What should be done when people on welfare spend money on vacations?

[Aidensmom]

People relying on aid should have to play by some rules. Why should it be any other way?

Because in that case you would also be setting the "rules" for someone not relying on aid.

 

[Mortimer Mouse2007]

I think that cardaway and splashmoutain31 are just ranting.

Cardaway, I asked you in post #13 to provide some evidence that your assertions are true. GAO audit? A federal Health and Human Services report? ANY evidence that this is actually happening?

No reply from you.

Then, Saavymom asked for clarification from you regarding the "type" of vaction. Funeral? Aunt's house? Or what?

No reply from you regarding her questions.

So, that leads me to conclude you and splashmoutain31 are just mad at the poor today. Because neither of you are presenting any data that would prove your assertions.

And yes, if you're going to blast an entire class of people you need to bring facts to the table.

I don't think there is a need for clarification. I'm sure you won't be able to find much evidence of this happening. I assume if you are cleaver enough to get the government to pay for your vacation to WDW you are also cognizant enough not to get caught.

I'm sure if you spent enough time on this board you could find evidence enough to know it has happened at least once. While some are intelligent enough not to broadcast their transgressions others have not been blessed with the gift of discretion.

I, like some other posters, are upset with the possibility that government money (my taxes) are being misused. While most of us are busting our humps to put food on the table and take our families on a WDW vacation every two years others are using my money to take a break from their exhausting week on the couch. It is a disgrace.

I agree with splashmountain. People are ready to start a religious war over a Billion dollar company loosing a few cents on a refillable mug but a family of four can take my money, against my wishes and use it as they see fit. Way too much hypocrisy in that.

 

[cardaway]

I'm not sure it is any of my business how their money is spent.

On a smiliar note, I know a few people who have good incomes "under the radar" in that they have no checking/savings accounts and no credit cards. They pay everything in cash or money orders. I finally found out it is to keep from paying taxes.

How is this any better/worse than welfare fraud?

I already posted exactly that and agreed it's wrong and illegal. Why should playing the same game while on assistance be any different? Wrong is wrong, right?

 

[Disney Doll]

cardaway, I happen to agree with you but I am not sure that I know how to solve the problem.

I also think you are setting yourself up for quite a flaming here on the DIS....everybody is quite PC here, for the most part.

 

[cardaway]

Because in that case you would also be setting the "rules" for someone not relying on aid.

In this case, that's just fine by me. There is no reason IMO to allow an income lilke that to go unreported so a person can keep the same qualifying status.

 

[cardaway]

I also think you are setting yourself up for quite a flaming here on the DIS....everybody is quite PC here, for the most part.

Yeah, because that has never happened before.

I've been flamed for agreeing with people.

 

[JennyMominRI]

cardaway, I happen to agree with you but I am not sure that I know how to solve the problem.

I.

I agree with cardway too,if we are talking about foodstamps/welfare/SSI/WIC

I would have problems with someone who spends say 2-3 weeks a year at Disney applying for food stamps, but who would do that?

 

[JennyMominRI]

Yeah, because that has never happened before.

I've been flamed for agreeing with people.

I'm sure you're wearing your "guardian angel " underwearf

 

[DisneyPhD]

Are you sure they don't get Medicare and not Medicaid..Usually SSDI entitles you to medicare after 18 months.

It may be Medicaid. I know back when I was working in social work as a supervisor for services for special needs children (this was over 10 years ago now) there was something called a Medicaid wavier that would be granted to families with special needs children (mostly autism) that required such a level of care that regardless of what income of the family, they were granted a wavier. This waiver paid for a number of services and treatments.

So it could be Medicaid. I think it might differ from state to state and county to county and may have changed (or lost funding) but at one time children were able to get it.

Please forgive the run on sentences. I should not be allowed to post after 10:00 pm.

 

[PatsGirl]

All I can say is "wow"! I'm really thinking about aligning myself with the "SCARY" budget board people. And here I thought I was a bit conservative, judgmental towards those that abuse the system, and riding the line of a "true Republican" and I cannot for the life of me fathom why someone would want to start the debate of how a welfare recipient can or cannot spend their money on hump day Sure, people abuse the welfare system and we need to figure out a way to decrease this. But good (read: people not receiving assistance) people abuse the tax system, find loop holes to decrease their taxes, and look down on others who might (yes, might!) be going the best they can, and still take a weekend away. Keep eating your caviar and drinking your champagne and God help you if you ever need financial assistance from the government and then decide to take your kids to Six Flags and out to McDonalds for a burger

 

[RNMOM]

I find it amazing that so many posters use the Budget Board as an example of negative things. ***? I like that board and honestly don't see very much evidence of these things. Mostly I see people who either take saving money as a necessity of life or take saving money as a challenge. Haven't we all known people with good incomes who shop thrift stores and garage sales? Anyway, I don't think it is warranted at all. I have learned a lot of useful things over there...and none of it involves cheating taxpayers out of their money.

 

[cardaway]

But good (read: people not receiving assistance) people abuse the tax system, find loop holes to decrease their taxes, and look down on others who might (yes, might!) be going the best they can, and still take a weekend away. Keep eating your caviar and drinking your champagne and God help you if you ever need financial assistance from the government and then decide to take your kids to Six Flags and out to McDonalds for a burger

So since there are people not on assistance that break the law we should not be concerned about those on assistance that abuse the system or break the law?

I'm far from independatnly wealthy and I work hard to take the vactions we take. Why should somebody not have to work and still take the same vacations? Vacations the workers paid for?

 

[JennyMominRI]

All I can say is "wow"! I'm really thinking about aligning myself with the "SCARY" budget board people. And here I thought I was a bit conservative, judgmental towards those that abuse the system, and riding the line of a "true Republican" and I cannot for the life of me fathom why someone would want to start the debate of how a welfare recipient can or cannot spend their money on hump day Sure, people abuse the welfare system and we need to figure out a way to decrease this. But good (read: people not receiving assistance) people abuse the tax system, find loop holes to decrease their taxes, and look down on others who might (yes, might!) be going the best they can, and still take a weekend away. Keep eating your caviar and drinking your champagne and God help you if you ever need financial assistance from the government and then decide to take your kids to Six Flags and out to McDonalds for a burger

I don't really think people are talking about Happy Meals her, they are talking about trips to Disney world etc.

 

[Aidensmom]

I find it amazing that so many posters use the Budget Board as an example of negative things. ***? I like that board and honestly don't see very much evidence of these things. Mostly I see people who either take saving money as a necessity of life or take saving money as a challenge. Haven't we all known people with good incomes who shop thrift stores and garage sales? Anyway, I don't think it is warrented at all. I have learned a lot of useful things over there...and none of it involves cheating taxpayers out of their money.

For the most part, I've also found a lot of great things on the budget board. Personally I HAVE sometimes seen things I don't agree with, but yeah, most of it is just people honestly trying to save money. I see budgeting and saving money as a good thing, no matter how much money you may have.

 

[cardaway]

I find it amazing that so many posters use the Budget Board as an example of negative things. ***? I like that board and honestly don't see very much evidence of these things. Mostly I see people who either take saving money as a necessity of life or take saving money as a challenge. Haven't we all known people with good incomes who shop thrift stores and garage sales? Anyway, I don't think it is warrented at all. I have learned a lot of useful things over there...and none of it involves cheating taxpayers out of their money.

Are you totally ignoring the posts where people admit to exactly what people are posting on this thread? How about all the people saying they're getting assistance but have vacation details in their sigs or other threads. Unless of course they are liars, but I'm going to take them on their word until there is a reason not to.

 

[Planogirl]

I agree that it's unfair. However I suspect that the government interference needed to stop such abuses might be worse than the misuse of public funds already taking place. It's bad enough to imagine Big Brother interfering even more in people's lives but the cost of the bureaucracy that would be created to oversee enforcement is a daunting thought IMO.

 

[kribit]

All I can say is "wow"! I'm really thinking about aligning myself with the "SCARY" budget board people. And here I thought I was a bit conservative, judgmental towards those that abuse the system, and riding the line of a "true Republican" and I cannot for the life of me fathom why someone would want to start the debate of how a welfare recipient can or cannot spend their money on hump day Sure, people abuse the welfare system and we need to figure out a way to decrease this. But good (read: people not receiving assistance) people abuse the tax system, find loop holes to decrease their taxes, and look down on others who might (yes, might!) be going the best they can, and still take a weekend away. Keep eating your caviar and drinking your champagne and God help you if you ever need financial assistance from the government and then decide to take your kids to Six Flags and out to McDonalds for a burger

So since people abuse the system "all around" we should just forget about it? Plus, last I checked a day trip to Six Flags and a "burger" isn't even close to a Disney World vacation.

I bet the majority of people posting on this thread don't consume champagne and caviar on a daily basis. People have to actually save up for luxuries like that.

 

[cardaway]

I agree that it's unfair. However I suspect that the government interference needed to stop such abuses might be worse than the misuse of public funds already taking place. It's bad enough to imagine Big Brother interfering even more in people's lives but the cost of the bureaucracy that would be created to oversee enforcement is a daunting thought IMO.

At first, but after things are put in place I think the cost of enforcement could go down and we would be better for having taken action.

I know too many people on assistance with no plans of ever giving it up.

 

[PatsGirl]

I also work hard for the vacations I take and no, I don't think we should be paying for others to take vacations to WDW if they are ABLE to work and are not, but you are lumping all assistance receivers into one large group and there are plenty of people out there working full time and still eligible for food stamps and WIC (which by the way has a very high max income to qualify -- something like $35K) -- they are called the working poor. No, I don't qualify for any of these things and yes I am an advocate of some types of welfare reform but I just think some times people on these boards are too quick to judge others. We all know jerks, rich and poor, and we can debate all day what should be allowed. What's next, deciding what grade of beef you can purchase on food stamps -- ground beef 75% or less only?? God forbid you should have top sirloin one night. I can vacation at WDW for less than $1000 but someone else might not be able to do a weekend at the beach for that. I guess I know a few people who genuinely need the assistance they get and I'm trying to defend them and I really wish they could afford to go to WDW on what we, the taxpayers, are helping them with. Sometimes misfortune is not self-inflicted.

 

[cardaway]

I also work hard for the vacations I take and no, I don't think we should be paying for others to take vacations to WDW if they are ABLE to work and are not, but you are lumping all assistance receivers into one large group and there are plenty of people out there working full time and still eligible for food stamps and WIC (which by the way has a very high max income to qualify -- something like $35K) -- they are called the working poor.

Working or not, they still get assitance. Assistance is money they are given and I think the people giving it should some say on how it is spent and how long they should have to give.