• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Free Lunch

specklebang

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Zumba teacher going to jail for prostitution

Apparently, welfare fraud is just too easy. Here is a business owner with a visible business and a lot of income from a hidden business and look:
Her enterprise came to an abrupt halt on Valentine's Day 2012 when a police raid led to the seizure of detailed ledgers, client lists and other evidence indicating she routinely videotaped clients without their knowledge and kept detailed records indicating she made $150,000 over an 18-month period, while collecting more than $40,000 in public assistance.
Click to expand...

Really, shouldn't there be some investigation when people hop on the freebie train? This just doesn't make any sense. I'm all for helping those in genuine need but can't they at least try to limit the free lunch to, well, the actually hungry?
 
specklebang said:
Zumba teacher going to jail for prostitution

Apparently, welfare fraud is just too easy. Here is a business owner with a visible business and a lot of income from a hidden business and look:


Really, shouldn't there be some investigation when people hop on the freebie train? This just doesn't make any sense. I'm all for helping those in genuine need but can't they at least try to limit the free lunch to, well, the actually hungry?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I hate stories like this as they are taking assistance away from people who actually need it.
 
...and no punishment other than refunding the money. The 10 month sentence is for pimping, not the welfare fraud.


Mr. Invisible said:
Agreed. I hate stories like this as they are taking assistance away from people who actually need it.
Click to expand...
 
She's an amateur. Needs to move to the People's State of Taxachusetts and learn from the professionals! Although Beacon Hill does make it REALLY easy.

ctpebtbalance.jpg
 
specklebang said:
...and no punishment other than refunding the money. The 10 month sentence is for pimping, not the welfare fraud.
Click to expand...

Because it costs more to imprison them, I suspect.

Tim-
 
That could be said of every crime. Particularly drug crime. So, why is anything punishable by prison unless you believe the culprit will repeat their crimes?

Unless false receipt of welfare becomes punishable, the people who need it will suffer not only financially, but humanistically. We look at welfare recipients as moochers instead of fellow citizens who need a helping hand because we've realized how many are simply getting free lunches. That's unfair and sad.

I'm not proposing the death penalty but you should have at least some fear of fraudulently getting welfare instead of knowing they won't punish you.


Hicup said:
Because it costs more to imprison them, I suspect.

Tim-
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
...and no punishment other than refunding the money. The 10 month sentence is for pimping, not the welfare fraud.
Click to expand...

That seems to be untrue

On Friday, the 30-year-old Wright was sentenced to 10 months in jail for 20 counts including prostitution, conspiracy, tax evasion and theft by deception.

The scandal in the seaside town of Kennebunk, known for its sea captain's mansions, beaches and New England charm, became a sensation following reports that she had at least 150 clients, some of them prominent. So far, those who have been charged include a former mayor, a high school hockey coach, a minister, a lawyer and a firefighter.

Wright was originally charged with 106 counts. All the counts in the agreement were misdemeanors, including three counts relating to welfare and tax fraud that were reduced from felonies.
Click to expand...
 
I just can't trick you can I?

So, how many months for pimping and tax evasion\ and how many months for welfare fraud did she get? What would the breakdown be. 20 minutes for the "theft by deception"?

See what I mean?



sangha said:
That seems to be untrue
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Please explain more for those of us not familiar with your contribution.
Click to expand...

Just an example of abuse of public assistance. That receipt is from a purchase with an EBT card (basically, a credit card because actual food stamps are too humiliating). The balance shows there is $7k left on the card.
 
specklebang said:
I just can't trick you can I?

So, how many months for pimping and tax evasion\ and how many months for welfare fraud did she get? What would the breakdown be. 20 minutes for the "theft by deception"?

See what I mean?
Click to expand...

As you are well aware, the article presents no such breakdown.
 
Having never (and I am grateful) needed public assistance, I don't know how that works. I suppose they give you a monthly allowance and allow you to let it accumulate. Why anyone would sond their own money and let their welfare funds accumulate is pretty hard to comprehend. Is this common?

Recently, I was in line behind an EBT lady and I offered to pay her tab to get her the **** out of my way since she was moving so slow. She had 33¢ on her EBT card. So by [paying $5 or so, I got 33¢ credit - lucky me. So I must admit I'm baffled about this case. Do you have a link to the story please?


Fishstyx said:
Just an example of abuse of public assistance. That receipt is from a purchase with an EBT card (basically, a credit card because actual food stamps are too humiliating). The balance shows there is $7k left on the card.
Click to expand...
 
As you are well aware, tax evasion or pimping would get you serious jail time. Her short sentence give me insight to a least one of her clients :), maybe a judge?

So, do you think that welfare fraud (on an individual scale - not large criminal rings) is punished? What do think (guess) the percentage of liars get welfare?

((discussion, not argument))


sangha said:
As you are well aware, the article presents no such breakdown.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
That seems to be untrue
Click to expand...

On Friday, the 30-year-old Wright was sentenced to 10 months in jail for 20 counts including prostitution, conspiracy, tax evasion and theft by deception.

The scandal in the seaside town of Kennebunk, known for its sea captain's mansions, beaches and New England charm, became a sensation following reports that she had at least 150 clients, some of them prominent. So far, those who have been charged include a former mayor, a high school hockey coach, a minister, a lawyer and a firefighter.

Wright was originally charged with 106 counts. All the counts in the agreement were misdemeanors, including three counts relating to welfare and tax fraud that were reduced from felonies.
Click to expand...

There is no felony charges, just misdemeanors. Welfare and tax fraud gets you a misdemeanor, now that is real punishment, if I say so myself.
 
specklebang said:
As you are well aware, tax evasion or pimping would get you serious jail time. Her short sentence give me insight to a least one of her clients :), maybe a judge?

So, do you think that welfare fraud (on an individual scale - not large criminal rings) is punished? What do think (guess) the percentage of liars get welfare?

((discussion, not argument))
Click to expand...

Having worked around the justice system, I am aware of how often serious offenses do not receive serious jail time.

As the article strongly implies, she made a plea bargain with the DA. Plea bargains often result in jail sentences far less than what would have been applied had the case gone to trial, and the offender found guilty. I don't see how the reduced sentence offers any insight into any relationships she may or may not have had.

As far as you question goes, everyone lies at one time or another, so just divide the # of people receiving welfare by the total population and you'll have your answer (Note: the majority of welfare recipients are young children)
 
Young children don't get welfare. Their parents/guardians do. To me, false welfare claims should be severely punished and we should increase our generosity to those who are in dire need and show good faith.


sangha said:
Having worked around the justice system, I am aware of how often serious offenses do not receive serious jail time.

As the article strongly implies, she made a plea bargain with the DA. Plea bargains often result in jail sentences far less than what would have been applied had the case gone to trial, and the offender found guilty. I don't see how the reduced sentence offers any insight into any relationships she may or may not have had.

As far as you question goes, everyone lies at one time or another, so just divide the # of people receiving welfare by the total population and you'll have your answer (Note: the majority of welfare recipients are young children)
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Having never (and I am grateful) needed public assistance, I don't know how that works. I suppose they give you a monthly allowance and allow you to let it accumulate. Why anyone would sond their own money and let their welfare funds accumulate is pretty hard to comprehend. Is this common?

Recently, I was in line behind an EBT lady and I offered to pay her tab to get her the **** out of my way since she was moving so slow. She had 33¢ on her EBT card. So by [paying $5 or so, I got 33¢ credit - lucky me. So I must admit I'm baffled about this case. Do you have a link to the story please?
Click to expand...

Think thats kind of the point of picture. If you're able to accumulate that much form the monthly direct deposit, you clearly don't need the assistance. I like to see these cards zero-ed out as the monthly direct deposit is deposited. You shouldn't be able to "bank" public assistance. If you are, you're clearly getting too much. Frankly, I'd like them to bring the paper food stamps back.
 
specklebang said:
Young children don't get welfare. Their parents/guardians do. To me, false welfare claims should be severely punished and we should increase our generosity to those who are in dire need and show good faith.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Having much experience with the matter, I can say with certainty that most recipients are young children.
 
I agree with you. This is an obvious case of system manipulation.


Fishstyx said:
Think thats kind of the point of picture. If you're able to accumulate that much form the monthly direct deposit, you clearly don't need the assistance. I like to see these cards zero-ed out as the monthly direct deposit is deposited. You shouldn't be able to "bank" public assistance. If you are, you're clearly getting too much. Frankly, I'd like them to bring the paper food stamps back.
Click to expand...
 
Are you being intentionally bizarre? "Young children" don't apply for welfare. The parents do on their behalf. The parents are (potentially) the deceptive ones, not the children.

Since you are so experienced, provide a link that shows children receiving direct welfare benefits. Amaze me please.


sangha said:
Wrong. Having much experience with the matter, I can say with certainty that most recipients are young children.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Young children don't get welfare. Their parents/guardians do. To me, false welfare claims should be severely punished and we should increase our generosity to those who are in dire need and show good faith.
Click to expand...

Sangha is correct. With the exception of aged, blind, and disabled cases there has to be dependent children in the household to qualify.
 
So now there are 2 of you making the same nonsensical claim. What part of household is eluding you? Are you really claiming the children DIRECTLY receive checks or cards?



ELNOR said:
Sangha is correct. With the exception of aged, blind, and disabled cases there has to be dependent children in the household to qualify.
Click to expand...
 
Fishstyx said:
Think thats kind of the point of picture. If you're able to accumulate that much form the monthly direct deposit, you clearly don't need the assistance. I like to see these cards zero-ed out as the monthly direct deposit is deposited. You shouldn't be able to "bank" public assistance. If you are, you're clearly getting too much. Frankly, I'd like them to bring the paper food stamps back.
Click to expand...

I agree that EBT surpluses should be either zeroed out or the surplus amount deducted from the next moth's allotment. Which couldn't be tracked if paper stamps were still used. Of course if this were the rule they'd just be sure to deplete it every month to avoid losing it. Like state agencies do at the end of each fiscal year. Another reason i feel we shouldnt go back to paper stamps is that there are a lot of hard working single parents below the Fed Poverty Level who depend on SNAP to supplement their food budget. Why subject them to the humiliation that paper stamps cause?
 
specklebang said:
Are you being intentionally bizarre? "Young children" don't apply for welfare. The parents do on their behalf. The parents are (potentially) the deceptive ones, not the children.

Since you are so experienced, provide a link that shows children receiving direct welfare benefits. Amaze me please.
Click to expand...

No, I'm being as honest as I can. I could easily insult both your intelligence and your honesty based on what you posted in this thread, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But such license is not perpetual

For example, you originally asked about who the recipients were, and now you've changed that to "direct recipients". Such changes do not change the fact that the majority of the money goes to supporting children. Arguing that things are done on "behalf" of children is merely arguing the mechanics, and not the meat of the matter. I have had arguments made by lawyers "on my behalf". That doesn't mean that I'm not the one who benefitted from those arguments.
 
specklebang said:
So now there are 2 of you making the same nonsensical claim. What part of household is eluding you? Are you really claiming the children DIRECTLY receive checks or cards?
Click to expand...

Lol no of course not. But children have to have a representative payee which is the parent. The parent doesn't receive medical and is not included in calculations of how much is received in SNAP or cash. Do some parent buy food and spend the cash on themselves? Yes. But how can you police that situation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom