Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 53 of 53
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    When on Section 8 all income must be reported of any individual. You're as good as married if you're on welfare. Here are the basic requirements for your state.

    http://www.ehow.com/how_4532274_appl...louisiana.html


    Gather all of the documents that you will need to complete the application. Among other things, make sure you have a birth certificate, pay stubs, rental history and previous years' income tax forms.

    As an adult living with her you would be required to disclose any assets, and that makes a huge difference in whether you qualify for welfare. If you were not listed on the lease and were not included in the Section 8 application; if the landlord or the state found out, Section 8 would be terminated and all monies owed.

    Not only that what would you list as the reason for your divorce? I am reading about divorces in your state and there would be a required separation period of one year since you have children. During this time you are NOT allowed to live together. Are you able to bypass this? Will the state consider your wife eligible for welfare? I know in my home state, they still include your husbands/wife income.

    So now, you would own a house that you must pay on, your wife find another place to live for a year. Then, you have to figure out a way to qualify for welfare with you listed on the paper work, assuming you're going to do this legally. Once listed, that house you own, is considered an asset and your application declined.

    How much of your money are you willing to waste to get this working? Are you willing to sell your house? Anyway, if you don't report everything in the Section 8 application, you would be committing welfare fraud.

    How is any of this better for your children? You would have to rid yourself of all your assets. That's going to hurt you in the long run. Throwing away your entire life. Hiding assets would be considered welfare fraud.

    I see later on you would only stay as much as you were legally allowed. Section 8 does NOT allow for consistent overnight visitors. Your landlord would be OBLIGATED to report the violation. You've completely fit yourself into the box of welfare fraud. You are intentionally trying to find ways to take advantage and to misuse the system.

    Anyway, if you want tips I can give you my sisters email address, lol.
    Very good response.


    I don't understand how/why people keep calling this fraud.

    Is it fraud to seek to get onto welfare legally?

    I am not seeking illegal means. Unless it is illegal to get a divorce, then seek welfare.

    As for the landlord reporting. I rent to people. I don't know who is living there, or how often they sleep over.
    And for the most part, I do not care. I don't see any reason to discriminate against me for staying over at a girls house few nights a week.
    just because we were once married. Or if we are trying to get a divorce.

    As for a reason.. "no fault". We don't want to be married anymore.

    Where would I live for a year? .. In a van down by the river. I can handle that.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    You are intentionally trying to find ways to take advantage and to misuse the system.
    Not in an illegal manner. I am seeking to change my lifestyle to one that is more encurraged by the Gov. I just want big brothers approval.
    When mom and dad liked what I was doing, they sent me money. Big brother does the same thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    Anyway, if you want tips I can give you my sisters email address, lol.
    Sweet *J*

    Do realize this is all a thought experiment.
    To serve man.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the questions to you are.

    1) Does such a plan violate any of your positions? If so, what do you think of the thousands (millions?) of people doing just that right now?
    My propositions? It violates my ethics. I find it to be deceitful since you are changing your relationship in name only and hiding your income and assets to qualify. I think those who cheat the rules should be punished for doing so.

    2) If I did do this, then what % of the population do you think (guess) would be thinking like myself?
    10% or so. I'm not really sure. Getting a legal divorce is something few would do strictly for a small additional income.

    3) What effect would that % of people have on the country if they all (like me) acted on this proposal?
    Not much, I imagine some percentage like 10% already game the system in some fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    4) Is this a legit way of getting back at a Gov that is destroying my lively hood by causing inflation (assuming they are the cause)? Or in the case of me losing my Job based on some Gov action (like drilling moratorium in my area).
    No, the legitimate way to do that would be to elect a different government which would "correct" those policies.

    All this talk of marriage penalties in taxes is absurd. You can always file separately if you think the wind breaks better that way. The truth is it almost never does. Welfare benefits are an area where non-marriage can be an advantage but most welfare benefits are quite modest and anyone with reasonable wealth is unlikely to value them highly enough to divorce. The most common cases would be insurance benefits which could be extremely valuable.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    My propositions? It violates my ethics. I find it to be deceitful since you are changing your relationship in name only and hiding your income and assets to qualify. I think those who cheat the rules should be punished for doing so.
    Why do you think I am "cheating", if I am following the rules?
    I mean, because I value marriage now, that makes getting a divorce cheating (in the eyes of the Gov)?

    What about those who do not value marriage, and find life easier if they just sleep around and shack up with whoever. Just because I sleep with only one woman I am considered cheating the system?

    Of course, if you view all who use the system as cheating the system I can understand. However I think to call my situation cheating and not everyone else based simply on the fact that I was once married to my GF, inconsistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    10% or so. I'm not really sure. Getting a legal divorce is something few would do strictly for a small additional income.
    Food stamps for my wife ..err .. GF and kids, would be in the neighborhood of $700-800. I'm not sure if that is real money to you, but that is a lot of money to me. That is the def of having a new car and not. Or, saving for retirement.. or not. Or even buying some sort of insurance ... or not.

    There are other benefits. For example cable, I know it sounds stupid, but I don't currently have cable. It is possible to get that free. (as I understand it).
    Same with utilities.

    All that along with housing, man that is just about every bill I can think of. ANY income you actually make would be "extra" money. All that, and all I have to do is change my lifestyle a little bit?

    Unless they make it illegal to
    1) Get a divorce
    2) get on gov programs you qualify for (after being divorced)
    3) sleep with someone you were once married to.

    Then I simply don't see the fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Not much, I imagine some percentage like 10% already game the system in some fashion.
    Well, that isn't exactly my point.
    My point had to do with the fact that I am currently NOT on any assistence. I am currently working my way UP the ladder.
    But, what if 10% of the people who are like me (not on the system), changed their life in such a way as to be on the system?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, the legitimate way to do that would be to elect a different government which would "correct" those policies.
    I can dig that.

    one question for you.
    Do you know what "reality training" is? It is basically the idea of letting someone suffer the consequence of their actions.
    The people have chosen to make the above plan seem appealing to me. With a few changes of life style, my standard of living could vastly improve.
    It seems only right to allow the Gov to suffer the consiquences of their actions. (just like I do mine).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    All this talk of marriage penalties in taxes is absurd. You can always file separately if you think the wind breaks better that way. The truth is it almost never does. Welfare benefits are an area where non-marriage can be an advantage but most welfare benefits are quite modest and anyone with reasonable wealth is unlikely to value them highly enough to divorce. The most common cases would be insurance benefits which could be extremely valuable.
    I agree, my motivation isn't so much the tax mans hatchet, but the pot of gold being offered to single women with kids and boyfriends that come and go.
    It is much easier for me to reach that position than that of an independently wealthy person. Why should I aim high, if the lows are so attractive?
    To serve man.

  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why do you think I am "cheating", if I am following the rules?
    I mean, because I value marriage now, that makes getting a divorce cheating (in the eyes of the Gov)?
    You aren't really following the rules is my point. If your income is such that it covers your wife's expenses, then she has the support needed to raise kids. Welfare is designed for people without that support. Its not meant to be extra cash for fun times, its meant to be for people that need it to pay for basics and otherwise can't.

    If you are paying her rent and you are buying her food then that is legally income she receives (so long as it more than 10K per anum) and may make her ineligible single or no.

    Bottom line is that money is supposed to be for folks that need the money more than you and your wife do.

    Of course, if you view all who use the system as cheating the system I can understand. However I think to call my situation cheating and not everyone else based simply on the fact that I was once married to my GF, inconsistent.
    Are others cheating... I'm sure some do. I knew a guy who used to sell me his foodstamps 50 on the dollar. Great deal for me. He used the cash to buy cigs and got all his food from the foodbank he volunteered at. We were both cheating the system to some extent.

    Food stamps for my wife ..err .. GF and kids, would be in the neighborhood of $700-800. I'm not sure if that is real money to you, but that is a lot of money to me. That is the def of having a new car and not. Or, saving for retirement.. or not. Or even buying some sort of insurance ... or not.
    Its real money, but its not money you need to have, just money you would like to have. So its cheating to try and get it when you don't technically need it.

    Now in some states you would still be married, they have common law in a handful of places that means if you act like you are married then you are. They use it to enforce child support and alimony and the like.

    All that along with housing, man that is just about every bill I can think of. ANY income you actually make would be "extra" money. All that, and all I have to do is change my lifestyle a little bit?
    I've never known anyone on welfare and such that didn't have a pretty hefty stack of outstanding bills and fines and the like. When I was poor I had a bunch of library fines and some outstanding tickets and the like, not to mention some credit card debt that defaulted. I didn't get welfare mind you but folks that I know who did, they were often more in over their heads than I was.

    Unless they make it illegal to
    1) Get a divorce
    2) get on gov programs you qualify for (after being divorced)
    3) sleep with someone you were once married to.
    If you still financially support them and live with them, then the divorce may be legally meaningless.

    But, what if 10% of the people who are like me (not on the system), changed their life in such a way as to be on the system?
    Then it would run out of money and have to be changed.

    Do you know what "reality training" is? It is basically the idea of letting someone suffer the consequence of their actions.
    Sure, I do that to folks sometimes.
    The thing is, the state tries to actively stop it so you could get caught and only you would get the reality lesson that welfare isn't that easy to take advantage of without really compromising yourself.
    Last edited by Sigfried; September 8th, 2010 at 12:40 PM.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    I'm not from here, NV
    Posts
    2,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I don't understand how/why people keep calling this fraud.

    Is it fraud to seek to get onto welfare legally?
    You know it's one of those things where I can feel it's fraud but I can't exactly pin point why it is. I could be completely wrong, until I feel that way I will just remain completely frustrated.

    The only welfare fraud right now would be you spending the night consistently, or being in the Section 8 housing and not reporting assets. As far as the divorcing to simply reap welfare benefits, while morally bankrupt I'm sure it's not illegal. However, it seems, your financial situation wouldn't change from the marriage considering you would have to be listed on the forms.

    As for the landlord reporting. I rent to people. I don't know who is living there, or how often they sleep over.
    And for the most part, I do not care. I don't see any reason to discriminate against me for staying over at a girls house few nights a week.
    just because we were once married. Or if we are trying to get a divorce.
    Well sure, YOU don't but when a landlord decides to accept Section 8 they are obligated to certain responsibilities they might not be concerned about otherwise. Anyway, as a girl who was raised with parents heavy into real estate I would absolutely want to know who was renting from me, the company they kept, and who else lived there. If I didn't like the company they brought I would not extend the lease. A house is usually your largest investment. I want to know EVERYTHING that's happening. I digress.

    As for a reason.. "no fault". We don't want to be married anymore.
    Fair enough. I read a bit about no fault divorces in LA and it seems that you only need to be separated for six months before filing and then another six months before it's a legal divorce. Unsure what the living arrangements have to be, but am assuming that you still have to live separately. I'm not finding a lot about family law in LA. Do they have dissolutions? It sounds like the equivalent is the no fault divorce.


    Not in an illegal manner. I am seeking to change my lifestyle to one that is more encurraged by the Gov. I just want big brothers approval.
    When mom and dad liked what I was doing, they sent me money. Big brother does the same thing.
    I'm not sure we've associated that the government likes it or approves of the lifestyle, just that they tolerate it.


    Do realize this is all a thought experiment.
    Yes, lol. I suppose it was a very dry joke on my side. My sister is the girl you talk about when you mention a Welfare Queen.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." ~Bertrand Russell

  6. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Its not meant to be extra cash for fun times, its meant to be for people that need it to pay for basics and otherwise can't.
    If that was truly the intent of the system. Mere charity for the sake of humanity. Then, why wouldn't the government close the loopholes? Why would the system allow Mindtrap and his gf to pull this "scam"? Check your premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Bottom line is that money is supposed to be for folks that need the money more than you and your wife do.
    Says who? Why do you feel entitled to tell MT and his wife what they need? If you don't like the current welfare system, with all its loopholes, then follow your own advice and change the government. I'm sure such waste and misuse, once pointed out, will be handled quickly and efficiently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Are others cheating... I'm sure some do. I knew a guy who used to sell me his foodstamps 50 on the dollar. Great deal for me. He used the cash to buy cigs and got all his food from the foodbank he volunteered at. We were both cheating the system to some extent.
    Were you? Or were you using the system to your advantage, as any reasonable person is apt to do. Unless there's a specific law you're breaking (such as buying or selling foodstamps). In which case, you weren't merely cheating, but breaking the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I've never known anyone on welfare and such that didn't have a pretty hefty stack of outstanding bills and fines and the like. When I was poor I had a bunch of library fines and some outstanding tickets and the like, not to mention some credit card debt that defaulted. I didn't get welfare mind you but folks that I know who did, they were often more in over their heads than I was.
    And I bet the people you knew were better off than others. So, were they misusing the system since they weren't as needy as someone else? If we're gonna let government subsidize the poor, you and I don't get to decide who is in need and who is simply gaming the system. If MT qualifies, he qualifies. If he can set up his personal life, adjust it, to make himself qualify, so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Then it would run out of money and have to be changed.
    Last I checked, the govt was already out of money. Technically when one is spending on borrowed money and has none of their own, then they are out of money. So, despite this, no one's rushing to change the system. What do you we're talking about here, a real company which actually has to worry about the bottom line or balancing the books?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If that was truly the intent of the system. Mere charity for the sake of humanity. Then, why wouldn't the government close the loopholes? Why would the system allow Mindtrap and his gf to pull this "scam"? Check your premises.
    They do try to close the loopholes. If you read the other posts and the law you will find what he proposes is not easy to do. If you are married all but in contract, the state will still not give you welfare if they find out. The rules are set up so that you can have sex with someone, but you can't financially support them in any meaningful way. Sharing expenses is a financial advantage you give up if you go for this scheme and its likely the welfare is not as valuable as the money you save having only one rent/mortgage. The only reliable way to keep welfare is to stay genuinely poor and being poor is its own punishment.

    Says who? Why do you feel entitled to tell MT and his wife what they need? If you don't like the current welfare system, with all its loopholes, then follow your own advice and change the government. I'm sure such waste and misuse, once pointed out, will be handled quickly and efficiently.
    Its not always easy to catch folks breaking the rules. There are plenty of laws to try and stop it but often its more expensive to hunt cheaters down that it is to tolerate the cheating. The rules are there, the intent is there, its just that if folks are determined to cheat they may be able to do so.

    Generally I think the welfare systems are fine in principle. Like any policy they can benefit from constant re-evaluation and improvement and part of that is critique. But finding fault in a system you don't actually know much about isn't very helpful. Do some research and find out some facts if you want to offer a true critique.... or just blow hot air... your choice.

    Were you? Or were you using the system to your advantage, as any reasonable person is apt to do. Unless there's a specific law you're breaking (such as buying or selling foodstamps). In which case, you weren't merely cheating, but breaking the law.
    I was breaking the law buying food stamps. They are not intended to be sold. Nowadays you get a card and have to present ID when using it, its a measure to stop the kind of thing that guy did so he could buy cigs. I was dirt poor at the time myself so while its against the law, its not really against the spirit of the program so much. (off topic land) In fact if you think about it, buying food stamps would be a pretty smart program in some ways. The recipient is committing their own money to food purchase and having it amplified. They get to decide how much food aid they need. You would need a cap to prevent a re-sale scheme from being very profitable. The current system also can be bypassed by selling the food after purchase. This way you at least have to make an investment in the food you want.

    And I bet the people you knew were better off than others. So, were they misusing the system since they weren't as needy as someone else? If we're gonna let government subsidize the poor, you and I don't get to decide who is in need and who is simply gaming the system. If MT qualifies, he qualifies. If he can set up his personal life, adjust it, to make himself qualify, so be it.
    I think you are missing the point. The system is designed not to be gamed, especially not by people with reasonable means to begin with. If MT tries to qualify, I'd wager he will loose more money than he will gain and certainly loose more utility than he gains. In other words he will likely become poorer, only for the benefit of not having to earn some of that money in exchange for having to follow a set of rules laid out by the state. Its designed not to be a smart choice and as a result it rarely is.

    Last I checked, the govt was already out of money. Technically when one is spending on borrowed money and has none of their own, then they are out of money. So, despite this, no one's rushing to change the system. What do you we're talking about here, a real company which actually has to worry about the bottom line or balancing the books?
    Last you checked you were wrong. A companies balance sheet not only takes into account its income and debts but also its assets. The US government owns far more than 12 trillion dollars in assets. I have a personal debt on my home that exceeds my yearly income by about 3 to 1. But I also have equity in the home as an asset as well as a retirement account and various material possessions of some value. My net worth is positive. The US net worth is also positive. I'm not saying the debt load we have is good, I think its too high, but its not bankrupt by any reasonable accounting practice. The books are balanced on the asset/liability front, just not on the income/expenditure front.

    Welfare like food stamps are a relatively tiny expense in the national budget compared to things like social security, medicare, and the defense budget. At local levels schools and infrastructure tend to be the heavy expenditures. Many attempts have been made and continue to be made to make the systems harder to game and cheat at. You will never achieve an unbreakable system and you should only spend money on enforcement in proportion to the cost of the cheaters. Spending more money to stop cheating than cheating looses you is a waste.

    You speak as if no one tries to stop fraud, or has attempted to improve the welfare systems. That is far from the truth. Over the years there have been a great many reforms and attempts to improve the systems.

    Here is a brief history of major welfare reforms
    http://law.jrank.org/pages/11266/Wel...RE-REFORM.html

    It doesn't cover all the smaller changes in policy instituted by the agencies themselves to try and stop cheaters and fraud.

    I couldn't find solid statistics but if you google "convicted of welfare fraud"
    http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1...80d680a94d3e96
    You will get a large number of articles describing the successes in battling cheats in the system.

    An example
    http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/869295

    LEWISTON — An Auburn man and a Portland woman were convicted Thursday of defrauding the federal government of tens of thousands of dollars in Medicaid money, according to the Office of the U.S. Attorney in the District of Maine.

    The scheme likely was linked to the raid of a Lewiston office building by federal officials a year ago.

    Ahmed Yusuf Guled, 75, of Auburn and Dahabo Abdulle Osman, 59, of Portland were found guilty after a nine-day jury trial in U.S. District Court in Portland, according to federal prosecutors.

    Guled was convicted of 16 counts; Osman, 9.

    Each of them was convicted of three counts that carry 10-year maximum prison sentences apiece. The remaining counts have maximum terms of five years apiece. Each of the counts carries a maximum fine of $250,000.

    So if you want to go to prison and get large fines against you.... cheat away.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They do try to close the loopholes. If you read the other posts and the law you will find what he proposes is not easy to do. If you are married all but in contract, the state will still not give you welfare if they find out. The rules are set up so that you can have sex with someone, but you can't financially support them in any meaningful way. Sharing expenses is a financial advantage you give up if you go for this scheme and its likely the welfare is not as valuable as the money you save having only one rent/mortgage. The only reliable way to keep welfare is to stay genuinely poor and being poor is its own punishment.



    Its not always easy to catch folks breaking the rules. There are plenty of laws to try and stop it but often its more expensive to hunt cheaters down that it is to tolerate the cheating. The rules are there, the intent is there, its just that if folks are determined to cheat they may be able to do so.

    Generally I think the welfare systems are fine in principle. Like any policy they can benefit from constant re-evaluation and improvement and part of that is critique. But finding fault in a system you don't actually know much about isn't very helpful. Do some research and find out some facts if you want to offer a true critique.... or just blow hot air... your choice.



    I was breaking the law buying food stamps. They are not intended to be sold. Nowadays you get a card and have to present ID when using it, its a measure to stop the kind of thing that guy did so he could buy cigs. I was dirt poor at the time myself so while its against the law, its not really against the spirit of the program so much. (off topic land) In fact if you think about it, buying food stamps would be a pretty smart program in some ways. The recipient is committing their own money to food purchase and having it amplified. They get to decide how much food aid they need. You would need a cap to prevent a re-sale scheme from being very profitable. The current system also can be bypassed by selling the food after purchase. This way you at least have to make an investment in the food you want.



    I think you are missing the point. The system is designed not to be gamed, especially not by people with reasonable means to begin with. If MT tries to qualify, I'd wager he will loose more money than he will gain and certainly loose more utility than he gains. In other words he will likely become poorer, only for the benefit of not having to earn some of that money in exchange for having to follow a set of rules laid out by the state. Its designed not to be a smart choice and as a result it rarely is.



    Last you checked you were wrong. A companies balance sheet not only takes into account its income and debts but also its assets. The US government owns far more than 12 trillion dollars in assets. I have a personal debt on my home that exceeds my yearly income by about 3 to 1. But I also have equity in the home as an asset as well as a retirement account and various material possessions of some value. My net worth is positive. The US net worth is also positive. I'm not saying the debt load we have is good, I think its too high, but its not bankrupt by any reasonable accounting practice. The books are balanced on the asset/liability front, just not on the income/expenditure front.

    Welfare like food stamps are a relatively tiny expense in the national budget compared to things like social security, medicare, and the defense budget. At local levels schools and infrastructure tend to be the heavy expenditures. Many attempts have been made and continue to be made to make the systems harder to game and cheat at. You will never achieve an unbreakable system and you should only spend money on enforcement in proportion to the cost of the cheaters. Spending more money to stop cheating than cheating looses you is a waste.

    You speak as if no one tries to stop fraud, or has attempted to improve the welfare systems. That is far from the truth. Over the years there have been a great many reforms and attempts to improve the systems.

    Here is a brief history of major welfare reforms
    http://law.jrank.org/pages/11266/Wel...RE-REFORM.html

    It doesn't cover all the smaller changes in policy instituted by the agencies themselves to try and stop cheaters and fraud.

    I couldn't find solid statistics but if you google "convicted of welfare fraud"
    http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1...80d680a94d3e96
    You will get a large number of articles describing the successes in battling cheats in the system.

    An example
    http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/869295
    LEWISTON — An Auburn man and a Portland woman were convicted Thursday of defrauding the federal government of tens of thousands of dollars in Medicaid money, according to the Office of the U.S. Attorney in the District of Maine.

    The scheme likely was linked to the raid of a Lewiston office building by federal officials a year ago.

    Ahmed Yusuf Guled, 75, of Auburn and Dahabo Abdulle Osman, 59, of Portland were found guilty after a nine-day jury trial in U.S. District Court in Portland, according to federal prosecutors.

    Guled was convicted of 16 counts; Osman, 9.

    Each of them was convicted of three counts that carry 10-year maximum prison sentences apiece. The remaining counts have maximum terms of five years apiece. Each of the counts carries a maximum fine of $250,000.
    So if you want to go to prison and get large fines against you.... cheat away.
    I think you missed the point a little. You accuse MT of cheating. He isn't proposing that he breaks any rules. He's proposing rearranging his life to his benefit. That's what he SHOULD be doing. It should be EXPECTED of him. If he stops acting in his own self-interests, then whose interests should he act in? Whether he'll earn money via his scheme, he probably knows best. He is implying that he will. You are arguing, based on your faith in the system/government, that he won't be able to. I am noting that efficiency isn't the government's best trait. Making a profit, worrying about income, etc, are beyond government's scope. You throw around the idea that you or the government know what MT needs and you attempt to judge whether his need is worthy of government assistance. Isn't this the typical position such policies bring us? Who determines what is needed and who needs it? This is a perfect example of why tax money shouldn't be used for these types of things. If I feel my money is being used in a scam, I can stop contributing. As you noted, though, with government, change is slow.

    By the way, regarding whether the U.S. is bankrupt.

    http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/pc..._cbinfoca.html
    "The federal government -- one of the world's largest holders of physical assets -- does not have accurate information about the amount of assets held to support its domestic and global operations. Hundreds of billions of dollars of the more than $1.2 trillion of these reported assets are not adequately supported by financial and/or logistical records. . . . Because the government does not have complete and reliable information to support its asset holdings, it could not satisfactorily verify the existence of all reported assets, substantiate the amounts at which they were valued, or determine whether all of its assets were included in its financial statements. . . . These problems impair the government's ability to (1) know the location and condition of all its assets . . . , (2) safeguard them . . . , (3) prevent unnecessary storage and maintenance costs or purchases of assets already on hand, and (4) determine the full costs of government programs that use the assets."(4)

    In other, the assets of the U.S. govt are only about 1.2 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. This is partially confirmed by the Z1 Flow report which lists all federal and local govts with assets of around 2.5 trillion. In any case, far below the 14 trillion we owe. So, yeah, the federal govt is pretty much bankrupt.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    After reading some responses. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding.
    I would not be receiving any welfare or help at all. My GF would.
    She currently doesn't have a job, and she wouldn't if we were divorced. Her income would only be that which the state awarded her for child support (which I would have to pay). If it is possible to do a private divorce I could give her half of my current income in alimony and child support, and she would still more than qualify for every program available.

    So, "I" would not become poor. My wife would. Personally, I wouldn't be setting up a whole new house. IE having a house of my own, a cable bill of my own etc.
    I would live out of my vehicle. Sleep over at her secton 8 house as much as possible (without being counted as part of the "House hold") etc. I would still be able to spend time with my kids as most of the day I'm gone to work anyway (so that would count as time away from the house if they go by %)

    In the end, I would not be receiving any welfare. The GF would be like every other person.. with the slight tweak of the fact that I could actually rent her the section 8 house. (unless there is a law against that as well).

    In that case... I would be getting paid to house the woman I sleep with (Like I said evil plan at work here)
    But that is not illegal in itself. As I said before, If I were cheating on my wife with one of my tenants, who just so happen to be on section 8, the Gov wouldn't come after me.


    O.k. on to reply's.



    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You aren't really following the rules is my point. If your income is such that it covers your wife's expenses, then she has the support needed to raise kids. Welfare is designed for people without that support. Its not meant to be extra cash for fun times, its meant to be for people that need it to pay for basics and otherwise can't.

    If you are paying her rent and you are buying her food then that is legally income she receives (so long as it more than 10K per anum) and may make her ineligible single or no.

    Bottom line is that money is supposed to be for folks that need the money more than you and your wife do.
    Well, you are right. If the money I give her does cover her then we simply wouldn't be elligable.
    I'm betting that it simply wouldn't. In a divorce, I would have to pay a % of my income to her for child support.
    I am almost 100% certain that, that wouldn't be enough and she would be under. The reason is, we are close enough to it now that any
    significant change (IE divorce) would tip the scale.

    Our assets are the thing holding us back, not the monthly income. If the assets were simply in my name, and we were divorced she would receive full benefits legally.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Are others cheating... I'm sure some do. I knew a guy who used to sell me his foodstamps 50 on the dollar. Great deal for me. He used the cash to buy cigs and got all his food from the foodbank he volunteered at. We were both cheating the system to some extent.
    The only way you could say I would be cheating the system is if you see living a life style that is supported by the system as cheating.
    In which case everyone living that lifestyle is cheating the system. Because they chose to live a single life and not get married, all the while having children for people that aren't "part of the house hold".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Its real money, but its not money you need to have, just money you would like to have. So its cheating to try and get it when you don't technically need it.
    You say that because of my situation now, but cause I currently don't "need" it.

    But it isn't given based no "need" it is given based on qualification.
    If it were given on "need", then they would consider if you have family that will support you.
    Can you live with a grandparent? (Yes they have a spare room, regardless if they want you there or not).
    (Soup Nazi voice)Then no section 8 for you.
    As I understand it.. .that isn't how the system works, so it isn't based on "Need". It is more based on Have and have not.
    She wouldn't have her own house.. so they would give one to her (Section 8).


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Now in some states you would still be married, they have common law in a handful of places that means if you act like you are married then you are. They use it to enforce child support and alimony and the like.
    Yea, I'm aware of that. As I understand it avoiding that is as simple as sleeping somewhere else for a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I've never known anyone on welfare and such that didn't have a pretty hefty stack of outstanding bills and fines and the like. When I was poor I had a bunch of library fines and some outstanding tickets and the like, not to mention some credit card debt that defaulted. I didn't get welfare mind you but folks that I know who did, they were often more in over their heads than I was.
    That doesn't mean that they weren't provided for through welfair.. It just means they were irresponsible with whatever other money made.

    If I am irresponsible, the bank will reposes my house. ..Not so with those on welfare.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If you still financially support them and live with them, then the divorce may be legally meaningless.
    I'm not certain that would be the end all of road blocks.. See my first point about my current situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The thing is, the state tries to actively stop it so you could get caught and only you would get the reality lesson that welfare isn't that easy to take advantage of without really compromising yourself.
    So you don't think anyone who gets a divorce gets on wel-fare?


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Because they only look good from the outside. I've never known anyone on welfare that was much happy about it. It tends not to be enough to actually cover your expenses. I suppose if you were also working, that might do it, but other than some minor under the table income, I've not known anyone getting welfare and who had an above poverty income at the same time.
    Well, simply put, my wife wouldn't have an above poverty income. She wouldn't have any assets. While I could provide where there is need, the state probably wouldn't care. If I were to give clothing to my children. I wouldn't think that would put her benefits in jeopardy. (nor should it I think)




    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    or just blow hot air... your choice.
    Now, I know that wasn't to me.. but that wasn't nice or called for. You made your point well enough without it.

    "On fomenting positive discourse"


    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    You know it's one of those things where I can feel it's fraud but I can't exactly pin point why it is. I could be completely wrong, until I feel that way I will just remain completely frustrated.
    My "evil plan", is the end game of the current system. I think that is why you are repulsed by this. It isn't so much the plan itself, but that this is the end result of the current system. It takes people like myself who are married and have a job and makes them think ... HMMMmm. You know, If I were never married, lived in a van and just hung around long enough to make and raise kids.
    I could afford a lot more stuff for my offspring because the Gov would provide for a majority of their needs (House/food/health ins/electric/phone/water).

    If I thought about it, then I firmly believe there are many who haven't ever considered doing it any other way BUT how I have described. It is currently a way of life that is supported by the Gov.

    ----- and that was my analysis of why you feel that way , but can't put your finger on it


    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    The only welfare fraud right now would be you spending the night consistently, or being in the Section 8 housing and not reporting assets. As far as the divorcing to simply reap welfare benefits, while morally bankrupt I'm sure it's not illegal. However, it seems, your financial situation wouldn't change from the marriage considering you would have to be listed on the forms.
    Again, I personally wouldn't be receiving any benefits. My GF would. She would have no assets to list, as she would be a separate house hold.


    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    Well sure, YOU don't but when a landlord decides to accept Section 8 they are obligated to certain responsibilities they might not be concerned about otherwise. Anyway, as a girl who was raised with parents heavy into real estate I would absolutely want to know who was renting from me, the company they kept, and who else lived there. If I didn't like the company they brought I would not extend the lease. A house is usually your largest investment. I want to know EVERYTHING that's happening. I digress.
    --personal note--
    I am personally looking to purchase some section 8 housing right now. They have tenants, and apparently it is very strictly regulated by the section 8 case workers. I'm not sure to what extent, but they certainly have some limit to who is "living" there as far as time goes.
    I would simply not exceed that and sleep in my van.

    In the end, it would be the more complicated option, but could pay big


    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    Fair enough. I read a bit about no fault divorces in LA and it seems that you only need to be separated for six months before filing and then another six months before it's a legal divorce. Unsure what the living arrangements have to be, but am assuming that you still have to live separately. I'm not finding a lot about family law in LA. Do they have dissolutions? It sounds like the equivalent is the no fault divorce.
    I'm not really all read up on it, I know they exist that is about my extent of knowledge .. to actually "do" this plan I would have to do more homework to be 100%...
    but in theory


    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    I'm not sure we've associated that the government likes it or approves of the lifestyle, just that they tolerate it.
    To me.. Money = approval.
    If you give someone the money to do something, then you are enabling them, and for all intents and purposes "approving" of their actions.

    So.. if you give someone gas money, you can't fuss them for buying gas with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAMIE
    Yes, lol. I suppose it was a very dry joke on my side. My sister is the girl you talk about when you mention a Welfare Queen.
    *L*
    O.. well
    If I ever talk my wife into letting me having a second GF maybe I should look her up... then I can really mooch of the Gov.

    *J*




    Question to opponent. to all.
    Ask yourself.. How much of my plan could I get away with legally. To what extent?

    Most of the objections so far seem to be easily worked around.

    Assets... She wouldn't have any, so that wouldn't be a roadblock
    Income...
    If I got a divorce, how much alimony/child support would I HAVE to pay? I don't make a tone of money as it is, and if they only took 75% of it my wife would receive full benefits. section 8/food stamps ... the works. If we were allowed to set up our own payments. It would be very easy, I would simply obligate myself to pay nothing, and she would accept.


    With those two things, she would qualify for a lot. I mean, It appears to me that there are plenty of people who receive these sort of benefits.. they have to be doing it somehow. They aren't marry, those children have an earthly father. It isn't illegal for the father to be around the kids and the wife.
    To serve man.

  10. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think you missed the point a little. You accuse MT of cheating. He isn't proposing that he breaks any rules.
    He's not proposing to break the rules but the specific actions he is proposing probably do break the rules in some cases. Yes, if he truly divorces his wife, stops living with her and caring for her children and spending money on her beyond dates and the like, yes she could get welfare legally. If he does live with her, support the kids, and buy things for the family, then they would probably be breaking the rules.

    Is he really willing to give up being a father and husband and go live in his care for a few hundred bucks a month? That seems insane to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In other, the assets of the U.S. govt are only about 1.2 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. This is partially confirmed by the Z1 Flow report which lists all federal and local govts with assets of around 2.5 trillion. In any case, far below the 14 trillion we owe. So, yeah, the federal govt is pretty much bankrupt.
    I think that is just the financial asset holdings of the feds, aka bonds and stocks they own from other governments and from US companies and such. Its their financial holdings. It doesn't include land, buildings, military equipment, infrastructure, raw material holdings etc...

    It also doesn't include the private holdings of the US populace which ultimately is the thing that backs up the financial strength of the US. Total US holdings are more in the range of 200 trillion.

    http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/2...-188-trillion-

    That leaves us in an awkward position in trying to derive a total asset figure than makes sense for the overall U.S. economy’s balance sheet. One way to do it is to add up the numbers that we do know. I have done so in line 13. We know there are $141,512 billion in financial assets. We know that just three of those sectors own $46,301 billion in tangible assets. Adding those two numbers together produces a (reported) total asset number of $187,813 billion, pretty close to the $200 trillion number I wrote about at the top of the story. (The number would have been much closer 2 years ago before the recent drop in asset values.) Unfortunately, I have no idea what to call this number because it leaves out so many huge question marks.

    If I weren’t so lazy I could dig up numbers to at least approximate the values of some of the question marks in the table. Farms own land and tractors, banks own buildings and ATM machines, governments own all sorts of crap including nearly a billion acres of land and all those cars you see on the highway that don’t have to buy license plates like you and me. And foreigners own a ton of stuff too. For today’s purposes all we have to know is that these things would add up to a very big number. And plugging these figures into the missing cells in the table would produce a total assets number far in excess of $200 trillion.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Is he really willing to give up being a father and husband and go live in his care for a few hundred bucks a month? That seems insane to me.
    I don't think I would have to do that at all. I also don't think I couldn't support her or them at all. I would be supporting them in a way that the Gov couldn't "count" on, and so they wouldn't count.

    I would foresee the question going like this to my wife.
    Gov.. Do you receive any financial aid at all?
    GF.. Other than my alimony and Child support, My baby daddy drops some cloths and toys off sometimes.. does that count?

    Gov.. No we won't worry about that.

    --edit.
    I bet I could pay for private school for my kids, and it wouldn't be counted against her.

    Gov . Where do they go to school?
    Wife.. The Ex sends them to private school when they are with him. (predicated on a divorce agreement where I get custody of the kids during school hours).. does that count as income against me?
    Gov.. No.
    To serve man.

  12. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    He's not proposing to break the rules but the specific actions he is proposing probably do break the rules in some cases. Yes, if he truly divorces his wife, stops living with her and caring for her children and spending money on her beyond dates and the like, yes she could get welfare legally. If he does live with her, support the kids, and buy things for the family, then they would probably be breaking the rules.

    Is he really willing to give up being a father and husband and go live in his care for a few hundred bucks a month? That seems insane to me.
    Then your argument is that he's insane. That's has nothing to do with being a cheater.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think that is just the financial asset holdings of the feds, aka bonds and stocks they own from other governments and from US companies and such. Its their financial holdings. It doesn't include land, buildings, military equipment, infrastructure, raw material holdings etc...

    It also doesn't include the private holdings of the US populace which ultimately is the thing that backs up the financial strength of the US. Total US holdings are more in the range of 200 trillion.

    http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/2...-188-trillion-
    That leaves us in an awkward position in trying to derive a total asset figure than makes sense for the overall U.S. economy’s balance sheet. One way to do it is to add up the numbers that we do know. I have done so in line 13. We know there are $141,512 billion in financial assets. We know that just three of those sectors own $46,301 billion in tangible assets. Adding those two numbers together produces a (reported) total asset number of $187,813 billion, pretty close to the $200 trillion number I wrote about at the top of the story. (The number would have been much closer 2 years ago before the recent drop in asset values.) Unfortunately, I have no idea what to call this number because it leaves out so many huge question marks.

    If I weren’t so lazy I could dig up numbers to at least approximate the values of some of the question marks in the table. Farms own land and tractors, banks own buildings and ATM machines, governments own all sorts of crap including nearly a billion acres of land and all those cars you see on the highway that don’t have to buy license plates like you and me. And foreigners own a ton of stuff too. For today’s purposes all we have to know is that these things would add up to a very big number. And plugging these figures into the missing cells in the table would produce a total assets number far in excess of $200 trillion.
    So you are including the assets of citizens like you and I as part of its holdings??? I don't think so. The government does not own me. It has no right nor guaruntee to my assets. I read the rutledge link before you posted this. The government's assets amount 1.2 trillion. By adding in the assets of each and every American, you're playing accounting games of the most disingenuous sort.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    The feeling I get from this thread is that most would not like for me to do such a thing, even to the point of knowing it is "wrong" while not being able to pin it down. However the opponents have not been able to defend the line of reasoning that it is "illegal".
    No doubt this is partly due to the fact that I am not ACTUALLY doing this. Because it is all hypothetical it is very easy to tweak. The opponents of this idea have brought out many good points, and many pitfalls where this plan could easily become illegal. That being said, I think it is evident that such a thing could be done.

    Given the right starting circumstances, specifically those trying to move out of the lower class and into the middle class, this plan represents the real appeal to live a certain kind of lifestyle. IMO the Gov has created this appeal, by supporting the BF/GF relationship.


    The Mind Trap conclusion
    The biggest conclusion I would come to is to suggest that no one get married when they first start out. Instead find the love of your life, stay with them in a devoted BF/GF relationship. When you want to have children, knock her up and allow the Gov to support her. Meanwhile, work your job, enjoy the benefits of eating Gov food, and sleeping in a Gov payed for house (As often as allowed). Do that until you save enough money to purchase your own house (cash.. none of that get a loan stuff). When the children move out and she is no longer collecting the benefits and the penalty(loss of benefits) for getting married is at an acceptable level, then move in together in a way that the Gov classifies as "marriage".


    Unless of course you have morals.. then.. get married like God intended. (Not applicable to Atheists.)

    Thanks everyone for the contributions to the thread, it has been fun.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Good or bad?
    By disinterested in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 30th, 2009, 04:35 PM
  2. Obama. Good or Bad?
    By Xemnas41 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 26th, 2009, 10:07 AM
  3. Is Bilingualism good or bad?
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: September 24th, 2007, 04:34 PM
  4. Emo's Good or Bad
    By supercookie in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 10:54 AM
  5. Is competition good or bad?
    By timemachine in forum General Debate
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 7th, 2005, 01:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •