CA welfare recipients spent $70 million on Las Vegas, Hawaii, Miami vacations.

[opebo]

No, but like most people who live here, I work in a tourism-related field.  Not all of the welfare was spent on gambling, the article says.

Are you a pimp>?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, but like most people who live here, I work in a tourism-related field.  Not all of the welfare was spent on gambling, the article says.

Are you a pimp>?

No, no, he takes care of male clientele.........can't you tell?

[Torie]

Well that is about 6 seconds worth of government spending. In any event, unemployment benefits will finally be ending soon (the 99 weeks will elapse at last), and just watch the unemployment rate drop. That will cut the gambling with government money down right there.

No, I won't launch on another rant about the gambling industry - this time.

[??????????]

I have an idea. Instead of money, welfare should be provided in the form of food stamp style credits. Merchants can then take these credits to the state and exchange them for real money. That way only government approved items can be purchased through welfare.

You're definitely in a place where I would be willing to compromise, if we ever have any sane Democrats ever again. Government benefits should be highly restrictive. Welfare should just provide the basics, rent, utilities. Food stamps should only provide for basic foods, bread, fruits, fresh meats, and certain canned foods.

Recipients should also receive mandatory drug, alcohol and tobacco use testing if what I said above is never instituted.

[opebo]

Well that is about 6 seconds worth of government spending. In any event, unemployment benefits will finally be ending soon (the 99 weeks will elapse at last), and just watch the unemployment rate drop.

Actually no, the unemployment rate will increase because a reduction in government payments means a reduction in demand, leading to little or no economic growth and thus no job creation.

[Badger]

Stories like this always highlight the liberal/conservative divide on aid to the poor.

A liberal reading this thinks: "Well, that sucks. They should hire more fraud investigators to crack down on cheats like those." Considering an investigator earning say $40k a year will likely save taxpayers many times his salary by catching fraud, that's a rather prudent and economical thing to do.

A conservative reading such a story usually thinks: "All my tax dollars go to support these lazy bums and their gambling, vacations and drugs. They ought to get rid of the whole system and a make those people get a job!". In short, most conservatives will gladly throw 10 down on their luck families off of food stamps and other assistance to catch one welfare cheat.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Stories like this always highlight the liberal/conservative divide on aid to the poor.

A liberal reading this thinks: "Well, that sucks. They should hire more fraud investigators to crack down on cheats like those." Considering an investigator earning say $40k a year will likely save taxpayers many times his salary by catching fraud, that's a rather prudent and economical thing to do.

A conservative reading such a story usually thinks: "All my tax dollars go to support these lazy bums and their gambling, vacations and drugs. They ought to get rid of the whole system and a make those people get a job!". In short, most conservatives will gladly throw 10 down on their luck families off of food stamps and other assistance to catch one welfare cheat.

I see middle ground here....I can see a conservative saying all of that......but unless they're BeckLimbaughOreilly-like, they know that ain't happenin'. 

I'm not buying the last part of the conservative thinking Badg puts up, in fact, I think it's hackish to suggest as a blanket statement that conservatives feel that way (I'm sure some do and I know Badg is probably being hyperbollic here   but just in case....) especially in today's world where the job crunch/financial downturn/etc. has effected everyone. 

Let's try this:

"All my tax dollars go to support these lazy bums and their gambling, vacations and drugs......that sucks. They should hire more fraud investigators to crack down on cheats like those, so that MORE down on their luck people who need food stamps and other assistance can get it."

Better, Badg?

[Badger]

Stories like this always highlight the liberal/conservative divide on aid to the poor.

A liberal reading this thinks: "Well, that sucks. They should hire more fraud investigators to crack down on cheats like those." Considering an investigator earning say $40k a year will likely save taxpayers many times his salary by catching fraud, that's a rather prudent and economical thing to do.

A conservative reading such a story usually thinks: "All my tax dollars go to support these lazy bums and their gambling, vacations and drugs. They ought to get rid of the whole system and a make those people get a job!". In short, most conservatives will gladly throw 10 down on their luck families off of food stamps and other assistance to catch one welfare cheat.

I see middle ground here....I can see a conservative saying all of that......but unless they're BeckLimbaughOreilly-like, they know that ain't happenin'. 

I'm not buying the last part of the conservative thinking Badg puts up, in fact, I think it's hackish to suggest as a blanket statement that conservatives feel that way (I'm sure some do and I know Badg is probably being hyperbollic here   but just in case....) especially in today's world where the job crunch/financial downturn/etc. has effected everyone. 

Let's try this:

"All my tax dollars go to support these lazy bums and their gambling, vacations and drugs......that sucks. They should hire more fraud investigators to crack down on cheats like those, so that MORE down on their luck people who need food stamps and other assistance can get it."

Better, Badg?

Why Gramps, I didn't realize you were a liberal a heart.

I tried to qualify my statement with "usually" "most" and the like to allow for exceptions to the rule, but wouldn't you agree, George, that this is exactly the type of argument conservatives usually use to push across the board cuts to assistance for the poor? No one likes government waste or fraud (well, maybe Opebo ), but right wingers seem to view the very existence of anti-poverty programs as the real underlying problem, rather than the minority of individuals abusing the system. And when fraud like this occurs, as it does everywhere in life from time to time, the right uses it as an excuse for cutting or eliminating such funding in the name of "efficiency" and "cutting waste"---not withstanding that reduced spending reduces the staff needed to monitor and catch cheaters.

But whatever; if it eliminates "government handouts" then (real) mission accomplished. "Eliminating waste and fraud" to right wingers just seems more a slogan than a real goal. A political means to an end if you will.

You understand, my friend, I don't put you in this category of course.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Why Gramps, I didn't realize you were a liberal a heart.

I'm not, economically, but I'm a compassionate conservative

I tried to qualify my statement with "usually" "most" and the like to allow for exceptions to the rule, but wouldn't you agree, George, that this is exactly the type of argument conservatives usually use to push across the board cuts to assistance for the poor?

They try, sure, but I don't think it's their #1 argument.....remember why Bunning held up jobless benefits?  That might be #1


No one likes government waste or fraud (well, maybe Opebo ), but right wingers seem to view the very existence of anti-poverty programs as the real underlying problem, rather than the minority of individuals abusing the system. And when fraud like this occurs, as it does everywhere in life from time to time, the right uses it as an excuse for cutting or eliminating such funding in the name of "efficiency" and "cutting waste"---not withstanding that reduced spending reduces the staff needed to monitor and catch cheaters.

Yeah, I think that's a longer version of what you said before, sure.

But whatever; if it eliminates "government handouts" then (real) mission accomplished. "Eliminating waste and fraud" to right wingers just seems more a slogan than a real goal. A political means to an end if you will.

Badg, there is no question they're not putting teeth into controlling fraud.

You understand, my friend, I don't put you in this category of course.

Thanks, buddy.

The pubs have used a side-door approach......"Hey, Mr. President pay for it with cuts in other areas or no benefits."  Their argument has merits in my view but they are inept and in-artful in getting their point across without looking like pricks.

The middle ground I suggested in my earlier posting is kinda where I'm at and I'd like to see the pubs put forth specific spending cuts rather than just whine about it.

[Badger]

Why Gramps, I didn't realize you were a liberal a heart.

I'm not, economically, but I'm a compassionate conservative

I tried to qualify my statement with "usually" "most" and the like to allow for exceptions to the rule, but wouldn't you agree, George, that this is exactly the type of argument conservatives usually use to push across the board cuts to assistance for the poor?

They try, sure, but I don't think it's their #1 argument.....remember why Bunning held up jobless benefits?  That might be #1


No one likes government waste or fraud (well, maybe Opebo ), but right wingers seem to view the very existence of anti-poverty programs as the real underlying problem, rather than the minority of individuals abusing the system. And when fraud like this occurs, as it does everywhere in life from time to time, the right uses it as an excuse for cutting or eliminating such funding in the name of "efficiency" and "cutting waste"---not withstanding that reduced spending reduces the staff needed to monitor and catch cheaters.

Yeah, I think that's a longer version of what you said before, sure.

But whatever; if it eliminates "government handouts" then (real) mission accomplished. "Eliminating waste and fraud" to right wingers just seems more a slogan than a real goal. A political means to an end if you will.

Badg, there is no question they're not putting teeth into controlling fraud.

You understand, my friend, I don't put you in this category of course.

Thanks, buddy.

The pubs have used a side-door approach......"Hey, Mr. President pay for it with cuts in other areas or no benefits."  Their argument has merits in my view but they are inept and in-artful in getting their point across without looking like pricks.

The middle ground I suggested in my earlier posting is kinda where I'm at and I'd like to see the pubs put forth specific spending cuts rather than just whine about it.

Word.