Aid to families of disabled children far exceeds Welfare aid.

[diddle]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...s-welfare.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/201...c61e276fc20036

Not to say we should cut this aid but definitely shows that welfare is lacking.

[Deleted]

I was a disabled a child aided by the goverment... That aid increased my quality of life and life expectancy by 14+ years

[diddle]

I was a disabled a child aided by the goverment... That aid increased my quality of life and life expectancy by 14+ years

Which is great, I'm not saying we should cut this aid at all. It just shows that welfare programs have been cut far too much.

[Shadowmelded]

Which is great, I'm not saying we should cut this aid at all. It just shows that welfare programs have been cut far too much.

And that the equipment required to look after a disabled child is often extortionately priced because what are they going to do, not buy something essential?

[Deleted]

Which is great, I'm not saying we should cut this aid at all. It just shows that welfare programs have been cut far too much.

i'm not saying that's your sollution just providing first hand evidence. personally i don't believe there is solution

[Kathandira]

Welfare is often abused. I dunno if more money would be a better solution than tighter regulation on who is allowed to utilize it and how it is allowed to be used.

[MerinPally]

This doesn't necessarily show that welfare is lacking but rather looking after disabled people can be expensive. To show that welfare is lacking you'd have to show that you can't live off it.

[Tinykong]

Welfare is often abused.

This is demonstrably false.

[Halyon]

This is demonstrably false.

I don't think he meant it like that, more that some people who are on welfare, are just playing a ploy.

Like here, some people who fool the system to get early pensioned before it was removed... One example is even from around my area, and he has made a show of it before. It gives people who have a legit reason to be on welfare or pensioned early a very bad stigma.

Partially due to government workers not knowing what's head and tails in the pants-on-head mess of a government we have some places, and it's getting so segmented that a millipede would be green with envy. But that's only what I can say from how my own government works for a big part of it, dunno about others...

This is probably mostly related to mentally related injuries/problems that're hard to 'pin down', were physical injuries are treated faster, usually...some people still get left in the mud.

[Kathandira]

This is demonstrably false.

The chart is telling me that people without money spend less than people with money. I don't need a chart for that ; )

"They've been compared to "wild animals" by political candidates, scrutinized for simply buying seafood -- as "The Daily Show" humorously pointed out -- and would have to pee in cups to prove that they're drug-free if some lawmakers had their way."

I'm sure people are reporting their drug expenditures as well. Not all spending is reported.

I bought a car a few months ago, there was clear visible damage on the bottom of the passenger side. It was not in the car facts. Should I pretend the damage is an illusion? (He says with a joking tone)

[Tinykong]

Welfare fraud and abuse is found to be almost insignificant every time it's investigated.

Unless we're going to be dishonest and claim that people are spending less on the same goods and services because being poor is fun? An argument could be made that we need to eliminate all fraud, even if it costs more money than the fraud itself, but that's really more about punishing people.

[Kathandira]

I don't think he meant it like that, more that some people who are on welfare, are just playing a ploy.

Like here, some people who fool the system to get early pensioned before it was removed... One example is even from around my area, and he has made a show of it before. It gives people who have a legit reason to be on welfare or pensioned early a very bad stigma.

Partially due to government workers not knowing what's head and tails in the pants-on-head mess of a government we have some places, and it's getting so segmented that a millipede would be green with envy. But that's only what I can say from how my own government works for a big part of it, dunno about others...

This is probably mostly related to mentally related injuries/problems that're hard to 'pin down', were physical injuries are treated faster, usually...some people still get left in the mud.

Pretty much.

I love the welfare system. I think it is a great service we all do for those who are less fortunate. However there is abuse in the system, and before throwing more money at it, that problem, no matter how small, should be sorted out.

- - - Updated - - -

Welfare fraud and abuse is found to be almost insignificant every time it's investigated.

Unless we're going to be dishonest and claim that people are spending less on the same goods and services because being poor is fun? An argument could be made that we need to eliminate all fraud, even if it costs more money than the fraud itself, but that's really more about punishing people.

The following is anecdotal

I have heard about people selling food stamps. Basically a store will accept your food stamps as tender for things which they are not intended for, but they will require you give them more food stamps than the actual value of the purchase.

Example:
If something costs $2 you will pay $3 worth of food stamps. Then the store owner can use those food stamps to purchase things and not use their actual money.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, individual spending is a bit hard to track. If you don't want your spending to be tracked, it can be obscured.

If you work "under the table" your income is not tracked. If you only spend cash, not debit or credit, it is hard to trace the purchase back to you.

[Tinykong]

I'm sure people are reporting their drug expenditures as well. Not all spending is reported.

Do you want to spend $5 to prevent $1 in fraud? If so, you're welcomed to have that opinion, but know that you aren't saving money.

[Kathandira]

Do you want to spend $5 to prevent $1 in fraud? If so, you're welcomed to have that opinion, but know that you aren't saving money.

Not sure I follow. Can you expand on that a little?

[tj119]

My girlfriend has 5 brothers and sister. She hasn't lived with her mom for over 7 years. She recently found out her mom has been claiming her on her EBT to get more money. Funny how easy that is.

[Tinykong]

Not sure I follow. Can you expand on that a little?

Welfare fraud and abuse is estimated to be about 2% of the system. The cost of stopping that 2% is greater than the 2%, as demonstrated by States that instituted mandatory drug testing.

So, if you want to stop all fraud, you're going to have to spend more than the fraud "costs." You're welcomed to want that (I believe there is some merit there, although it's a waste of money.)

[Deleted]

Only a minority of people abuse the welfare system. The poor, unemployed and disabled make for easy targets and so they're often painted as being villains despite the majority being in genuine need of financial aid. Then mysteriously little is done to punish the numerous politicians and influential individuals out there who manage to make much more money vanish than what a few bad apples in the welfare system do.

[Worvon]

The cost of stopping that 2% is greater than the 2%, as demonstrated by States that instituted mandatory drug testing.

That's also going off the idea that they actually want to stop welfare abuse and not just pad the coffers of a private company. *Points at Florida and Rick Scott*

[Kathandira]

Welfare fraud and abuse is estimated to be about 2% of the system. The cost of stopping that 2% is greater than the 2%, as demonstrated by States that instituted mandatory drug testing.

So, if you want to stop all fraud, you're going to have to spend more than the fraud "costs." You're welcomed to want that (I believe there is some merit there, although it's a waste of money.)

I would be in favor if the idea was to put the fear of getting caught to help prevent the attempts. Basically short term cost increase, for a long term fix. It's quite a curious situation though. I wonder what a better way would be. What would be more cost effective? I would be in favor of paying more, if it ensured those on welfare got jobs sooner. So maybe better assistance programs and tighter requirements?

I know it's not the same program, but Unemployment Insurance is really loosely regulated. Did you know, in New Jersey, you are not really held accountable for looking for a job? You can claim Unemployment for a year, without ever needing to prove you looked for work. All you do it call in once a week, press 1 for "Yes I have seeked employment" "No I have not worked". And they send you a check. And you can get an extension for an additional year, often automatically processed if you haven't reported that you are now employed.

It's not just the drug use thing though. There are other ways of abusing the system, such as the food stamp scenario, and also tj119's scenario.

I think I really just want to see really tight regulations on who is allowed to collect welfare, and assistance from other programs. Make people jump through a few more hoops. Make it less attractive to live off the system and not attempt to become a functioning member of society.

- - - Updated - - -

Then mysteriously little is done to punish the numerous politicians and influential individuals out there who manage to make much more money vanish than what a few bad apples in the welfare system do.

Ohhh sooo true....

[Itisamuh]

The absolute last thing we need is increased incentive to be on welfare. Even disability is abused up the ass.