PDA

View Full Version : Explain this to me:



Minnesnowtan
09-30-2013, 01:20 PM
Single Mom: Three children, does not have custody of the oldest, middle ones father died, getting Social security, gets child support for the youngest.

Living in section 8 housing: Mom pays $220/month, government pays $550/month

pays $200/mo for child support for first child

Receives $1400/mo for second child from social security.

Receives $350/month for third child in support.

Gets energy assistance grant of $1,000

Works 16 hours a week at $12.00/hr.

Receives student grants $15,000/yr

Receives food stamps $400/mo

Receives free school meals for the children: $630/yr

So lets add this up.

yearly expenses: $4,800

Yearly work income: $9984

Yearly government benefit: $33,030

This does not count the student grants of which part is for daily living expenses.

So if we leave those out of the equation: income is $43, 014 minus yearly expenses of $4,800 leaves a net income of $38, 214

Now if we factor in the family being on Medical assistance that would be an additional $3,600 benefit.

So then if we take $1200 out of that for car insurance that leaves a net income of $40,614.

So ok, ok the argument is she really does not have that much liquid income:

So lets figure that out.

Purely liquid cash is $30,984 which only $9984 is taxable. At that tax rate she qualifies for earned income credit and gets a huge refund check.

So out of that $30,984 she has to pay out of pocket $6,000 in child support, rent, and car insurance. This leaves her with $2,082 per month for incidentals.

I don't know about you, but I sure would love to have that kind of liquid cash each month for incidentals!

Paul Pless
09-30-2013, 01:25 PM
fart

bogdog
09-30-2013, 01:27 PM
I suppose no taxpayer dollars are being spent posting these work place cases?

Minnesnowtan
09-30-2013, 01:29 PM
No link Norm, real world numbers from a friend of mine who called me crying at lunch that she was so broke, so we sat down and went through the numbers. I wonder if she will be my friend anymore after I pointed these facts out to her?

I guess I cannot complain about the death benefit for social security because she is using it to go to school, but she is failing in school and not doing that well. So I guess if she would quit feeling sorry for herself and saying she was so busy, she could put more work into school so that she would graduate.

Paul Pless
09-30-2013, 01:31 PM
No link Norm, real world numbers from a friend of mine who called me crying at lunch that she was so broke, so we sat down and went through the numbers. I wonder if she will be my friend anymore after I pointed these facts out to her?

so you really think that you have done this part of the equation accurately?


So lets add this up.

yearly expenses: $4,800

John of Phoenix
09-30-2013, 01:32 PM
With your math skills, your checkbook must read like a mystery novel.

Minnesnowtan
09-30-2013, 01:35 PM
so you really think that you have done this part of the equation accurately?

Fixed costs Paul:


Rent: $2400

Child Support: $2400.

Did you want to throw the $1200 in there too for car insurance?????



She gets a good hunk of food in food stamps and her energy assistance grant covers her energy for the year, and she has no health care costs. Would you like to tell me what other expenses there are besides incidentals?

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
09-30-2013, 01:42 PM
Abuse of the system has been a problem for years.
It's better now than it was a few years ago.
The biggest abuse is in food assistance.
I expect big changes in the government food assistance programs in the future.
Social Security Disability is a close second.
I work at a homeless shelter so I get to see what you do also.
It's depressing when people who really need and deserve the help, can't get it.

S.V. Airlie
09-30-2013, 02:08 PM
Norman, You live in a ritzi part of town. Even voted as the best place to live. You should get out more! Every thing you talk about regarding welfare etc. abuses, you want a link. Go out and smell the manure!

David G
09-30-2013, 02:10 PM
As a chaplain to folks in drug/alcohol rehab, my sweetie also becomes privy to stories that make you shake your head. There certainly IS a subculture of folks out there who scam the system deliberately. I think any informed person know this. It's hard to accept, when you hear the individual instances. But when you step back and look at the larger picture... it turns out the percentage of such abuse is quite small overall. At a certain point - one has to do a cost/benefit analysis and determine how much effort one will invest in minimizing the scamming possibilities. It's always good to remind our lawmakers that we want them to keep up the pressure to get that percentage lower... in cost-effective ways. That last phrase is, btw, absolutely key.

It's also good to remember something that recent research has confirmed. Being poor is STRESSFUL!!! The inherent stress leads people - even goodhearted people - to make shortsighted and ill-informed decisions. This factor is not often recognized overtly, but is there, playing a part, all day every day.

I've always thought of it sort of like running a grocery store. There's always some wastage. In the retail sector, it's called 'shrink'. No reasonable way to completely avoid it. Shoplifting, breakage, spoilage. So one puts the best, most cost-effective security measures into place to cut down on pilferage. One develops receiving, warehousing, backstock, and shelving procedures to minimize breakage and keep stock rotated. And one tries one's best to match the ordering of fresh produce to projected demand. One can also minimize spoilage by stocking only under-ripe fruit. The more one tries to stock the freshest, ripest produce... the more shrink will result from bruising and rotting of un-purchased goods. It's a bit like that with social services. The more we focus on delivering the best, most useful services, ofttimes the more we leave the door open to the wastage resulting from scamming (the social services version of 'shrink').

S.V. Airlie
09-30-2013, 02:14 PM
Life can be stressful. NO EXCUSE!

wardd
09-30-2013, 02:17 PM
Norman, You live in a ritzi part of town. Even voted as the best place to live. You should get out more! Every thing you talk about regarding welfare etc. abuses, you want a link. Go out and smell the manure!

why do you live in the part of town littered with manure?

my excuse is 20+ horses

S.V. Airlie
09-30-2013, 02:21 PM
why do you live in the part of town littered with manure?

my excuse is 20+ horsesIt's a rural area. Why do you have 20 horses and do you like the scent of manure?

Minnesnowtan
09-30-2013, 02:21 PM
As a chaplain to folks in drug/alcohol rehab, my sweetie also becomes privy to stories that make you shake your head. There certainly IS a subculture of folks out there who scam the system deliberately. I think any informed person know this. It's hard to accept, when you hear the individual instances. But when you step back and look at the larger picture... it turns out the percentage of such abuse is quite small overall. At a certain point - one has to do a cost/benefit analysis and determine how much effort one will invest in minimizing the scamming possibilities. It's always good to remind our lawmakers that we want them to keep up the pressure to get that percentage lower... in cost-effective ways. That last phrase is, btw, absolutely key.

It's also good to remember something that recent research has confirmed. Being poor is STRESSFUL!!! The inherent stress leads people - even goodhearted people - to make shortsighted and ill-informed decisions. This factor is not often recognized overtly, but is there, playing a part, all day every day.

I've always thought of it sort of like running a grocery store. There's always some wastage. In the retail sector, it's called 'shrink'. No reasonable way to completely avoid it. Shoplifting, breakage, spoilage. So one puts the best, most cost-effective security measures into place to cut down on pilferage. One develops receiving, warehousing, backstock, and shelving procedures to minimize breakage and keep stock rotated. And one tries one's best to match the ordering of fresh produce to projected demand. One can also minimize spoilage by stocking only under-ripe fruit. The more one tries to stock the freshest, ripest produce... the more shrink will result from bruising and rotting of un-purchased goods. It's a bit like that with social services. The more we focus on delivering the best, most useful services, ofttimes the more we leave the door open to the wastage resulting from scamming (the social services version of 'shrink').


True David,

Remember some of the cases I have posted take YEARS to uncover, and generally only because I have an ongoing relationship with those involved and I make a good point of putting notes in their case files of little tid bits I find weird. It is a culmination of little clues that finally blossom into a pretty foul smelling flower. It actually takes very little time, just awareness.

S.V. Airlie
09-30-2013, 02:24 PM
http://www.cambridge2000.com/gallery/images/P8278095.jpg

Minnesnowtan
09-30-2013, 02:27 PM
is that a corpse flower Jaime?

S.V. Airlie
09-30-2013, 02:28 PM
carrion flower!

MiddleAgesMan
09-30-2013, 05:20 PM
Single Mom: Three children, does not have custody of the oldest, middle ones father died, getting Social security, gets child support for the youngest.

Living in section 8 housing: Mom pays $220/month, government pays $550/month

pays $200/mo for child support for first child

Receives $1400/mo for second child from social security.

Receives $350/month for third child in support.

Gets energy assistance grant of $1,000

Works 16 hours a week at $12.00/hr.

Receives student grants $15,000/yr

Receives food stamps $400/mo

Receives free school meals for the children: $630/yr

So lets add this up.

yearly expenses: $4,800

Yearly work income: $9984

Yearly government benefit: $33,030

This does not count the student grants of which part is for daily living expenses.

So if we leave those out of the equation: income is $43, 014 minus yearly expenses of $4,800 leaves a net income of $38, 214

Now if we factor in the family being on Medical assistance that would be an additional $3,600 benefit.

So then if we take $1200 out of that for car insurance that leaves a net income of $40,614.

So ok, ok the argument is she really does not have that much liquid income:

So lets figure that out.

Purely liquid cash is $30,984 which only $9984 is taxable. At that tax rate she qualifies for earned income credit and gets a huge refund check.

So out of that $30,984 she has to pay out of pocket $6,000 in child support, rent, and car insurance. This leaves her with $2,082 per month for incidentals.

I don't know about you, but I sure would love to have that kind of liquid cash each month for incidentals!


Names and addresses?

PeterSibley
09-30-2013, 06:02 PM
Why does that line make me think of Wall St and defence contractors more than nickel and diming single Mums . I'd love to see the Man From Minnesota turn his glare on the real parasites .;)


As a chaplain to folks in drug/alcohol rehab, my sweetie also becomes privy to stories that make you shake your head. There certainly IS a subculture of folks out there who scam the system deliberately. I think any informed person know this. It's hard to accept, when you hear the individual instances. But when you step back and look at the larger picture... it turns out the percentage of such abuse is quite small overall. At a certain point - one has to do a cost/benefit analysis and determine how much effort one will invest in minimizing the scamming possibilities. It's always good to remind our lawmakers that we want them to keep up the pressure to get that percentage lower... in cost-effective ways. That last phrase is, btw, absolutely key.

It's also good to remember something that recent research has confirmed. Being poor is STRESSFUL!!! The inherent stress leads people - even goodhearted people - to make shortsighted and ill-informed decisions. This factor is not often recognized overtly, but is there, playing a part, all day every day.

I've always thought of it sort of like running a grocery store. There's always some wastage. In the retail sector, it's called 'shrink'. No reasonable way to completely avoid it. Shoplifting, breakage, spoilage. So one puts the best, most cost-effective security measures into place to cut down on pilferage. One develops receiving, warehousing, backstock, and shelving procedures to minimize breakage and keep stock rotated. And one tries one's best to match the ordering of fresh produce to projected demand. One can also minimize spoilage by stocking only under-ripe fruit. The more one tries to stock the freshest, ripest produce... the more shrink will result from bruising and rotting of un-purchased goods. It's a bit like that with social services. The more we focus on delivering the best, most useful services, ofttimes the more we leave the door open to the wastage resulting from scamming (the social services version of 'shrink').

elf
09-30-2013, 06:13 PM
I don't know about you, but I sure would love to have that kind of liquid cash each month for incidentals!
Expenses not covered by calculations above:

Gas
clothing for kids
clothing for her
car repairs
300/week for food
phone bill

Doesn't look like much to me.

just wondering. How recently have you clothed 3 kids?

How recently have you been in a grocery store.

Ian McColgin
09-30-2013, 06:16 PM
Emily, Miniman left out so much that detailed rebuttal is pointless. People reading his list either get it or like him they don't and facts will not change their minds.

Minnesnowtan
09-30-2013, 06:16 PM
Ummm, She does not clothe 3 kids, she clothes 2.

Hmmm, I am a single dad with two daughters, Yep. I know exactly how much those incidentals cost!

hanleyclifford
09-30-2013, 06:18 PM
The problem and complaint arise when the numbers of working poor not collecting on the dole begin to notice and complain about the professional freeloaders; thus begins the blue collar wing of the Tea Party.

Gerarddm
09-30-2013, 06:22 PM
Typical: regressives love to cite outliers, and carry on as if the outliers are representative of the majority. Puerile.

S.V. Airlie
09-30-2013, 06:27 PM
Ummm, She does not clothe 3 kids, she clothes 2.

Hmmm, I am a single dad with two daughters, Yep. I know exactly how much those incidentals cost!Never mind Minn. The left will just continue gnawing on your ankle. Heed them no mind.

Boater14
09-30-2013, 06:52 PM
what crapola. 15k in educational benefits....what a lie. is she a surfer to? take it to fox. Bull.

Captain Intrepid
09-30-2013, 07:20 PM
So, she's raising 2 kids, works, and is going to school? Sounds like she's trying to make a better life for herself.

pefjr
09-30-2013, 07:33 PM
It would not matter if you had a link, these guys would not believe it, or they would blame it on Bush. It is standard operating procedure, that is one of the reasons for 17 trillion in debt, the 47% , and the frustration in Congress. The next bubble and gov't bailout will be Student Loans.

PeterSibley
09-30-2013, 07:36 PM
Why does that line make me think of Wall St and defence contractors more than nickel and diming single Mums . I'd love to see the Man From Minnesota turn his glare on the real parasites .;)


It would not matter if you had a link, these guys would not believe it, or they would blame it on Bush. It is standard operating procedure, that is one of the reasons for 17 trillion in debt, the 47% , and the frustration in Congress. The next bubble and gov't bailout will be Student Loans.

and no matter what anyone else says, front the right's perspective it's all the poor's fault .:D

Eh Pef ?;)

pefjr
09-30-2013, 08:30 PM
and no matter what anyone else says, front the right's perspective it's all the poor's fault .:D

Eh Pef ?;)The poor, the genuinely poor , no. The Welfare State is the creation of the dems. They bought the last election, and now have to feed and insure the 47%,....or lose the next election.

S.V. Airlie
09-30-2013, 08:36 PM
So, she's raising 2 kids, works, and is going to school? Sounds like she's trying to make a better life for herself.Work is parttime and she's failing school.Don't think she's going far.

hanleyclifford
09-30-2013, 09:59 PM
The poor, the genuinely poor , no. The Welfare State is the creation of the dems. They bought the last election, and now have to feed and insure the 47%,....or lose the next election. They don't actually have to feed and insure them - just maintain the appearance that they are trying to do it and the nasty old Republicans are obstructing.

PeterSibley
09-30-2013, 10:00 PM
The poor, the genuinely poor , no. The Welfare State is the creation of the dems. They bought the last election, and now have to feed and insure the 47%,....or lose the next election.

The Rep candidate, what was his name ? sure cared about the 47% .

All elections are bought pef but people have to want the product and they didn't want the other bloke.

Captain Intrepid
09-30-2013, 10:03 PM
Work is parttime and she's failing school.Don't think she's going far.

That's a pretty harsh thing to say. Neither of us know her and her situation. Based on the information we have, she's trying. That's more than many do, successful and unsuccessful.

Canoeyawl
09-30-2013, 10:21 PM
Does anyone see the hypocrisy of this sham?
Here we have one supping from the public trough and complaining (and trying to prosecute) another benefiting from it.

Ian McColgin
09-30-2013, 10:33 PM
Canoeyawl, I profoundly disagree with Minnisnowtan and think he makes his points by withholding information about the full budget, but I don't see his holding his point of view as hypocrisy just because he's a government employee. Actually, it's rather understandable, since much of his work focuses on bad cases, that he'd get a rather jaundiced view and project on the whole system and on so many individuals his expectation of systemic abuse. Many child support enforcement workers I've known have the same problem. That leads them at times to being unduely prosecutorial but rarely does it cause them to do their job unacceptably badly.

While not hypocritical, I do think it very wrong to claim on the basis of their work that their anecdotal claims are a systemic truth. Even worse for them to claim that their anecdotal claims trump objective systemic evidence. But still, not hypocritical. Just wrong.

Canoeyawl
09-30-2013, 10:36 PM
He's getting his money from the same place they are, No?

Ian McColgin
09-30-2013, 10:45 PM
Being paid by the government to administer part of a governmental program does not mean that one must not have a personal opinion about the various participants. Just as no soldier thinks that every order is the best bright idea.

PeterSibley
09-30-2013, 11:05 PM
The poor, the genuinely poor , no. The Welfare State is the creation of the dems. They bought the last election, and now have to feed and insure the 47%,....or lose the next election.

I'd like to hear who the "genuinely poor " are .... not a trick question it's just that our welfare net is far more generous than the US version and I'd like to hear who people in the US think should qualify ?

It seems to have started in 1936 with the New Deal, opposed by Republicans then but how much assistance is acceptable and in what form?

pefjr
10-01-2013, 04:26 AM
I'd like to hear who the "genuinely poor " are .... not a trick question it's just that our welfare net is far more generous than the US version and I'd like to hear who people in the US think should qualify ?

It seems to have started in 1936 with the New Deal, opposed by Republicans then but how much assistance is acceptable and in what form?The problem with the Welfare State is accountability, not generosity. Obamacare is already corrupt and it's not started yet. The Mortgage balloon was cause by corruption and Gov't unaccountability, the following bailout was corrupt, and the legal entanglements today are corrupt. The Real Estate collapse was the result. Same with the Stock Market three different times. I could go on, but why? Accountability is the problem, and maybe the genuinely poor are those that have a moral dilemma, and can't participate in the free for all, the hard workers that pay for it, the crippled, the blind, whether by physical or mental.

PeterSibley
10-01-2013, 05:32 AM
Accountability ? That sounds like extra layers of bureaucracy and more government, you're happy with that ? Checking up on the poor is relatively easy, it's the professional liars , the big money boys who are hard to catch.

As a sideline, Australia's financial industry didn't crash , it remained strong and intensely profitable due to the regulations imposed by our last conservative treasurer .

Michael D. Storey
10-01-2013, 06:49 AM
When I was writing for the dept of human resources in maryland, it was clear that there were some people who did indeed receive more then it would seem that they were entitled to, a consideration influenced by factors that included how much I was making, pay grade of other working peeps that I knew, etc. Just as we read of tragedy visiting children that nobody gave a godamn about and they' slipped through the cracks', the cracks worked both ways. A system designed to help many people, and successful at it, did indeed allow for others who did not get what they needed and others still who got way more than they were entitled.
And, we have all met or been related to people who could not manage their personal accounts, regardless of how much money they had, or their lives, for that matter, regardless of how many opportunities they had. They, individually or collectively, do not prove that the system is broken no more than they prove that it is working well.

S.V. Airlie
10-01-2013, 06:54 AM
That's a pretty harsh thing to say. Neither of us know her and her situation. Based on the information we have, she's trying. That's more than many do, successful and unsuccessful.That's true Sorry!!

Durnik
10-01-2013, 11:05 AM
Explain this to me:

Quite easily - you (& the 'usual suspects') are clueless - as in "can't see the forest for the trees" clueless.



Does anyone see the hypocrisy of this sham?
Here we have one supping from the public trough and complaining (and trying to prosecute) another benefiting from it.

Exactly.



Just as no soldier thinks that every order is the best bright idea.

Bad analogy. The soldier has (post signing on the dotted line) no choice. Our antagonist has intentionally put himself in the place of harming those who most need help - & bragging about the harm he does - living on _MY_ money. I say fire the DHS people & just pass out funds (based on tax records) to all who need them. This is not done as DHS exists for essentially two reasons -
1) to 'put in our face' 'the bums who are robbing us' - that would be 'the poor bums', not 'the rich bums'.
2) to employ more people (our antagonist) on public funds.

In the 'Greatest Country in the World", people shouldn't have to struggle & demean themselves to simply live - AKA, "He's down, Kick him again!"


Thanks to Keith -

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

peace
bobby

pefjr
10-01-2013, 11:34 AM
Accountability ? That sounds like extra layers of bureaucracy and more government, you're happy with that ? :d:rolleyes:I would be happy if we had accountability, yes. We don't. That is the problem. Your kind of thinking
Accountability ? That sounds like extra layers of bureaucracy and more governmenthelp to get us 17 trillion in debt.

John of Phoenix
10-01-2013, 11:42 AM
I would be happy if we had accountability, yes. We don't. That is the problem.What do you think MiniMan does? Do you think there's only one of him or might he be part of an entire department? Do you think other states have similar departments?


help to get us 17 trillion in debt.You want accountability but you don't want to pay for it?

PhaseLockedLoop
10-01-2013, 12:47 PM
...Australia's financial industry didn't crash , it remained strong and intensely profitable due to the regulations imposed by our last conservative treasurer .

OK. So was it worth it to remain strong and profitable at the cost of your bankers being bound hand and foot by regulations? Better for them to be FREE and take the whole economy into the toilet! ...bluster bluster goddam Australians always miss the point bluster. Freedom, bluster bluster...