• 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!

Feds: Couple claimed welfare, lived in $1.2M home

I thought things like this were checked when people filed for welfare and other tax payer funded benefits.
 
They should be flogged then placed in Stocks for all to see and spit on.
 
They should be flogged then placed in Stocks for all to see and spit on.

This isn't 16th century Europe.

What they did was wrong, and I have no problem fining them and forcing them to pay pack what they gained from welfare.
 
This isn't 16th century Europe.

What they did was wrong, and I have no problem fining them and forcing them to pay pack what they gained from welfare.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child". Maybe we should return to the ideas of the 16th century every now and then, especially with vermin like they are...sucker fish.
 
This isn't 16th century Europe.

What they did was wrong, and I have no problem fining them and forcing them to pay pack what they gained from welfare.

Plus a healthy financial penalty and possibly some time behind bars for fraud. (Do they lock people up for that?)
 
Plus a healthy financial penalty and possibly some time behind bars for fraud. (Do they lock people up for that?)

Maybe we should shake a finger at them and say "bad boy, bad girl, no desert for you".
 
I would have no problem with placing people back in stockades in town square.
 
Maybe we should shake a finger at them and say "bad boy, bad girl, no desert for you".

What does that even mean as a response to what I posted?
 
I thought things like this were checked when people filed for welfare and other tax payer funded benefits.
Iirc, from the last one of these cases, they ask about income only, not about assets.
Even if they applied for bankruptcy, they would be allowed to keep their house.
 
Unless something has changed from when I read the article, there was no crime committed. Apparently the woman followed the rules and application process and didnt lie. Abusive? Perhaps, but she abused the system LEGALLY. just a very good indicator that all social services programs should be reviewed and revised to eliminate fraud or these types of legal abuse. It makes it very hard to happily support social spending programs when they are so readily used and often abused.

Edit: This is a different story from the AP article posted Monday. Apparently there were legal abuses.
 
Last edited:
First - most assistance programs have both asset and income limits. Second - a relative cannot be the landlord receiving section 8 payments for rental property. Third - failing to disclose marital status truthfully or to disclose assets like a jaguar or bank accounts is obtaining benefits under fraudulent circumstances. Fourth - while criminal charges can be brought, most programs would rather recoup the missing money as send people to jail. My guess is that the state will drop any criminal charges if the couple pays back the ill-gotten benefits.
 
Last edited:
Plus a healthy financial penalty and possibly some time behind bars for fraud. (Do they lock people up for that?)

No, they bail out their companies so they can continue to receive their large year-end bonuses.... Oh, that was another fraud.

No, they run for the Republican nomination for President .... oh, we aren't discussing Newt...
 
Unless something has changed from when I read the article, there was no crime committed. Apparently the woman followed the rules and application process and didnt lie. Abusive? Perhaps, but she abused the system LEGALLY. just a very good indicator that all social services programs should be reviewed and revised to eliminate fraud or these types of legal abuse. It makes it very hard to happily support social spending programs when they are so readily used and often abused.

Edit: This is a different story from the AP article posted Monday. Apparently there were legal abuses.

They got busted. Looks like the system worked in this case.
 
They got busted. Looks like the system worked in this case.
You are joking...right? They have been collecting fraudulently for what...8 years now? Hmmmm...boy...thats some awesome 'workage' right there now...innit! Yeehaw!

Geeezus...
 
This at the same time a Texas woman kills herself and tries to kill her two kids because they were starving, and red tape kept them from being approved for food stamps.

Texas mom who was denied food stamps shoots children, kills self at welfare office - NY Daily News
While the Texas case IS sad, the reality is that 336 thousand people manage to figure out the food stamp system in Texas every year. From that article she didnt bring in the right paperwork, put off going back in, failed to meet her appointment...doesnt sound like she was putting in a 40 hour work week to provide for her family (even where that 40 hours involves seeking social services).
 
You are joking...right? They have been collecting fraudulently for what...8 years now? Hmmmm...boy...thats some awesome 'workage' right there now...innit! Yeehaw!

Geeezus...

And they got caught, and they will have to pay back the money, plus fines and interest. So it pretty much worked.

You think corporations have never had people embezzle from them? If someone embezzles for eight years and gets caught, do you conclude that the corporate form is hopeless and should be abandoned?
 
And they got caught, and they will have to pay back the money, plus fines and interest. So it pretty much worked.

You think corporations have never had people embezzle from them? If someone embezzles for eight years and gets caught, do you conclude that the corporate form is hopeless and should be abandoned?
You are just TRIPPING over yourself defending that welfare system arent you. And typically...instead of recognizing...yep...there are abuses in the system and it is causing the truly needy to go without, you just HAVE to go all evil corporations on us. Cuz...you cant control your knee from jerking into your face. How pathetic.
 
You are just TRIPPING over yourself defending that welfare system arent you. And typically...instead of recognizing...yep...there are abuses in the system and it is causing the truly needy to go without, you just HAVE to go all evil corporations on us. Cuz...you cant control your knee from jerking into your face. How pathetic.

No, not at all. I'm just a realist and recognize that every system known to man is vulnerable to fraud. Thus I don't have a knee jerk reaction like, "It makes it very hard to happily support social spending programs when they are so readily used and often abused," on the basis of one egregious example. Any more than I would toss out the whole corporate form on the basis of an egregious example of embezzlement. Capiche?
 
Iirc, from the last one of these cases, they ask about income only, not about assets.
Even if they applied for bankruptcy, they would be allowed to keep their house.

Not in NC. In NC, they ask about all your assets, including bank accounts, cars or other big/expensive items you own, and any items that could be liquidated to provide you more money.

Not sure how exactly WA works, but since they are getting in trouble for her not declaring her bank accounts that had money in them, I'm pretty sure it is about the same way.
 
Not in NC. In NC, they ask about all your assets, including bank accounts, cars or other big/expensive items you own, and any items that could be liquidated to provide you more money.
Not sure how exactly WA works, but since they are getting in trouble for her not declaring her bank accounts that had money in them, I'm pretty sure it is about the same way.
Perhaps the rules vary state to state or perhaps I am mis-remembering. I am thinking of the case not too long ago where a lotto winner stayed on his public assistance and he could because the criteria didn't include his assets. But details make a lot of difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom