• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Example of What's Wrong with America

Good links, Wild77.

So, the total amount was $69 million from January 2007 - May 2010. According to the 2007 California budget (Link here), social services received $9.5 billion in funding for 2007 alone.

So lets break it down: $69 million over 40 months is an average of $1.725 million per month, or about $20 million per year.

According to your links, fraud accounted for about 0.2%, or 1/500th of the social services budget. Like I said, not significant.

Now, I dunno if that $69 million accounted for the total fraud suspected in social services, or just a specific portion of it, but I can't find any details that specify, so I'm going with the general.
 
You know, the thing about drugs is that addiction is a disease, as I'm sure you know better than most, Outcast (BTW, living with alcoholism is something I can only imagine and I give you mad props for staying dry the last four years). If we're going to mandate drug tests for those on assistance, then we should provide free drug rehabilitation services to get people clean.
 
Oh hey, I should be more thorough when reading articles. From the first link you gave me, Wild77:

The out-of-state spending accounts for less than 1% of the $10.8 billion spent by welfare recipients during the period covered, and advocates note that there are legitimate reasons to spend aid money outside of California. From the data provided, it cannot be determined whether any of the expenditures resulted from fraud.

I basically re-invented the wheel by running those numbers. :p

You know, if you want to spend money to chase down that fraction of a percent, knock yourselves out, but I'm not sure it'll be a good return on investment. *shrug*
 
I'm not sure either, but I don't think it's fair to use our personal experiences as the gold standard of behaviour for other people. Like I said, I'd need to know the circumstances of those expenditures.

Basically, we have two different points of view based on incomplete information: You and tsst seem to assume with the limited amount of information that the people who spent that money are wrong for having done so and that should be curtailed. I assume they were in the right for having done so and are not the problem.

Really, either point of view is equally possible at this point, however, my belief that drives my reactions is that the assumption that these people are wrong is based on a form of classism that is creeping across the first world and is something I vehemently disagree with as a matter of principle.

Put simply, I think your assumptions about these people are rooted in a very subtle form of prejudice.
If one is claiming not be able to survive without assistance but then spends the money given to them to survive on a cruise ship and you see no issue?!?! The assistance money isn't allocated for vacations, it's for surviving hard times.

Well, then why do you believe that these people are abusing the system?
Because they used someone elses money given to them to pay rent or buy food to go on vacation. This is not the public assistance vacation fund!

See, this is something that only a lack of experience with a specific disease or condition, I would say. And I will say that I agree with much of the premise of getting people on assistance away from drugs and alcohol, but there are many forms of assistance. Some of which are cases that are just extreme, and it's quite unfair to think that those people need to be drug tested. And while I hear your example of being tested in the military, that was your choice. And you were asked to carry out missions of extreme life or death. It was for your best interest, without question, to test you for those things.

I can also understand that you feel it's in our country's best interest to do this also for those on any type of assistance, but I think there needs to really be a sensitive attempt to at least try to understand the rights of people in special circumstances that are not on drugs, and still quite uncomfortable with this idea. Some people could not survive without some form of assistance, and to them it's basically a way of intruding on their lives, for something outside of that person's control, only to send the message of fear that assistance that means the difference between a roof and no roof, it just almost seems like terrorism. Especially where many of these people have conditions that make it ridiculous to think that they would even get into drugs, cigarettes or alcohol.

And I'll be specific, just to hope to explain further. But I have a very rare muscular disease, and I struggle to even reach the 90lb mark, and I have limited physical ability. I have been prodded my entire life by people who have 'opinions' about why someone is that thin, and why I should feel guilty about it. People have literally approached me at my vehicle in a parking lot because of my condition (mostly because human beings are natural skeptical, and naturally have negative reactions to things outside of their experience). I am thankful for everyday that I'm alive, and for the life that I have. But I make sacrifices just like everyone else. I give all that I have just like everyone else. And I just want to have a fair presumption of who I am, without all of the demoralization that happens to people with disabilities when they have to live a life of constant scrutiny.

People want to talk about not wanting the Gov't in your lives. Try living with a condition that makes you stand out like a soar thumb. That's all I'm saying. I make the most of my time and resources, because who knows what my future is with my disability. That's not to ask for sympathy, but people should try to understand that not all people are the same. I just expect that I can be given the benefit of the doubt, when my reason for needing assistance is literally outside of my control, and complete nonsense to be compared to predispositions that would lead to drug/alcohol abuse.
How is it fair that I am subject to random drug testing to pay into the social services system but it is somehow unfair for someone collecting from it to be subject to random drug testing?

Lets take this from the top Michael....

I am a recovering/recovered Alcoholic. Like many Veterans out there, after my first deployment to a war zone, I turned to alcohol. Just talking about it makes me very thirsty still, and I have been sober since roughly October of 2008. Not a day goes by that I don't wish that I had a beer, or a shot.

I also suffer from PTSD, a mental condition that many veterans and civilians suffer from. This is one reason that I do not drink. If I were to have a flashback while drunk, someone would get hurt.

I also have a genetic problem that I was born with in my back. It was not caught until after I got out of the military, but it started bothering me while I was in the military. Now the VA is trying to fix it with physical Therapy, though that doesn't seem to be working, so one day I may be looking at some pretty rough surgery.

To tell me that I do not understand where you are coming from, or that my opinion is useless because I do not have your experiences is very shortsighted. You neither know what I have been through, or what ailments I face.

So please understand me when I say. I am prioritizing when I state that everyone, EVERYONE! should have to take a drug test while on government assistance. If the drugs are prescribed, then that should be accounted for, if they are abusing drugs, whether prescription or controlled substances, then well, that should be investigated.

Do not mistake me for some kid who has never experienced anything in my short 25 (almost 26) years on this earth. I have had to do things that I would never wish on anyone, some of which drove me to drinking, and still makes my flesh crawl when I think about it.
I can't thank you enough for your service Outcast!
Salute%20emoticon.jpg


Good links, Wild77.

So, the total amount was $69 million from January 2007 - May 2010. According to the 2007 California budget (Link here), social services received $9.5 billion in funding for 2007 alone.

So lets break it down: $69 million over 40 months is an average of $1.725 million per month, or about $20 million per year.

According to your links, fraud accounted for about 0.2%, or 1/500th of the social services budget. Like I said, not significant.

Now, I dunno if that $69 million accounted for the total fraud suspected in social services, or just a specific portion of it, but I can't find any details that specify, so I'm going with the general.
Just think how nice it would have been to use that $69 million to help someone with an actual need.

Oh hey, I should be more thorough when reading articles. From the first link you gave me, Wild77:



I basically re-invented the wheel by running those numbers. :p

You know, if you want to spend money to chase down that fraction of a percent, knock yourselves out, but I'm not sure it'll be a good return on investment. *shrug*
No need to spend money chasing it down. Simply eliminate the ability to use the EBT card in Vegas casinos, cruise ships, Virgin Islands, etc. Make them ONLY valid for buying groceries, paying rent, paying utilities, etc. Anywhere else they simply don't work!
 
You know, the thing about drugs is that addiction is a disease, as I'm sure you know better than most, Outcast (BTW, living with alcoholism is something I can only imagine and I give you mad props for staying dry the last four years). If we're going to mandate drug tests for those on assistance, then we should provide free drug rehabilitation services to get people clean.

Thank you,
There has only been twice that alcohol has been present in my house since I decided to stop drinking. Once, my wife wanted to try some (she had never had an alcoholic drink, and decided that she doesn't like it anyway) and the second time was when one of her friends came over and brought a different type of drink for her to try. Both times it was very hard for me to not drink it, but luckily we had some Dr. Pepper in the house, so I drank about 2 liters of that...
 
tsst, the title of this thread is "Example of what's wrong with America". That suggests to me that the OP believes if the people who abused welfare would stop abusing it, America would not have anything wrong with it. If this is not so, perhaps the OP should choose their language better in order to be less ambiguous. However, considering the vitriol that many people on this board throw at people who support many of these programs I have no doubt in my mind that Camby thinks that the poor are dragging America down and they just need to pull up their bootstraps.

PS. An analogy is comparing two like things. I take umbrage at your suggestion that poor people are 'like' wild animals.

PPS. What on earth do you mean by "You chose to tie the abuse examples to those actually in need."? This very thread is suggesting restricting welfare. Drug tests for all failures! You deserve our suspicion by not succeeding at a game that's rigged against you! So if you mean to say that I'm out of line for arguing against those restrictions because they will deny help to those who need it, well, you're not gonna get an apology out of me because I'm not out of line.

I AM the original poster and perhaps you should have asked the question rather than assuming anything. Also, PERHAPS you should have read the original subject line and thought more about it. Where in my original subject line did I say ALL thats wrong... or ALL what's wrong with...

Pretty sure I never said either. I am not looking to get infraction points tonight so I will refrain from posting what I think and have thought of you now and for some time. Simply put, you just aren't worth my time along with a few others in this thread. Obviously we are on opposite sides of the fence. You obviously SEEM to hate most Americans that take any issue with socialism or socialistic ideas and you think Canada has everything right. You really like throwing how Canada does it to prove your points. Kudos to you for beliving so strongly in your COuntry and it's methods. I have nothing against Canada and consider several of the Canadian members as friends. We just disagree on most political points so I will unsubscribe from this thread to avoid arguing with you.

Enjoy your evening and post to me if you like but it will not be read by me. Oh and another reason for unsubscribing is that I also am tired of seeing your use of GD. Like me for it or not, I am a Christian and do not appreciate it. Just add it to the list of my dislikes for you I guess.

dc
 
To be fair, the heading is "Example of what's wrong with America"...I don't think anybody clicks on it with any particular assumptions so it does open itself up for a lot of discussions.
 
I AM the original poster and perhaps you should have asked the question rather than assuming anything. Also, PERHAPS you should have read the original subject line and thought more about it. Where in my original subject line did I say ALL thats wrong... or ALL what's wrong with...

Pretty sure I never said either. I am not looking to get infraction points tonight so I will refrain from posting what I think and have thought of you now and for some time. Simply put, you just aren't worth my time along with a few others in this thread. Obviously we are on opposite sides of the fence. You obviously SEEM to hate most Americans that take any issue with socialism or socialistic ideas and you think Canada has everything right. You really like throwing how Canada does it to prove your points. Kudos to you for beliving so strongly in your COuntry and it's methods. I have nothing against Canada and consider several of the Canadian members as friends. We just disagree on most political points so I will unsubscribe from this thread to avoid arguing with you.

Enjoy your evening and post to me if you like but it will not be read by me. Oh and another reason for unsubscribing is that I also am tired of seeing your use of GD. Like me for it or not, I am a Christian and do not appreciate it. Just add it to the list of my dislikes for you I guess.

dc

Well, since I'm not worth your time, I'll respond at least for the benefit of those who are interested in opposing points of view.

I don't hate Americans who take issue with socialism or socialist policies. I don't think Canada has everything right. (I guess we're even on taking the other's opinion to an extreme, though. Touche.)

There is something about this board, though, that is very specific - and that is that I keep running into people who have very unpleasant things to say about all liberals, or all socialists. That's when I usually pitch a fit. I find it fascinating also that the point of view that is espoused by these individuals is tolerated or even lauded here when it's prejudiced by definition, and requires the believer to dismiss any opposing viewpoint out of hand without consideration, and yet I've had the misfortune of witnessing a mod threaten banning on someone for defending themselves from such a person. This forum is extraordinarily conservative, and I repeatedly have to ignore attacks that take my closely held beliefs and tromp all over them while a significant number of members congratulate each other on being so enlightened.

Put simply, I am antagonistic here because of a not insignificant minority of people that start any conversation with essentially calling my beliefs as worthless, wrong, stupid and in some odd cases, evil. No nuance, no explanation, just "Liberals are all stupid."

It gets my goat that this sort of ignorance is celebrated around here and yeah, I get testy and it gets me into trouble, but I don't apologize for being a liberal, even though I used to identify as conservative, I won't apologize for it and I will argue with anyone that expects me to.
 
... and yet I've had the misfortune of witnessing a mod threaten banning on someone for defending themselves from such a person...

... but I don't apologize for being a liberal, even though I used to identify as conservative, I won't apologize for it and I will argue with anyone that expects me to.

Every time I have seen a mod threaten a person with banning it was because that person was breaking the rules.

Also, don't ever apologize for your beliefs. You may get on my nerves, and I may be offended by some of your posts from time to time, but our beliefs make us who we are. If you were to apologize for yours, then you would be apologizing for the person that you are. That would not be a good thing.

My Mother-In-Law identifies as a Liberal, but it has been years since she has voted on the liberal card. Just like I identify as Conservative, but I vote for who I believe is best for the country, state, county, city, or town, I am in at the time.
 
Well, since I'm not worth your time, I'll respond at least for the benefit of those who are interested in opposing points of view.

I don't hate Americans who take issue with socialism or socialist policies. I don't think Canada has everything right. (I guess we're even on taking the other's opinion to an extreme, though. Touche.)

There is something about this board, though, that is very specific - and that is that I keep running into people who have very unpleasant things to say about all liberals, or all socialists. That's when I usually pitch a fit. I find it fascinating also that the point of view that is espoused by these individuals is tolerated or even lauded here when it's prejudiced by definition, and requires the believer to dismiss any opposing viewpoint out of hand without consideration, and yet I've had the misfortune of witnessing a mod threaten banning on someone for defending themselves from such a person. This forum is extraordinarily conservative, and I repeatedly have to ignore attacks that take my closely held beliefs and tromp all over them while a significant number of members congratulate each other on being so enlightened.

Put simply, I am antagonistic here because of a not insignificant minority of people that start any conversation with essentially calling my beliefs as worthless, wrong, stupid and in some odd cases, evil. No nuance, no explanation, just "Liberals are all stupid."

It gets my goat that this sort of ignorance is celebrated around here and yeah, I get testy and it gets me into trouble, but I don't apologize for being a liberal, even though I used to identify as conservative, I won't apologize for it and I will argue with anyone that expects me to.
I like to think I attack the topic at hand. If you perceived that as a personal attack I apologize. That is never my intent. I don't believe all liberals to be stupid, to the contrary. I simply don't agree with some liberal/socialist ideals. More specifically when those ideals are forced upon us by government!
 
If we're going to mandate drug tests for those on assistance, then we should provide free drug rehabilitation services to get people clean.

Why? I mean seriously, that's so nonsensical it's not even humorous. We CANNOT AFFORD to do these things! I mean it's not even like we have the money to do those sort of things. Why should I have to pass a urine test so that I can pay for your food stamps but you shouldn't have to pass one to accept my tax dollars! It's not very logical....... By allowing addicts to get free rehab, you are open the system for so many more chances to cheat it's not even funny....
 
Personally I think that Drug Rehab should be free. Many drug addicts and their families are not able to pay for the rehab, and some try to go cold turkey without being monitored, which usually leads to death. In fact, many alcoholics that go cold turkey die as well, due to detox.

That is one thing that I would not mind my tax dollars to go to, because those people are trying to get better.
 
Not only insensitive to say rehab is a waste of tax-dollars, but it's actually just plain nonsense. I think it's just another one of those things that gets tangled up in the American interpretation of a Christian society where instead of caring/loving/providing for the poor and the sick it just becomes "Lets encourage/promote/finance those who claim Christian beliefs while we discard the less fortunate in an effort to create the illusion of a clean society".

To clarify, this is not even remotely a knock against Christianity...In fact it's the opposite. CNN did a study that concluded 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christians so obviously there is a disconnect somewhere between true Christian values and the Americans who interpret them. By the numbers alone you would think their would be no objection to free rehab, healthcare, social services, etc...If 75% believe the Bible verbatim than socialism itself should not be a problem. I think that's what people find the most hypocritical and most concerning about conservative politics -- the contradiction.

If they run as Secular Republicans than cool...To each his own. They don't though, and most of them depend deeply on the "Bible Belt" to win elections. I think that's what makes Nova's opinions so very valid on these issues. It's not the system itself running itself a certain way that causes people to take issue. It's the way that in certain areas (same sex marriage, women's right to choose) it's attacked from a Biblical perspective, but in others (poverty, sickness, criminalization) it's attacked from a very Secular perspective. It makes it impossible to trust that type of politics.
 
Why? I mean seriously, that's so nonsensical it's not even humorous. We CANNOT AFFORD to do these things! I mean it's not even like we have the money to do those sort of things. Why should I have to pass a urine test so that I can pay for your food stamps but you shouldn't have to pass one to accept my tax dollars! It's not very logical....... By allowing addicts to get free rehab, you are open the system for so many more chances to cheat it's not even funny....

The War on Drugs has been a total disaster from the start and the US spends a huge amount of money on that. Put that money towards rehab and you'll actually see a return on your investment.
 
"...We CANNOT AFFORD to do these things! I mean it's not even like we have the money to do those sort of things...."

I have to agree about the War on Drugs being a disaster - about as successful as Prohibition. It has made successful billionaires of drug lords, and made politicians successful and powerful in their vows to fight the drug war. But I don't see much success for ordinary taxpayers - just a huge bill, and erosion of individual rights as the government passes more search and seizure laws, forfeiture laws, and invasive personal banking and financial laws - all in the name of the "War on Drugs".

If the drug laws were changed to either legalize or liberalize regulations, the money saved in the "war" would probably pay for education and rehab for anyone who wants it, with plenty left over to give food to the poor.

I like the fact that liberal ideas have loosened up old, traditional prejudices against gays, minorities, women's rights, etc. I think most members here agree with that, even if they are conservative themselves. And I like that conservatives SAY they want less government interference in our lives. But in reality, politicians from both sides end up voting for more government interference and power, and often, more benefits for themselves. They just go about it on different issues - but it all adds up to bigger and more powerful (= expensive) government.
 
I like the fact that liberal ideas have loosened up old, traditional prejudices against gays, minorities, women's rights, etc. I think most members here agree with that, even if they are conservative themselves. And I like that conservatives SAY they want less government interference in our lives. But in reality, politicians from both sides end up voting for more government interference and power, and often, more benefits for themselves. They just go about it on different issues - but it all adds up to bigger and more powerful (= expensive) government.

This, all day and night!
 
"...We CANNOT AFFORD to do these things! I mean it's not even like we have the money to do those sort of things...."

I have to agree about the War on Drugs being a disaster - about as successful as Prohibition. It has made successful billionaires of drug lords, and made politicians successful and powerful in their vows to fight the drug war. But I don't see much success for ordinary taxpayers - just a huge bill, and erosion of individual rights as the government passes more search and seizure laws, forfeiture laws, and invasive personal banking and financial laws - all in the name of the "War on Drugs".

If the drug laws were changed to either legalize or liberalize regulations, the money saved in the "war" would probably pay for education and rehab for anyone who wants it, with plenty left over to give food to the poor.

I like the fact that liberal ideas have loosened up old, traditional prejudices against gays, minorities, women's rights, etc. I think most members here agree with that, even if they are conservative themselves. And I like that conservatives SAY they want less government interference in our lives. But in reality, politicians from both sides end up voting for more government interference and power, and often, more benefits for themselves. They just go about it on different issues - but it all adds up to bigger and more powerful (= expensive) government.


It absolutely KILLS me that in November Americans get to choose between a proven failure and a failure in the making (no matter who the Republicans pick he will be horrible, I don't like any of them...). And yet Kathy is running around with all her wisdom and good sense and why in the heck can't either party find someone with one tenth of her smarts for this job?
 
I've volunteered for a few different campaigns in municipal and federal elections and in my experience the person with the most progressive ideas gets the most suspicion and fewest votes.

Besides, government isn't a one man show. Regardless of whether or not you think Obama's health care plan was a good idea or not, Democrats only managed to pass a fraction of the changes they wanted. So even if you put someone in power who thinks like you do, nobody else does and they'll all engage in obstructionism to ensure that nothing that person wants actually happens.

Because when it comes down to it, most people are so afraid of change they'll maintain an unsustainable status quo out of fear of what might happen.
 
Back
Top