Staying single to collect welfare benefits

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm not referring to what they are doing as fraud, really. What they are doing is perfectly legal...more babies = more money. And I'm ok with it only applying to women because women are the only ones who can GET pregnant. It's at least a start. I don't see how it's unconstitutional to put requirements on obtaining government assistance. It's a simple if/then. IF you want assistance from the government/taxpayers THEN you will follow the rules and regulations of the program. If you don't believe in this for religious reasons (or whatever excuse you come up with) etc. then you aren't eligible, period. It really ISN'T that complicated, people just choose to make it that way. And honestly, if you are actually NEEDING assistance you will be more than happy to comply with the requirements of obtaining it. If you don't...then sorry.

You cannot mandate the reproductive systems of women. Plain and simple.

It would be against the law and discriminatory.

I can't say more due to board rules b/c I appreciate your sentiment actually--but in reality, it is unconstitutional, discriminatory and against the law.

FYI--there are some women who cannot take hormone birth control for health reasons. They might use other methods that cannot be validated (condom, diaphragm, etc.)

It's one of those slippery slopes and the to say--well if someone needs it, they'll go along with it...isn't a valid reason for the government to behave in such a manner.

Now using Octomom as a shameful example, she's a case in point of why something shoudl be a good idea. But in reality, it is actually a very invasive idea and very much unconstitutional.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I know exactly what you are saying...overall the cost is much greater for daycare. I just somehow feel better knowing that the parent is working and not just sitting home doing nothing. I know $$ wise it doesn't make sense, but morally I just don't know how to fix it

This I agree with.

Daycare wont' be forever. It gets less expensive as the child gets older and into the school system.

Having someone work for their benefits is much better than having them sit on their able-bodied behind for benefits. Giving someone a hand UP is always better than giving them a hand OUT..even if the initial costs are greater.

 

[threecrazykids]

Wasn't it already posted that they DON'T get more money when they have another child? Section 8 may or may not allow them to have another bedroom and they may get a few more food stamps but not more cash money.

Food stamps/cash money/medicaid is ALL assistance so yes, for each child they WILL get more assistance regardless of what it is.

And, btw, I would NOT be ok with a requirement only on women. What are we doing, moving backwards?? That would be totally sexist! Men may not get pregnant but they sure have to be around for it to happen and they should take the responsiblity too.

If there is a male form of birth control that works then by all means, BOTH of them should be on it if their kids are on assistance. Even less chances of it failing. And yes, men SHOULD be responsible for just as much of this as women.

Education is most definitly the key, not forcing someone to take birth control (which btw, can fail) And religious freedom is pretty prevalent in this country so you cannot force someone to do something against their religion whether you believe them to be practicing that religion or not.

Sorry, duplicate post...see below.

 

[threecrazykids]

Wasn't it already posted that they DON'T get more money when they have another child? Section 8 may or may not allow them to have another bedroom and they may get a few more food stamps but not more cash money.

Food stamps/cash money/medicaid is ALL assistance so yes, for each child they WILL get more assistance regardless of what it is.

And, btw, I would NOT be ok with a requirement only on women. What are we doing, moving backwards?? That would be totally sexist! Men may not get pregnant but they sure have to be around for it to happen and they should take the responsiblity too.

If there is a male form of birth control that works then by all means, BOTH of them should be on it if their kids are on assistance. Even less chances of it failing. And yes, men SHOULD be responsible for just as much of this as women.

Education is most definitly the key, not forcing someone to take birth control (which btw, can fail) And religious freedom is pretty prevalent in this country so you cannot force someone to do something against their religion whether you believe them to be practicing that religion or not.

Food stamps/cash money/medicaid is ALL assistance so yes, for each child they WILL get more assistance regardless of what it is.


If there is a male form of birth control that works then by all means, BOTH of them should be on it if their kids are on assistance. Even less chances of it failing. And yes, men SHOULD be responsible for just as much of this as women.


Again, I'm not FORCING to take assistance...all I'm suggesting is that IF you want to be on government assistance THEN you follow the rules of birth control to get the assistance. Why is that so horrible? The only way they are EVER going to get ahead is to learn to take care of the ones they already HAVE, not have more.

I guess I'm ok with people not being forced to be on birth control to get assistance as long as they don't get 1 dollar more of ANY assistance for any future children they have from the day they start assistance. Education is definitely the key, but the way our welfare system is right now there is no deterrent to having more and more babies they can't take care of.

 

[deerhart]

I recall reading how many people had left the welfare rolls after the "reform"- well, they just went to the disability rolls instead. Actually, many people ( and yes, I knew them and saw it happen) coached their kids to do poorly on tests so that they could fall behind and be "disabled" or to behave poorly in school so that they could be "disabled". It's very easy for a child to get disability and very hard for an adult. Once a child is "disabled" and collecting SSI, the family automatically is eligible for Section 8, Medicaid, and food stamps, of course if no one is working. So the child becomes their meal ticket and the child is losing a chance to succeed as an adult. The adults do not have to prove that they are using the SSI benefits for the child either. It's called crazy money- and I resent supporting people who abuse their children ( yes, IMO this is child abuse)--Kathy

While there are limited cases of this happening (a famous one out west, they got caught and both mom and the teenager ended up being charged) it is VERY rare.

Children's ssi cases are extremely hard to get approved. This isn't based on my opinion, but the collective opinion of over 75 years of experience of practicing exclusively social security law (the law firm I clerked with each lawyer averaged 20+ years in ssa law). This is why many attorney's won't do children cases (because the approval rate is very low).

On the other hand, adult disability cases with an attorney at hearing have about a 80% approval rate (no attorney has about a 50-60% approval rate)

And really, who can live off $647 a month for an entire family (let alone a single person) Also, the only program I have EVER heard that someone that qualifies for SSI also automatically qualifies for is medicaid.

 

[deerhart]

.


Again, I'm not FORCING to take assistance...all I'm suggesting is that IF you want to be on government assistance THEN you follow the rules of birth control to get the assistance. Why is that so horrible? The only way they are EVER going to get ahead is to learn to take care of the ones they already HAVE, not have more.

I guess I'm ok with people not being forced to be on birth control to get assistance as long as they don't get 1 dollar more of ANY assistance for any future children they have from the day they start assistance. Education is definitely the key, but the way our welfare system is right now there is no deterrent to having more and more babies they can't take care of.

Perhaps because 25% of women have a blood clotting disorder and forcing them to take birth control and when they have a blood clot or stroke due to the unknown, underlying condition, the government will then be paying the person a huge settlement (similiar to the vaccine fund)

Perhaps because bc is not 100% effective and we have all seen just how well abstinence only programs put forth by the government have been received and viewed.

 

[threecrazykids]

You cannot mandate the reproductive systems of women. Plain and simple.

It would be against the law and discriminatory.

I can't say more due to board rules b/c I appreciate your sentiment actually--but in reality, it is unconstitutional, discriminatory and against the law.

FYI--there are some women who cannot take hormone birth control for health reasons. They might use other methods that cannot be validated (condom, diaphragm, etc.)

It's one of those slippery slopes and the to say--well if someone needs it, they'll go along with it...isn't a valid reason for the government to behave in such a manner.

Now using Octomom as a shameful example, she's a case in point of why something shoudl be a good idea. But in reality, it is actually a very invasive idea and very much unconstitutional.

I understand your argument, however....

I guess I just don't follow...are you saying that we as taxpayers should just suck it up and just fork out more with no repercussions? Just let them continue to have more and more kids they can't financially take care of? The only way to stop the cycle is to stop having babies when you financially can't take care of them and clearly if they aren't responsible enough to do it on their own then someone who IS financially responsible (the taxpayers/government) should. When you don't work for your own money, I'm sorry but I personally feel you lose the right to "have a say" in how you get your money.

That's like going up to a stranger begging for money and when he hands you a $100 bill you have the nerve to say "Hey...when you hand me your money, the LEAST you can do is smile while you're handing it over".

 

[deerhart]

I understand your argument, however....

I guess I just don't follow...are you saying that we as taxpayers should just suck it up and just fork out more with no repercussions? Just let them continue to have more and more kids they can't financially take care of? The only way to stop the cycle is to stop having babies when you financially can't take care of them and clearly if they aren't responsible enough to do it on their own then someone who IS financially responsible (the taxpayers/government) should. When you don't work for your own money, I'm sorry but I personally feel you lose the right to "have a say" in how you get your money.

That's like going up to a stranger begging for money and when he hands you a $100 bill you have the nerve to say "Hey...when you hand me your money, the LEAST you can do is smile while you're handing it over".

Forced sterilizations by law (which a requirement by the government that you would have to be on BC to get assistance would be) were found to be unconstitutional decades ago. (it feels like Monday, the connection between bc and sterilization didn't hit me right away)

 

[SOnotLayuh]

My friend's husband was laid off a few months ago, and when she called to see if they qualified for any welfare the woman on the phone actually TOLD her that she should have another child if she wanted benefits (she currently has 3).

THAT is what I have an issue with. The woman's actual words were that she "should have another child if you would like to take advantage of the available benefits!", and then she laughed.

THAT is what I have an issue with

 

[princessmom29]

While there are limited cases of this happening (a famous one out west, they got caught and both mom and the teenager ended up being charged) it is VERY rare.

Children's ssi cases are extremely hard to get approved. This isn't based on my opinion, but the collective opinion of over 75 years of experience of practicing exclusively social security law (the law firm I clerked with each lawyer averaged 20+ years in ssa law). This is why many attorney's won't do children cases (because the approval rate is very low).

On the other hand, adult disability cases with an attorney at hearing have about a 80% approval rate (no attorney has about a 50-60% approval rate)

And really, who can live off $647 a month for an entire family (let alone a single person) Also, the only program I have EVER heard that someone that qualifies for SSI also automatically qualifies for is medicaid.

I think it is largely dependent on the court system in your area that hears these cases, because where I am, and where my MIL teaches it seems like we have another child declared "disabled" and eligible for SSI every week. About 25% of MIL's second grade class gets SSI disablility. People in that community have learned to work the system, and have a sympethetic judge to appear before. I think what the PP was saying about automatic qualification was that if SSI was their only income they would qualify for all of the other programs based on income level. When you have 3 or 4 kids who all collect SSI, you make a decent living, by the time you add in all the benefits. The exceptino of course would be the child that really needs those benefits to pay for therapy and medical bills. I am talking about people whose children are not actually disabled, but are defrauding the system.

 

[MaryKLady]

My sister in law is a prime example of this. Three different kids with three different dad's. She thinks this time she has found "the one" but refuses to marry him because she will lose all state benefits. She is very upfront about it with all of us saying she would lose everything she gets from the state (medical, vision, dental, and food stamps) if she marries him. It really burns my butt. Heck...she is living a better life than most working folks with all the benefits she gets.

Vision and dental?! No wonder my taxes are so high...and I thought it was just all the corrupt politicians My DH has a small business that employs 10 and offers them good medical...I know what he pays a year to give them that insurance but there is NOOOO way he could afford dental and vision too, we'd all be out of a job.

 

[deerhart]

I think it is largely dependent on the court system in your area that hears these cases, because where I am, and where my MIL teaches it seems like we have another child declared "disabled" and eligible for SSI every week. About 25% of MIL's second grade class gets SSI disablility. People in that community have learned to work the system, and have a sympethetic judge to appear before. I think what the PP was saying about automatic qualification was that if SSI was their only income they would qualify for all of the other programs based on income level. When you have 3 or 4 kids who all collect SSI, you make a decent living, by the time you add in all the benefits. The exceptino of course would be the child that really needs those benefits to pay for therapy and medical bills. I am talking about people whose children are not actually disabled, but are defrauding the system.

Actaully, no you won't make a decent living because you won't get full ssi for all the kids. There are family maximums that they allow and further, for each subsequent application, the income coming from the other kids will be deemed to the new one.

Also, if a parent is on disability, either ssi OR dib, then any minor dependents under the age of 17 are also eligible for benefit =payments (similiar to dependent payments made when a parent dies).

Further, if you beleive they are defrauding the system, its your responsibility to report the fraud to the SSA fraud department.

As for sympathetic judges.. well the evidence showing the disability HAS to be there or else the judge is going to get overturned left and right at the appeals council. Further, after the judge is overturned a few times in a row, things get adjusted very quickly (yes every decision by a judge is reviewed). Also judges are moved around with some frequency and there are usually 5-6 judges per ODAR and they all hear children cases

As I said, my oldest child on paper meets 2 or 3 child listings, but in person (outside of school when he was younger)he is soo not disabled. Now in school he did have a 1 on 1 full time aide and had about 35% sped services (he's down to 8% now yeah!!)

 

[luvsJack]

Actaully, no you won't make a decent living because you won't get full ssi for all the kids. There are family maximums that they allow and further, for each subsequent application, the income coming from the other kids will be deemed to the new one.

Also, if a parent is on disability, either ssi OR dib, then any minor dependents under the age of 17 are also eligible for benefit =payments (similiar to dependent payments made when a parent dies).

Further, if you beleive they are defrauding the system, its your responsibility to report the fraud to the SSA fraud department.

As for sympathetic judges.. well the evidence showing the disability HAS to be there or else the judge is going to get overturned left and right at the appeals council. Further, after the judge is overturned a few times in a row, things get adjusted very quickly (yes every decision by a judge is reviewed). Also judges are moved around with some frequency and there are usually 5-6 judges per ODAR and they all hear children cases

As I said, my oldest child on paper meets 2 or 3 child listings, but in person (outside of school when he was younger)he is soo not disabled. Now in school he did have a 1 on 1 full time aide and had about 35% sped services (he's down to 8% now yeah!!)

Doesn't the proof of a disability have to come from a doctor, too? So, if the family was defrauding the government; the doctor would be guilty too?

My ex was on disabililty for awhile and my son's got a check from that. He originally paid $275 a month in child support and the two checks they got together were equal to less than that; so definitly not anything anyone could live on.

 

[princessmom29]

Actaully, no you won't make a decent living because you won't get full ssi for all the kids. There are family maximums that they allow and further, for each subsequent application, the income coming from the other kids will be deemed to the new one.

Also, if a parent is on disability, either ssi OR dib, then any minor dependents under the age of 17 are also eligible for benefit =payments (similiar to dependent payments made when a parent dies).

Further, if you beleive they are defrauding the system, its your responsibility to report the fraud to the SSA fraud department.

As for sympathetic judges.. well the evidence showing the disability HAS to be there or else the judge is going to get overturned left and right at the appeals council. Further, after the judge is overturned a few times in a row, things get adjusted very quickly (yes every decision by a judge is reviewed). Also judges are moved around with some frequency and there are usually 5-6 judges per ODAR and they all hear children cases

As I said, my oldest child on paper meets 2 or 3 child listings, but in person (outside of school when he was younger)he is soo not disabled. Now in school he did have a 1 on 1 full time aide and had about 35% sped services (he's down to 8% now yeah!!)

I have seen what these families are getting, and in our area, witrh our standard of living, plus section 8 and food stamps you make more with 3 ssi kids than on an $8 an hour job. A review has to find compelling evidence that the judge was wrong. If it is a borderline case they are going to err on the side of the judge. I am not saying that the judge is commiting fraud, but that he may not be looking as hard into where the evidence in the case is coming from as the next guy. Everyone around here knows that there are certain judges you want hearing your SSI. Testing results are part of that evidence and parents are having kids purposely throw tests. The judge doesn't know that by looking at a testing report. He sees a child that appears on paper to have a disability and awards SSI, and doesn't investigate any further.

 

[princessmom29]

Doesn't the proof of a disability have to come from a doctor, too? So, if the family was defrauding the government; the doctor would be guilty too?

My ex was on disabililty for awhile and my son's got a check from that. He originally paid $275 a month in child support and the two checks they got together were equal to less than that; so definitly not anything anyone could live on.

It depends on why and how you are disabled, and how much you have paid into social security. If I were totally disabled right now, according to my latest statement I would be eligible for $1500 a month, and DD for $1100 a month for the rest of my life. You can definitely live on that. A partial disability carries partial benefits. If you haven't worked and paid in the rules are different.

 

[lillygator]

There are many receiving assistance that do work. A single mother working in a low paying job or a married couple that both have low paying jobs need assistance. Actually there are more working recipients that people choose to see.

And, additionally, there are many that see themselves as stuck in the system and hate it just as much as any of us do. If you have two children looking at you for all their needs and your receive $600 a month in benefits but working will bring in $300 a month and reduce your benefits to $100 a month--what choice do you have? (and I am just pulling numbers out of the air, no real amounts here)

but there are just as many who aren't stuck and just receiving the benefits and not doing anything to get themselves out of the situation.

ITA! The illegals I know(I am a teacher) work much harder than most of the Americans around here. They work 10-12 hour days for almost no money. They will do jobs noone else will do and do them well. They come to parent conferences and will even bring an interpreter when they don't speak English well, so they can find out what to do to help their kids.
Marsha

Illegals should be thrown out. They may work harder than most, but where is the majority of their cash going?

Go work some place else, this making excuses for these people is getting old.. no wonder the country is in the crapper.

I agree...or do something to better yourself so you can get a different job.

I don't spend that much either and my kids get their fair share of junk and cookies, soda, ice cream, etc (meaning we aren't living on rice and oatmeal)
PLUS don't forget these kids are also getting free breakfast and lunch at school and if they go to afterschool programs a snack. so take out all those meals and say you can't feed a family of 4 on that amount.

The free breakfast and lunch program should come off the top of the food stamps.

I have not read what others have said because it won't change the way I feel about this issue. I just can't get all worked up over this. I think the state (or, more specifically federal government) should pay for everyone's heath care.

nope...I work to pay for mine...what incentive would there be? (not talking people who have difficulty qualifying)



The people here who sit outside the stores and try and sell their food stamps are amazing....they just shop with you, swipe their card and you hand them some cash. And the food stamp cards here are very obvious. Big old flag on them.

 

[lovin diz]

I think instead of foodstamps they should do something like wic...Get 7 veggie every week, (not name brand) get 7 meats every week....etc..

I get so sick of giving my hard earned $$ to people who just want to sit on their behinds.....

I had a friend who worked at welfare, and she said women would keep the father off of the birth certif, and claim she didnt know who the dad was, so she could get more $$

 

[ssawka]

I think instead of foodstamps they should do something like wic...Get 7 veggie every week, (not name brand) get 7 meats every week....etc..

Actually, I think it should be like a flexible spending account, where they have a debit card and all receipts need to be sent in and justified.

 

[cm8]

It happens all the time and I see no changes in it in the future. We will all just have to deal with it. It is not fair, LIFE is not fair and we are the ones catching all the h3ll!! I wish there baby a full and speedy recovery!!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Again, I'm not FORCING to take assistance...all I'm suggesting is that IF you want to be on government assistance THEN you follow the rules of birth control to get the assistance. Why is that so horrible? The only way they are EVER going to get ahead is to learn to take care of the ones they already HAVE, not have more.

I guess I'm ok with people not being forced to be on birth control to get assistance as long as they don't get 1 dollar more of ANY assistance for any future children they have from the day they start assistance. Education is definitely the key, but the way our welfare system is right now there is no deterrent to having more and more babies they can't take care of.

What if--someone is already pregnant when they need the assistance?


Why is it so horrible?
If you can't figure it out, there is really way to help you do that.

In the meantime, you might take a gander at the constitution.

ETA: I use NFP which has been extremely effective for me. I shouldn't have to be forced into your approved methods of birth control if by chance I fell on hard times requiring me to have to request food stamps or other assistance. I should not have to MEDICATE to placate you. And yes I will have 4 kids, no I've never needed assistance and yes I used NFP to get my last 3 kids. The first kid was post BC, let's have a baby, baby.