Thread: Is This An Example Of Our Country Going Down The Tubes ? Or Was It Always This Way ?

Originally Posted by sharptonn

Here go....................



Free Ride, WOW ----Wish I had thought of this!!!!!!!!!!
How to get $75k in benefits for you and your girlfriend.

Follow these proven steps.

1. Don't get married to her.
2. Use your mom's address to get your mail sent to.
3. The guy buys a house.
4. Guy rents out house to his girl girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.
5. Section 8 will pay 900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.
6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay out the butt for family insurance.
7. Girlfriend gets to go to college for free being a single mother
8. Girlfriend gets 600 a month for food stamps
9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone
10. Girlfriend get free utilities.
11. Guy moves into home but uses mom's house to get mail sent to.
12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes. Now you both get to claim head of house hold at $1800 credit.
13. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1800 a month and never has to work again.

This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets:
21,600 disability +
10,800 free housing +
6,000 free obamacare +
6,000 free food +
4,800 free utilities +
6,000 Pell grant money to spend +
12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell grant +
8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother
---------
$75,000 a year in benefits
Now you know why the country is 18 + trillion in debt, and your children will pay the price!

This kind of thing brings up another larger issue that I find is gaining prevalence today: In my opinion, more and more people believe that lawful and ethical are synonymous and the highest standard to hold oneself to, or to hold society to is what is lawful when in fact the opposite is true. The LOWEST standard a society should hold itself to is what is lawful; it should be the minimum standard. Woe to any society that believes otherwise. Just because something is lawful does not mean it's ethical.

ChrisL

Some peoples definition of corporations "gaming" the taxpayer is the same as people with more money doing the same. If you don't give up a "fair" portion of the money that YOU made to the government, then you are "stealing" If you take certain tax deductions or credits, you are getting a "subsidy". of course, that assumes to some degree that the money is not yours and everything you keep is due to the ogervnemtn generously allowing you to do so.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I love it when people complain about how many are gaming the system to steal billions from all the taxpayers. I never hear them talk about corporations who do exactly the same, oh wait that's legal because they can employ lobbyists and lawyers to pay off politicians and they get to write the laws that affect them. Oh wait again, but that's okay cause corporations employ a lot of folks and contribute to the economy so it's alright to steal in that case.

The next time I rob a bank I'll be sure to give most of the money away to charity. I'll be Robin Hood.

Crooks are crooks and there are people who make it an occupation of gaming every program that exists.

When in doubt ask yourself - WWWS?

->Reveal<-

Corporations are people, my friend!

It is not unique to the US that the best intentions of the many are manipulated by the (relatively) few. I'm almost certain that whenever any kind of "safety net" system is introduced there are people who take advantage of it by lying, cheating, falsifying, or manipulating etc.

We certainly have it here, sounds like you have it there. The question is, I suppose, would you be "better off" as a nation with or without these social safety nets targeted toward your most in need?

I cannot answer that for the US (or any other country besides mine for that matter). What I will say about Australia is that as the "economy" has taken over as the most important measure of human happiness in our country, the idea of social security, health care, community care, aged care etc have become "burdens" that need to be dealt with. And it is certainly true - paying for all this care into the future is a problem.

Personally I see this as a middle class welfare problem. It should be for the most vulnerable in our society, not the Prado-driving mum and dad up the road with 3 negatively-geared investment properties and their kids in private school. And yet they tend to be the major recipients of various kinds of welfare (child-care allowances, baby bonuses, tax concessions etc) that can add up to tens of thousands a year in many cases.

But those families don't make good news stories. The single mums with 3 kids from 3 different fathers getting child care support make far better reading for the indignant middle classes doing basically the same thing she is, just from behind the protection of an accountant.

I'm definitely not saying there aren't gaps that could be plugged. But the sheer hypocrisy of the people who do much of the complaining about the "undeserving poor" in my country is breathtaking.

James.

Jimbo, there are limited resources and some, myself included, believe that the people gaming the system are taking money away from those who truly need the safety net. An autistic 19 year old boy who will never be able to take care of himself should not have to reapply for disability twice and be put through the ringer while some pillhead in Eastern Kentucky has some Pakistani doctor falsify documents for a kickback so that the 'patient" can get those same benefits while selling oxycontin or cooking meth on the side and the doctor can retire and live like a king back in some Bin Laden style compound in Islamabad after 15 years.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

It is not unique to the US that the best intentions of the many are manipulated by the (relatively) few. I'm almost certain that whenever any kind of "safety net" system is introduced there are people who take advantage of it by lying, cheating, falsifying, or manipulating etc.

We certainly have it here, sounds like you have it there. The question is, I suppose, would you be "better off" as a nation with or without these social safety nets targeted toward your most in need?

I cannot answer that for the US (or any other country besides mine for that matter). What I will say about Australia is that as the "economy" has taken over as the most important measure of human happiness in our country, the idea of social security, health care, community care, aged care etc have become "burdens" that need to be dealt with. And it is certainly true - paying for all this care into the future is a problem.

Personally I see this as a middle class welfare problem. It should be for the most vulnerable in our society, not the Prado-driving mum and dad up the road with 3 negatively-geared investment properties and their kids in private school. And yet they tend to be the major recipients of various kinds of welfare (child-care allowances, baby bonuses, tax concessions etc) that can add up to tens of thousands a year in many cases.

But those families don't make good news stories. The single mums with 3 kids from 3 different fathers getting child care support make far better reading for the indignant middle classes doing basically the same thing she is, just from behind the protection of an accountant.

I'm definitely not saying there aren't gaps that could be plugged. But the sheer hypocrisy of the people who do much of the complaining about the "undeserving poor" in my country is breathtaking.

James.

Originally Posted by JDM61

Jimbo, there are limited resources and some, myself included, believe that the people gaming the system are taking money away from those who truly need the safety net. An autistic 19 year old boy who will never be able to take care of himself should not have to reapply for disability twice and be put through the ringer while some pillhead in Eastern Kentucky has some Pakistani doctor falsify documents for a kickback so that the 'patient" can get those same benefits while selling oxycontin or cooking meth on the side and the doctor can retire and live like a king back in some Bin Laden style compound in Islamabad after 15 years.

May be they ought to create better death panels to deal with these cases? I can see the ads:

Death panels - not just for grandma anymore! Soon to cover criminal pakistani doctors and their deadbeat redneck pillhead customers!


But then we'll have to keep Obamacare - one just can't win these days, we're screwed either way!

At least those poor autistic boys weren't born in some socialist country like Germany or Sweden and have to suffer additionally under a nanny state healthcare.