpayer $$ every month? It seems like I'm asking too much.

Given that many of the recipients of welfare are mentally deficient and otherwise disabled, yes, it's asking a lot.

When NYC had 25% not show up, it wasn't because of fraud -- it was because people had no idea that they were supposed to show up! All that happened is that they stopped getting checks. When they discovered this, they (or the person who handles things for them since they can't themselves) had to go and re-apply.

I get that you're a heartless dick, but lets discuss from a basis of facts and figures, not emotions.

AverageBear says

Whether the wasted amount is 91 million or your 'less interesting' 37 million, it's still an absurdly large amount of $$.

Note that they didn't say that there was $37 million of wasted money. They said that there was $37 million going to people for whom they did not have up to date addresses. There is a world of difference.

Have you ever moved? I have. I've moved and then gotten stuff months / years later from my state government saying that I failed to respond to some legal notice sent to my old address. Shit happens. There are millions of people living in the state, and sometimes these things happen.

But rather than saying "what can we do to fix these book keeping issues?" you're instead jumping to the "OH MY GOD THERE IS FRAUD GOING ON AND DEMOCRATS ARE OK WITH IT!!!"

AverageBear says

Do you think the democrats running my state should do something, or do you agree w/ them, that hiding this fact (until forced to reveal this via 'Freedom of Information" request by the Boston Herald) is OK.

By "hiding" you actually mean "weren't aware of". Why WOULD they be aware of the current mailing addresses of every person on a system that is handled entirely electronically?

My own employer took nearly a year to get my address updated, because my paychecks are deposited electronically and there was no real reason for me to have bothered updating it. Is my employer (one of the largest, most successful companies on this planet) also an incompetent bureaucracy?

AverageBear says

I trully wish I had the time to pour through some #'s as diligently as you did. Kudos for that. But that still doesn't solve or white-wash this problem.

I literally spent less than 5 minutes (less time than I took to write my post!) to do it. You don't "wish" a fucking thing. You have a grudge against government spending and came across a bullshit opinion piece that supported your argument.

AverageBear says

My argument is that I prove welfare fraud exists, where libs say it doesn't.

You did no such fucking thing! You linked to an OPINION PIECE written by some person who isn't directly involved in the issue at hand, who clearly willfully ignored data (or outright lied). Do you think that's sufficient "proof" of anything? I can send you opinion pieces that say that all conservatives are morons, but that doesn't prove anything either.

AverageBear says

They then back-peddle w/ "Well, it's not THAT bad". Yes, it IS that bad. Your tone sounds very similar.

They didn't "back-peddle" on anything. 4% of addresses being incorrect isn't even close to the same thing as the massive fraud that was implied up front.

The original premise of the claim was that there was fraud going on in an amount larger than the entire FY2012 deficit of the state of MA. The reality was "not even remotely true", but because you don't like the way that the non-fraud was discovered, you decide that it's some vast "liberal" cover up.

I mean, really? Aren't there legitimate gripes to be concerned with? Your state has an $8B budget, surely there's something more angering to you than poor people not keeping their addresses up to date.

AverageBear says

My argument is that I prove welfare fraud exists, where libs say it doesn't.

No "libs" anywhere say welfare fraud doesn't exist.

AverageBear says

They then back-peddle w/ "Well, it's not THAT bad".

Is that better or worse than desperately searching for fraud and then using what little there is as justification to abandon the program completely?

AverageBear says

Why doesn't the state have a handle on EXACTLY who is geting free taxpayer $$?

You're kidding right? Entire pallets of money, BILLIONS of dollars, simply go missing in a war zone, and big collective YAWN!

A few million here and there to people in this country is BIG FUCKING DEAL! Hunt them down and BURN THEM ALIVE! Anyone who might not have documented things properly STRING THEM UP by their thumbs!

I realize ultra-conservatives hate poor people, I still don't understand why they love terrorists and criminals so much.

I worked in an inventory control unit at a corporation for a brief period. Whenever we'd try to reconcile things, we'd come up MILLIONS of dollars short all over the place. Fairly large pieces of barcoded equipment that nobody could locate. My favorite was a minicomputer late 80's vintage probably 3 racks in size, must have weighed a ton nobody could find.

Let's say you've got a copier that is "worth" $10K on your inventory. You can't find it. Some dumb-shit didn't steal it, it broke down after a few years and they THREW IT IN THE TRASH without telling anyone. Then people leave and by the time inventory is done nobody recalls what happened to that item. Theft or bad paperwork? Was that copier even really worth $10K any more? Well the accountants think so.

Did we fire anyone? Did we even initiate Tiger Team searches for all this missing shit? No, as long as it was "acceptable" levels of loss we didn't bother with it.

It fascinates me how people target "waste". So many contexts where people don't care a bit about waste. But there's always some group that doesn't "deserve" what they are receiving, and who are committing a mortal sin.

Let's cut welfare so crime can go up and we can arrest more people and build more prisons so we can provide welfare to prisoners.

Most people don't spend time with people on Welfare so they don't know that the lifestyle these people have is brutal, and desperate.

You are dealing with the mentally ill who have no resources. They are banned from one living situation to the next. They can never quite get anything together.

Welfare is very hard for these people to get, and keep, so you are safe on that point. You have thousands of government workers insuring that the beauracracy is so convoluted, so difficult to understand, and very hard to keep all of the paper work straight, that thousands of people would rather do without the benefits.

However Welfare is a direct infusion of cash into the economy. The poor spend all of that money in your local stores. They very rarely go to box stores because they can't afford to.

We all make money from Welfare, and that is a good thing.

David Losh says

However Welfare is a direct infusion of cash into the economy. The poor spend
all of that money in your local stores.

That is simply an explanation that poor people have trouble saving money because they don't have the funds to save. However, it is not a positive thing that they "spend all of that money." Our society would be much better off if everyone could save 6 months worth of living expenses in savings as any good financial advisor would recommend. Living check to check out of necessity plain sucks.

Ideally all theft would be dealt with harshly and severely whether its contractor in afghanistan, white collar criminals, welfare recepients, thiefs in department stores, etc. To say that one theft is better than another is to justify evil selectively.

Yup, every dollar spent on welfare comes back to the economy somehow.

Can't say the same for those missing billions in Iraqi Bribe Money. Probably much of it was spent building a Gun Range in South Africa, or buying an Apartment in Zurich.

thunderlips11 says

Yup, every dollar spent on welfare comes back to the economy somehow.

Can't say the same for those missing billions in Iraqi Bribe Money. Probably much of it was spent building a Gun Range in South Africa, or buying an Apartment in Zurich.

The money spent on afghanistan and irag wars have been a financial knockout against united states, like what marquez did to paquiao. You would think that our government could have anticipated this considering that that's what american did to the soviets back in 1980's - get them caught up to afghanistan so that they would go broke, collapse and implode.

dublin hillz says

Living check to check out of necessity plain sucks.

Well, that is desperation.

You can follow this back to the Reagan era cuts to social programs that unharnessed thousands of mentally ill, and turned them loose on the street. Great savings of short term cash, and we have paid for it ever since.

These people have nothing. It makes no difference if it's drugs, or alcohol, or mental illness, these people are unable to do more than survive.

If you want to make the argument we need better schools, or education, great, but the Welfare to Work program was a disaster. You can not take people with a life time of abuse, or mental illness, or drug addiction, or alcohol addiction and throw them into a work place.

The system we have works well with more checks, and balances you could ever want.

Hey, what's the per cent of people denied benefits, let alone trying to keep them?

thunderlips11 says

Can't say the same for those missing billions in Iraqi

True, the wars in Iraq, and Afganistan have been money losses, and no one seems concerned about that.

Kevin says

I get that you're a heartless dick, but lets discuss from a basis of facts and figures, not emotions.

--------------------------
Projecting will get you no where, mon frere.... I'm simply asking why my State gov't refuses to look into cleaning up obvious waste. You reply w/ name-calling. nice. Stay classy, Kevin.

thunderlips11 says

Yup, every dollar spent on welfare comes back to the economy somehow.

Can't say the same for those missing billions in Iraqi Bribe Money. Probably much of it was spent building a Gun Range in South Africa, or buying an Apartment in Zurich.

----------------------------------------
Well, actually no. I've had discussions w/ folks where Mass EBT were found being used on cruise ships on the carribean and in foreign countries. This doesn't include the documented cases of EBT cards (really cash, as this is what it's being turned into) being used for: bail, booze, strip clubs, nail salons, drugs.... Funny how you casually dismiss this fraudulent behavior by my state gov't, by saying the the $$ winds up back in the economy. Ain't that a fuckin' nugget of wisdom! Typical liberal mentality. Having no problem spending other people's money in the most retarted fashion. Well, I'm a little pissed that it's being used in the most inappropriate ways.

Oh, and what does Iraq have to due with this thread? Stay on track skippy, we're talking Mass gov't pissing away tax dollars.

David Losh says

These people have nothing. It makes no difference if it's drugs, or alcohol, or mental illness, these people are unable to do more than survive.

---------------------------------
So why would you have a problem w/ my state in trying to confirm "these people" are trully who you believe they are. From your perspective, we shouldn't "trust, but confirm". That's all I'm asking, and I get called a 'heartless dick'.....Sounds like someone doesn't want to face, nor confirm reality.

The Mass state senate and our dim governor Deval Patrick, don't want to even acknowledge EBT abuse, let alone confront and solve it. Why are democrats not willing to try? This is the 'low lying fruit' in accounting. I'm not being cruel, as you project me to be. I'm trying to remove the scammers, which has been proven that do exist. Why do liberals dismiss the bad elements in human behavior when it comes to welfare? Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

AverageBear says

we're talking Mass gov't pissing away tax dollars.

Where to begin, let's start with you calling for a witch hunt in welfare fraud. How much is that going to cost? By all means add a few more burieaurats to the number of bureaucrats you already have tracking these illegal purchases.

How do you know where the money is spent? Some one in the government told you? Well then they have the job of stopping that abuse.

Your premise is that the mentally ill, the alcoholics, the drug addicts need to keep current addresses on file or be booted off welfare. Great, do that, keep America safe by making a whole class of desperate people more desperate.

You'll spend the money on law enforcement instead.

AverageBear says

Why do liberals dismiss the bad elements in human behavior when it comes to welfare? Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

You will find neither liberals, or conservatives want to spend a lot of time with welfare.

Number one reason is the Farm Bill which includes Food Stamps, which helps farm prices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/01/congress-just-let-the-farm-bill-expire-its-not-the-end-of-the-world-yet/

Second is the Welfare to Work Program which was a Clinton era program that has been a disaster, except in the minds of a Mitt Romney like person.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/clintons-welfare-work-program-careens-toward-failure

What Mitt has tried to project is that Welfare will go back to just being a Welfare check, but he got that wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

So, let me add this up for you. Welfare, as you claim, isn't a free ride, it's a bureaucratic maze of approval. Second is that we spend a lot of money adminstrating these programs already. Last, but not least is that this money is in circulation which aids the over all economy.

It's like Helicopter Ben dropping money on the poor, rather than banks.

AverageBear says

Well, actually no. I've had discussions w/ folks where Mass EBT were found being used on cruise ships on the carribean and in foreign countries. This doesn't include the documented cases of EBT cards (really cash, as this is what it's being turned into) being used for: bail, booze, strip clubs, nail salons, drugs.... Funny how you casually dismiss this fraudulent behavior by my state gov't, by saying the the $$ winds up back in the economy. Ain't that a fuckin' nugget of wisdom! Typical liberal mentality. Having no problem spending other people's money in the most retarted fashion. Well, I'm a little pissed that it's being used in the most inappropriate ways.

Enough with the straw man. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's OK for welfare to be used on strippers and cruise ships. Certainly, fix those abuses if it's practical and economical to do so. If it's not practical to fix, and such abuses represent an acceptably low portion of the whole, suck it up and get on with things. Shit happens, abuse happens, no system is 100% efficient.

Call it Crazy says

AverageBear says

Why do liberals dismiss the bad elements in human behavior when it comes to welfare? Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

Maybe if they did, they would lose their voting block of people..

Poor people don't vote. Less than I in 10 in poverty show up, vs 8 in 10 among white collar professionals.

Liberals win elections from women, minorities, and the well educated. Poor people are barely relevant in elections, unless they're old, white, and religious.

AverageBear says

Why do liberals dismiss the bad elements in human behavior when it comes to welfare? Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating them? Generalities are fun.

pdh says

AverageBear says

Why do liberals dismiss the bad elements in human behavior when it comes to welfare? Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating them? Generalities are fun.

Because God hates poor, weak people.

AverageBear says

Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

zero tolerance is generally counterproductive if not asinine.

Witchhunts on minorities is just for political points, meanwhile:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDEFX

Because angrybear it's penny ante bullshit.

Reminds me of the various efforts to enact drug testing for welfare recipients. Which end up spending more on the drug testing than it "saves" as they find out welfare recipients statistically are less drug addicted than general population.

And is the goal to fix the accounting, or justify cutting the welfare budget?

If you want to cut waste do you go after the big budget items, or do you shave pennies off your lunch budget?

Its all code language. They believe poor people are poor because they're inferior (especially if they are a different race). They'd be more than happy yo kill or imprison everybody who is poor.

Vicente says

Because angrybear it's penny ante bullshit.

Reminds me of the various efforts to enact drug testing for welfare
recipients. Which end up spending more on the drug testing than it "saves" as
they find out welfare recipients statistically are less drug addicted than
general population.

And is the goal to fix the accounting, or justify cutting the welfare
budget?

If you want to cut waste do you go after the big budget items, or do you
shave pennies off your lunch budget?

-----------------------------------------
Penny-ante bullshit indeed!

You're right Vic, what's $28 Billion anyway. If you think $28B is 'penny ante' bullshit, I'd be happy to take your first $28Billion off your hands.

What the fuck is wrong w/ demanding that our gov't actually give a shit, when it comes to pissing away the taxes that it takes away from us here in Massachusetts?

That useless fuck of a govenor here in Mass, has proposed a state budget that is 25% larger than in 2009. he's telling me he's going to raise the gas tax, and a host of other taxes. Excuuuse me, but I'd like a little credibility in my state gov't, where it actually WANTS to look out for the people it supposedly works for. Where it actually may want to do it's god-damn job actually watch where the tax dollars go. I'm all for helping out the needy, but when Deval's minions doesn't know were the fuck the $$ is going, they finally get fired, just like this clown in the link below. Do you want more links and proof that this one-party state should look for more waste? I'm sure it's out there. But then again, this would interfere w/ the constant campaign for votes.... PFFT! Oh, an BTW, calling me a heartless prick doesn't win you the argument. It confirms your delusion.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/welfare_boss_resigns_wake_report

....."The state’s embattled welfare chief was forced to step down yesterday in the wake of a shocking internal report that found that a staggering 47,000 families receiving taxpayer-funded benefits are unaccounted for — and nearly $30 million in food stamp money went to recipients who were not eligible.

The shocking report, released to the Herald last night, found that the Department of Transitional Assistance has lost track of 47,087 households on welfare — or one out of 10 of the total 478,000 who received DTA mailings.

The welfare department also admitted that it overpaid federal food stamp recipients by a whopping $27.8 million since 2010......"

Welfare is keeping the workers from the farms: hence the need for "agricultural worker programs" where we import Mexicans to do the jobs that Americans will not do. If you're living in some city and can't feed yourself, there should be an office where you can sign up to get transportation to a farm where they will work and feed you and your kids.
C'mon! The plantation needs its workers back!

The Professor says

Instead of giving money to people who can't handle money why don't we create soup kitchens to feed, dormitories to house, and clinics to treat the poor?

There is little incentive to better yourself when you can net more from welfare than working.

-----------------------------------------------
I agree. Those that need help (food, shelter, clothing. retraining) should get all of those things. They should NOT BE GETTING A FRICKEN' EBT CREDIT CARD (AKA 'CASH') to spend tax payers $$ as they see fit (nail salons, booze, hookers, strip joints, bail)....

Apparently, most very liberal folk can't accept the fact that these people that need help, shouldn't be entitled to CASH. They should be entitled to food/shelter/clothing/training that they should some how 'show up' and confirm their identity, and intentions. It's been proven that the democrat-run state of Mass has NO INTENTION whatsoever of confirming who is getting EBT $$, where it's going, and doesn't care how it's being spent...

Bellingham Bill says

zero tolerance is generally counterproductive if not asinine.

-------------------------------------
When did i ever mention 'zero tolerance'?? What's asinine is giving people on welfare CASH to do whatever they want with it. What they should be given is food/clothing/shelter/retraining. Make them show up for it, confirm their identity for it. Give them enough to get back on their feet, but not too much to enjoy or sustain a free/easy lifestyle. (Obama's Antie Zetiuni comes to mind)....An EBT card isn't needed for these things.

AverageBear says

most very liberal folk can't accept the fact that these people that need help, shouldn't be entitled to CASH.

Fine. I think YOU shouldn't be entitled to CASH either. Let's have someone else determine what you NEED. You think you need money for soy-based infant formula? No, what you need is Cheerios and milk. I don't care that your whole family is lactose-intolerant, that's what you're getting!

Plain and simple cash is a lot simpler to distribute, than managing inventories of surplus cheese and butter or whatever. Get over it, this argument was settled a long time ago and even staunchly Republican administrations realized it was more EFFICIENT.

pdh says

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone
abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating
them? Generalities are fun.

---------------------------------------------------------------
PDH, why do you pull shit out of thin air, and accuse me of things i never said. When did I ever say that I or conservatives ever wanted to get rid of social programs? I'm talking about my democrat-run state refusing to acknowledge and fix welfare fraud and waste. You counter w/ generalities. Nice try.

Vicente says

Get over it, this argument was settled a long time ago and even staunchly
Republican administrations realized it was more EFFICIENT.

------------------------------------------
HAHAHAAA!!!! "Efficient" being used to describe a gov't social program. HAHAHAAA!! That's fuckin' priceless. ooh boy, you made my day.

Yeah, let's continue to 'efficiently' give our tax dollars to fuckin' idiots (oh, my bad, the 'victims' of society that don't know better') blow $200 at a liquor store on Petrone, or take that EBT card, get cash for the next 8-ball... Efficiency indeed! Yes, this argument is settled. Everything is perfectly fine. No need to CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.

The Professor says

I grew up on welfare. I did not even know we were poor.

So the system works.

AverageBear says

No need to CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.

We have changed the system for you frigging whiners to the tune of that there $28 Billiion.

Going back to Reagan, who turned the mentally ill out on the street to save a few bucks, and Clinton, with his Welfare to Work government employment program, we have done nothing to make the system better, just more costly.

Hookers, and liquor? No, the vast majority of these people are barely surviving.

The reason we have waste is because the system is so complicated that, yes, really bad people can play it.

The Professor says

Instead of giving money to people who can't handle money why don't we create soup kitchens to feed, dormitories to house, and clinics to treat the poor?

Yeah, let's set up a series of government agencies to do all of those things, shelter, food, and medical.

The problem there is the cost. It would also take away profits from land lords, McDonalds, and God forbid, the Medical Industry.

Welfare works, and could stand to cut the budget on oversight so that more money can reach the poor.

pdh says

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating them? Generalities are fun.

Most conservatives hold to an ideology that believes that social programs are bad, without exception. They do not care if they are efficient, if they help the people they are meant to help, if other human beings will suffer or even die without them, etc. What matters is that their ideology must be upheld at all costs. Too much reliance on any ideology is inherently irrational, and unfortunately idealogues cling tighter and tighter to their ideology whenever it's challenged in serious debate.

AverageBear says

Liberals here in Mass REFUSE to acknowledge welfare fraud, REFUSE to allow reform to uncover waste.

Bull-fucking-shit. I am the most liberal person on Patrick.net. I am all for uncovering and prosecuting welfare fraud. Although I do suspect that banking fraud costs us taxpayers about a thousand times as much. The Federal Reserve lent big banks $16 trillion at 0% so those banks could lend money to our government and collect interest off of it. That's a $16 trillion fraud right there. Welfare fraud is small potatoes compared to that.

However, I am still for prosecuting welfare fraud. And I have never said anything remotely close to suggesting that such fraud does not happen. So much for your theory that liberals approve of welfare fraud or tacitly accept it. Perhaps you are confusing liberal with leftist or socialist. Totally different things.

Liberals believe in liberty, hence the term "liberal". We believe that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. We don't believe in victimless crimes because by definition, if there is no victim, there is no crime. That's what separates liberals from their opposites, fascists.

If you need further clarification, I can go on.

The Professor says

One of the requirements for welfare is that you can't work.

Those days are long past with the Welfare to Work program, insisted on by Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton. It adds cost to Welfare.

It's another cog in the wheel to appease whiners who insist welfare is riddled with fraud.

The truth is Welfare is a good system. What you are saying is that the people on Welfare are so stupid they would rather spend the money they get on hookers, and booze, than food, and their children.

You want repsonsibility? Give people money to do what they want. You want a nanny state, set up one agency, and another, and another, and a watch dog group to be sure that money is spent they way you say it should.

What AverageBear wants is more government to do his, or her bidding.

Poverty has gotten to be a much bigger issue than when we were kids. Look at the Census. We need more money pumped into poverty, and less into government agencies that over see it.

You want to get rid of waste? Let's talk about oil, transportation, sugar, chocolate, farming, autos, housing, and the all powerful medical industry.

Oops, that would be for everybody.

i repeat post Average bear delete; they don’t call afganistan the graveyard of empires for nothing! though i can’t understand why ABear would delete such a comment!

dublin hillz says

You would think that our government could have anticipated this considering that that's what american did to the soviets back in 1980's - get them caught up to afghanistan so that they would go broke, collapse and implode.