Kansas wants to ban welfare recipients from seeing movies, going swimming on governments dime


LS Syndicate said:
While that should be done, there are way too many "if's" involved with that. What if the child is not listed for child support? What if the non-custodial parent is in jail? What if the non-custodial parent is dead? What if the non-custodial is working a minimum wage job in that other state?

Your answer is simple: Either YES, we put a cap on benefits and possibly have children starve to death or NO, we don't and give way to possible (not inevitbale) continuous abuse.
Click to expand...

This seems like more excuses for someone who's getting paid with tax payers money on why they can't do their job. I'm sure social service agencies could narrow it down to which state should legitimately support a HUNGRY child. At least it helps states to remove those childless grown folks from receiving a check in the name of a poor HUNGRY child. This sounds worse than those commercials begging people to give money for starving children around the world, when 90% of the money collected goes to something else besides starving children.
 
Last edited:
JAG89 said:
This seems like more excuses for someone who's getting paid with tax payers money on why they can't do their job. I'm sure social service agencies could narrow it down to which state should legitimately support a HUNGRY child. At least it helps states to remove those childless grown folks from receiving a check in the name of a poor HUNGRY child. This sounds worse than those commercials begging people to give money for starving children around the world, when 90% of the money collected goes to something else besides starving children.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have it all figured out then. Go talk to a social worker and see if that may be easier said than done. In most cases, they make very little and they are inundated with paperwork, case management and research for other State agencies...at least the ones that I know and hang out with every other weekend. I'm not sure how much or little they do in your state, but generally speaking, to do all of what your are asking, we'd have to hire more social workers, and guess who'll be paying their wages?
 



JAG89 said:
This seems like more excuses for someone who's getting paid with tax payers money on why they can't do their job. I'm sure social service agencies could narrow it down to which state should legitimately support a HUNGRY child. At least it helps states to remove those childless grown folks from receiving a check in the name of a poor HUNGRY child. This sounds worse than those commercials begging people to give money for starving children around the world, when 90% of the money collected goes to something else besides starving children.
Click to expand...

It would probably cost more to investigate than it would to just give those few folks the stamps.
 
LS Syndicate said:
Sounds like you have it all figured out then. Go talk to a social worker and see if that may be easier said than done. In most cases, they make very little and they are inundated with paperwork, case management and research for other State agencies...at least the ones that I know and hang out with every other weekend. I'm not sure how much or little they do in your state, but generally speaking, to do all of what your are asking, we'd have to hire more social workers, and guess who'll be paying their wages?
Click to expand...

People will find a way to game any system. Social Security is rampant with abuse. But do people want to start subjecting disabled citizens to random drug tests, restricting where they can spend their benefits, etc? The purpose of these laws is not to make for a more efficient system, its to further stigmatize poor people. And make no mistake, any person can end up in that situation. The benefit rolls are full of people who once had good jobs, nice homes, etc. Some of you guys have done despicable things that required jail time, yet you sit in judgement of poor people. SMH
 
JSU/99 said:
People will find a way to game any system. Social Security is rampant with abuse. But do people want to start subjecting disabled citizens to random drug tests, restricting where they can spend their benefits, etc? The purpose of these laws is not to make for a more efficient system, its to further stigmatize poor people. And make no mistake, any person can end up in that situation. The benefit rolls are full of people who once had good jobs, nice homes, etc. Some of you guys have done despicable things that required jail time, yet you sit in judgement of poor people. SMH
Click to expand...

Right.
 
For some strange reason I knew that state social services were broken, but I see now that nothing can be done to fix it as long as people have the mindset that they are doing everything in their power to feed HUNGRY children. As long as women can have babies and lie on others, such as men who she says father her children, she get a pass due to the fact that it's all about feeding her HUNGRY children. I guess if someone wants to legitimately apply for assistance, they better find a HUNGRY child to feed or they won't be getting any assistance.
 
JAG89 said:
For some strange reason I knew that state social services were broken, but I see now that nothing can be done to fix it as long as people have the mindset that they are doing everything in their power to feed HUNGRY children. As long as women can have babies and lie on others, such as men who she says father her children, she get a pass due to the fact that it's all about feeding her HUNGRY children. I guess if someone wants to legitimately apply for assistance, they better find a HUNGRY child to feed or they won't be getting any assistance.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem you have with the state of welfare, it seems. A handful of people aren't truthful or forthcoming, and you are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. Your stance is based more on personal opinion. I suggest you vote someone into office who shares your sentiments and see where it goes. However, lawmakers have to think objectively when making decisions.....or at least they should.
 
LS Syndicate said:
And therein lies the problem you have with the state of welfare, it seems. A handful of people aren't truthful or forthcoming, and you are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. Your stance is based more on personal opinion. I suggest you vote someone into office who shares your sentiments and see where it goes. However, lawmakers have to think objectively when making decisions.....or at least they should.
Click to expand...

My problem is, there appears to be no accountability. In this day and age of technology, how hard is it for states to cross check each other once someone apply for assistance? Whichever state that children physically reside in should be the ONLY state providing support for them, not multiple states so that other adults can get an extra check.
 
JAG89 said:
My problem is, there appears to be no accountability. In this day and age of technology, how hard is it for states to cross check each other once someone apply for assistance? Whichever state that children physically reside in should be the ONLY state providing support for them, not multiple states so that other adults can get an extra check.
Click to expand...

All of these things are being done, but you need manpower for true accountability. The same state and federal workers who would be responsible for implementing the checks and balances you seek are the ones conservatives don't want to hire. When you cut the DHS budget and the overall government budget, where do you think that money comes from? Personnel - 1 person responsible for investigating fraud in an entire region. What do you expect to happen. But despite all of that, I don't see welfare fraud running rampant as some do. It's similar to the whole debate over the laws that restrict voting. They use a few instances of fraud to restrict the rights of everyone. But when you read between the lines you see it's not about limiting voting fraud - it's about limiting the types of voters who could vote them out of office. The issue these people have with those who receive benefits is the fact they are in that position to begin with. Its not so much fraud within the system they disagree with - it's the fact that the safety net even exists. Corporate tax fraud is a much more expansive and expensive issue but you still see them lining up to give tax breaks. Let's be real here.

BTW, the 2 biggest abuses of the welfare system besides corporate fraud?? EITC and SSI.
 
jag4life said:
If this is actually happening it is a one in a million (literally) occurence.
Click to expand...
lol................. man I know of people on welfare that got their utilities in kids names. One in a million............... lol
I didn't know how bad this crap really was until I actually worked at Human Services back in the 1990's. That is when I really saw how bad a LOT of these welfare families game the system generation after generation. Even if caught, their benefits are rarely cut off. They just get reduced. Then up pops another kid and the full payment process start all over again.
 
jstate83 said:
lol................. man I know of people on welfare that got their utilities in kids names. One in a million............... lol
I didn't know how bad this crap really was until I actually worked at Human Services back in the 1990's. That is when I really saw how bad a LOT of these welfare families game the system generation after generation. Even if caught, their benefits are rarely cut off. They just get reduced. Then up pops another kid and the full payment process start all over again.
Click to expand...

Which is why so many of them don't require the incentive to do better. Their state of mind in living the hood life is perfectly find with them.
 
JSU/99 said:
People will find a way to game any system. Social Security is rampant with abuse. But do people want to start subjecting disabled citizens to random drug tests, restricting where they can spend their benefits, etc? The purpose of these laws is not to make for a more efficient system, its to further stigmatize poor people. And make no mistake, any person can end up in that situation. The benefit rolls are full of people who once had good jobs, nice homes, etc. Some of you guys have done despicable things that required jail time, yet you sit in judgement of poor people. SMH
Click to expand...

You do know that people who receive SSDI have worked and getting a check based on their employment and have a documented disability. People on SSI also have a documented disability.
 
jstate83 said:
lol................. man I know of people on welfare that got their utilities in kids names. One in a million............... lol
I didn't know how bad this crap really was until I actually worked at Human Services back in the 1990's. That is when I really saw how bad a LOT of these welfare families game the system generation after generation. Even if caught, their benefits are rarely cut off. They just get reduced. Then up pops another kid and the full payment process start all over again.
Click to expand...
Do you know what I was responding to? He was saying folks are registering kids in Cali with granny and in Louisiana with mom and getting benefits and its an epidemic. Hence my comment "one in a million"
 
jag4life said:
Do you know what I was responding to? He was saying folks are registering kids in Cali with granny and in Louisiana with mom and getting benefits and its an epidemic. Hence my comment "one in a million"
Click to expand...

Now did I say epidemic??? But you did say it's literally a rare occurrence. I believe we would have to do intensive research to prove if it's a rare occurrence or an epidemic problem, but I do know for sure that it does happen.
 



JAG89 said:
Now did I say epidemic??? But you did say it's literally a rare occurrence. I believe we would have to do intensive research to prove if it's a rare occurrence or an epidemic problem, but I do know for sure that it does happen.
Click to expand...
Because of your lone example. Cool
 
The Founder said:
You do know that people who receive SSDI have worked and getting a check based on their employment and have a documented disability. People on SSI also have a documented disability.
Click to expand...
I know of plenty of people on SSI who have side jobs. I have a cousin getting a disability check right now, and he's working for an auto body shop getting paid under the table.
 
jag4life said:
The kids can't work. SMH

Also, I don't know how much you've been around truly poor kids, but their parents damn sure ain't buying Jordans for them. I have kids on my football team who are sponsored (free fees) and they first came to the field with barely wearable no-name shoes. Set of twins and an older brother whose parents had to get them haircuts on alternate paychecks. No backpack... they were using grocery store bags to carry stuff to school. I got them backpacks and school supplies. Mama actually has a job too.

Cable is not a utility, but they should be able to have internet at least.
Click to expand...

Some of these people sound crazy and you can tell that they have no idea what is going on around them. I could elaborate much further but simply don't feel like it today. I wish they had as much passion about stamping out corporate welfare and tax loop holes for the rich as they do with punishing the poor and disenfranchised. It's the fox news mentality.....let's find a couple of bad apples and indict the masses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top