Let's go.........RANDOM!

[Ace Rimmer]

I don't agree on the first point, where is the proof for that?

Again, quick and dirty Google search...

Twenty-five people in Oswego County have been charged with welfare fraud in the past 10 months, more than triple the average number charged in recent years, officials said.

Just one county, 25 people in less than a year. I'm certain you can find a bunch of these stories. I found one right away of a lottery winner taking welfare for months after winning. (per CNN, Michigan, $1m winner)

Minimum wage isn't really a whole different can of worms because low wages are the root cause behind many people needing food stamps (and other forms of welfare) in the first place.

What are the root causes of low wages? This is a big can of worms because there's no simple answer.

Number 2 we can agree on the first half, but I'd again want to see evidence of too much assistance being provided to those who are not in "real" need.

Are you sure you need evidence? How long have you lived on planet earth? You do know what pork is, right?

Just one little report....



I couldn't get it to copy right from adobe, so image instead.

It's true that people abuse welfare all over the world, but the degree to which this takes place seems to be exaggerated by conservatives so they can justify cutting welfare, it's the whole Dickensian idea of the "deserving" poor that disturbs me, especially when it's coupled with an attitude that stopping benefit cheats is more important than helping those in need.

I'd argue they are equally important. Stopping cheating would provide additional resources for those who are legit.

[Xarlaxas]

So, out of a population of 122,109 people there are 17,095 below the poverty line, and 25 people altogether have been charged with benefit fraud in the last ten months? Oh no, the amount of fraud is clearly spiralling out of control in that county!

The root cause of low wages is a low minimum wage because corporations will pay the rank and file as little as they can get away with.

Ah-hah, I know about pork, I was presuming that you were referring to people you didn't consider "poor enough" to deserve assistance, rather than the pork barrels that politicians avail themselves of.

The problem with stopping cheating is that it tends to be done at the expense of people who really need assistance getting lost by the way-side, with many people arguing that that's fine so long as the cheats are caught.

[Ace Rimmer]

25 might sound like a small number, however, you must remember that was just one story about one particular type of fraud in one county over the last ten months, which is a very small slice of the overall pie.

From the story in question:

Oakes said his office’s anti-fraud effort is on track to bring in $100,000 this year, more than covering the cost of a part-time assistant district attorney.

$100k isn't small potatoes. It also isn't all the fraud, just those who are caught and able to make restitution.

Let's assume, just for a moment, based on that story that there are just eight regular citzens (who are not in any type of office) every year in every county in the U.S. who commit fraud. I picked eight because: (1) 25 was 'more than triple' and 25/3 = 7, (2) 25 was for a ten month span, we're talking a full year, so add one more person. This equals .00007% of the poplation, so 310 million * .00007% = 21,700 people getting caught committing fraud. If we assume it's $100k per eight persons per year, that's $271,250,000 for ONE YEAR. If we cut the number by 75% (being generous) to account for the 'more than tripple', you have $25k * (21,700 / people = $67,812,500. How many who should be getting help could get help from that amount? I'm guessing quite a few.

Even on the extremely super-duper low end, $67.8 million is a ton of cash. That's just for a single year, doesn't include every program or system that can be de-frauded, and also leaves out those who remain 'at large'.

I don't really understand what you mean by this:

The problem with stopping cheating is that it tends to be done at the expense of people who really need assistance getting lost by the way-side, with many people arguing that that's fine so long as the cheats are caught.

Could you clarify?

Edit: How about this...

Some say that welfare fraud is not a significant problem. While there is a general feeling that welfare fraud is rampant, advocates for welfare programs insist that fraud is only found in 2%-3% of cases researched by the thousands of welfare investigators across the nation. It certainly is possible that more fraud takes place than is being reported. There isn’t any way to really substantiate that feeling, however, without it actually being reported. We know that some fraud exists; but, with such low rates of it being found, it certainly isn’t the biggest challenge that welfare programs face. Is welfare fraud a big enough problem with which we should even concern ourselves?

Let’s run some numbers to find out. According to the 2010 US Census Bureau findings, there are 114.8 Million families in the US. With 34.2% of US families “on welfare” (see related article: An Expansion of the Welfare State), this means that approximately 39.3 Million homes receive monthly welfare benefits. The Federal government expects to spend $451.9 Billion in 2012 on welfare expenditures. This averages out to roughly $11,500 annually per family or $958 per family per month.

If the fraud rate is only 2%-3%, how much money could it really be costing us? Well…these low rates would mean that roughly 785,000 to 1.2 Million families are illegally receiving welfare benefits. At the average rate of $11,500 per year, this is costing the tax payers between $9.0 - $13.5 Billion dollars every year.

Edit2: Here is what he is classifying as 'welfare', because I know somebody will want it defined.

...there are 5 main welfare program categories. In order of expense, they are: Social Exclusion, Family & Children, Unemployment, Housing and Workers Compensation.

1. Social exclusion programs pay cash and provide other benefits to people who are, for a variety of reasons, unable to fully provide for themselves. This category is more commonly known as “disability”. Beneficiaries range from those afflicted with blindness, chronic disease, destitute low-income earners, refugees, victims of violent crimes, indigenous people, immigrants, and alcoholics and substance abusers. The idea is that they are either excluded or at risk of being excluded from participating in society and thus incapable of earning a living that will provide for their needs.

Social exclusion programs will account for the largest percent of Welfare spending for the Federal, State and Local governments in 2012. In addition to the $161.6 Billion of Federal tax dollars, State and Local governments will add an additional $93.5 Billion to this category.

2. The Family and children category of programs will account for the second largest percentage of Welfare spending for government at all levels. In addition to the $113.5 Billion in funds from the Federal treasury, State and Local government entities are expected to add an additional $18.5 Billion in funds through programs of this category. As the name suggests, these programs provide cash and related benefits to family units and children directly. The largest expenditure for this category and most commonly know program is the Federal Food Stamp program.

3. Unemployment benefit programs account for the third largest percentage of spending in the Welfare category. Unemployment provides cash benefits to workers who are displaced from their jobs through no fault or issues related to their performance.

4. Housing programs constitute the fourth largest percentage of expenditures for Welfare expenses. In addition to the $59.6 Billion in tax payer money provided by the Federal government, State and Local governments contribute an additional $16.3 Billion to this category. Housing programs provide grants, loan guarantees, financial aid and other benefits to both home owners and those needing homes.

5. The fifth and final major contributor to Federal Welfare expenditures is in the category of Workers Compensation. Federal workers compensation benefits include general retirement and disability insurance which does not include social security. In addition to the $8.3 Billion of Federal tax dollars spent in this category, the States will expend an additional $14.1 Billion in compensation payments.

[xander]

1. Too many abuse government assistance (e.g. food stamps, welfare)

I disagree. In any system, there will be people who abuse the system. There will always be people that skirt the edges or outright break the law. People still rob and kill each other. That is part of the human condition. But there are people in need of assistance, and a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the entire program. Lacking any evidence of widespread abuse, I cannot agree that "too many" abuse the system. Moreover, I think that the few cases that you can manage to find via Google underscore the point: not many are abusing the system, and the few abusers are prosecuted. The system works!

2. The (U.S.) government doesn't provide enough assistance in some areas to those in need, and too much in other areas to those not in real need.

I'm with Xarlaxas. The first part is almost certainly true; the second lacks supporting data.

xander

EDIT: Assuming that 10 billion is the right ballpark: 10 billion / 3.6 trillion ≈ 0.00278 ≈ 0.278%. Of every dollar that I pay in taxes, less than a third of a cent pays for fraud. Personally, I think that is an acceptable loss. I am sure that I lose more money every year to inefficient heating, leaky faucets, or spoiled food. The problem with throwing around big numbers like "$10 billion dollars!!!11!!1!!" is that those numbers exist in some context. 10 billion is a pittance next to 3.6 trillion (last year's federal budget).

[Xarlaxas]

9-13.5 billion dollars appears to be 0.38% (not even 1%) of the US government's budget for 2011, so it really isn't that much of a problem.

The usual way that governments stop welfare cheats is through rigorous means-testing, or simply offering welfare for fewer things, both of which often result in people who genuinely need help being fobbed off. Best example would be the decision by the Tory government here that anyone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and has more than 6 months to live have to go on work programs if they want to receive benefits. You see, a person with cancer with 7 months to live is totally healthy and able to work, unlike someone with only 6. . . . .

There's also the massive issue with Atos, the private company hired to do means-testing of people asking for disability benefits, who keep on denying crippled people benefits, who then have to do without while appealing the decision, and almost invariably turning out that they did in fact deserve the benefits they were denied. They also have a blanket policy re-assessing everyone to see if they still deserve benefits every six months or so, which is great in cases of people with locked-in syndrome, or even veterans whose limbs were blown off. Guess what, they didn't grow back in the last six months!

[Ace Rimmer]

Oh, well if $9 billion isn't that much of a problem, I guess we could ignore the possible 782,608 families that tiny bit of cash could be going to. (9b / 11,500 per family, annual)

[Xarlaxas]

Heh, as I said it *is* a problem, but people are responding to the problem by saying that they should just get rid of the welfare programs altogether because of the "rampant" abuse, so none of the families will get anything if the Republicans had their way.

And anyway, the people who are abusing the system aren't necessarily stopping other people get benefits, it just means more money has to go into the welfare programs!

Remember we're talking about the same people who want to remove healthcare from 30 million people by repealing the Affordable Care Act. . . .

[Ace Rimmer]

No, no, you're right, I can see now how it's an acceptable loss. What's a million families compared to 300+ million people? Just a pittance.

As an aside, you keep throwing that argument at me, at least indirectly, about scrapping programs due to waste. I have never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. I just also said that there is too much waste. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[xander]

Oh, well if $9 billion isn't that much of a problem, I guess we could ignore the possible 782,608 families that tiny bit of cash could be going to. :P (9b / 11,500 per family, annual)

No one is being denied welfare because there is some abuse. Anyone who can demonstrate need can receive welfare. Fraud does not take from those that need help, it only increases the cost of the system ever so slightly. It is the same kind of cost incurred by, for instance, grocery stores when someone accidentally drops a jar of pickles. This is not a new or controversial economic concept.

xander

EDIT: Fraud represents one form of waste. Enforcement represents another. If the cost of fraud is less than the cost of enforcement, I would rather live with a little fraud. The system remains more efficient overall.

[Ace Rimmer]

Wait, I thought we agreed upon the first half of point number 2 (too few receive assistance)?

I would be willing to bet that if the government decided you are correct and we can live with a little fraud, so why worry about it, the cost of fraud would at some point be much more than the current cost of fraud+enforcement.

Anyway, I'll yield.

[Xarlaxas]

No, no, you're right, I can see now how it's an acceptable loss. What's a million families compared to 300+ million people? Just a pittance.

As an aside, you keep throwing that argument at me, at least indirectly, about scrapping programs due to waste. I have never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. I just also said that there is too much waste. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I have never said that those people are an acceptable loss because they are not being denied welfare, as xander also helpfully points out, and I said in my previous post.

You might not be wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but plenty of people are of that opinion, and I'm glad you aren't at least that heartless, even if you seem to think somehow I am!

Enforcement represents another. If the cost of fraud is less than the cost of enforcement, I would rather live with a little fraud. The system remains more efficient overall.

This is another good point, remember the system they had in Florida where they decided to drug test everyone who wanted welfare, and how that *cost* more than the money it saved by then denying people who failed the drug test?

EDIT: I agreed that not enough people receive assistance because the welfare programs are not comprehensive enough, not because fraud is denying people assistance who would otherwise receive it.

[xander]

...the cost of fraud would at some point be much more than the current cost of fraud+enforcement.

Logic fail. It costs a grocery store money when a jar of pickles breaks. Does that mean that grocery stores should have monitors at the end of every aisle to make sure that people pay for broken pickles? No. The cost of enforcement is too high. On the other hand, CostCo runs on razor thin margins, and have clearly determined that they are more profitable if they have receipt checkers at every exit to prevent shop-lifting.

Fraud is a form of waste. Enforcement is a form of waste. Any money that is spent on anything that doesn't directly help those that need help is a form of waste. The overall goal should be to minimize waste in order to minimize the cost of the system. If fraud is such a huge problem that increasing enforcement reduces the overall amount of waste, then more should be spent on enforcement. Where did I ever say otherwise?

xander

[Ace Rimmer]

Can you prove people are not receiving benefits because of fraud comitted by others? What about programs and funding that gets cut because there is a lack of resources, or at least that's the excuse? What about programs that are never funded?

Edit: Hehe, xander, again the grocery store analagy is a poor one. Doesn't the grocery store have insurance for broken pickle jars? Now, you'll say, "they're paying for the insurance", but I'll say, no, you are, as is their employees, and Americans don't have that type of insurance anyway. ad infinitum?

[Xarlaxas]

Can you prove that? If programs are being cut because of a 0.38% wastage from the entire Budget, or 0.87% of the combined spending for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, then that's insane! If we're talking about America specifically then you can easily make up any loss by moving not even one percent of military spending over.

EDIT: Let's not get into the "NOTHING IS FREE, SOMEONE IS ALWAYS PAYING FOR IT SOMEWHERE", argument, or this'll never end.

Anyway, didn't you say you yielded?

In other, happier news, my graduation ring arrived. \o/

[Ace Rimmer]

Can you prove that? If programs are being cut because of a 0.38% wastage from the entire Budget, or 0.87% of the combined spending for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, then that's insane! If we're talking about America specifically then you can easily make up any loss by moving not even one percent of military spending over.

Well, since you counter my proof request.... xander made a comment (too lazy to look) about my searches, implying I was trying hard and only found a 'few cases', well to be honest, I haven't gotten past the first page on any of the google searches I've pulled quote/articles from. See how easy it was to find something SPECIFIC to the NY county I mentioned earlier...

FULTON, N.Y. -- During the past year, the federal budget has undergone tough cuts and now the results are starting to show themselves on a local level. The United Way of Greater Oswego County is just one of the organizations taking a hard hit.

Executive Director Melanie Trexler says their federal funding was cut in half, down by more than $40,000.

"This year we've been cut, so it's pretty devastating to our community," Trexler said.

The United Way helps fund 24 agencies, including three food pantries, and Trexler says the need for assistance is constantly growing in Oswego County, partly due to businesses closing, like the Birds Eye plant in Fulton.

"In most cases, you had two head of households working in the same plant, so when they came in and closed you have this population of people that mostly gave to charities are now asking," Trexler said.

Oswego County Catholic Charities relies on the United Way for financial help every year. But with the trickle down of budget cuts the organization has eliminated many of its services and is having trouble stretching its food pantry supplies to cover a growing client list.

Director of Community Services, Helen Hoefer, says her staff is having trouble keeping up with the growing demand for assistance.

"Because of the funding cuts we are not able to help with housing at all at this point, which means no rental assistance, no security deposit assistance, we are at the bare minimum for food," Hoefer said.

To help fill the gap left by the federal cuts, the United Way is hoping the community will step up, to offer a helping hand to those struggling to make it on their own.

EDIT: Let's not get into the "NOTHING IS FREE, SOMEONE IS ALWAYS PAYING FOR IT SOMEWHERE", argument, or this'll never end.

Anyway, didn't you say you yielded?

In other, happier news, my graduation ring arrived. \o/

Yes, yes I did, so stop it already. ;p

Congrats! Now, go get a job, cut your hair, get offa xander's lawn, and pay some taxes.