rcksha

Did anyone else see the interview Sean Hannity did with the Surfer Boy from California last night? This able bodied, healthy individual lives a life of surfing and playing a guitar while drawing benefits from the Gov. that you and I pay for, allowing him to buy lobster dinners on the dole.
Hannity offered to get him a job driving truck in North Dakota at $80,000/yr. He said he would not take the job.!
Now I know there are many well deserving and needy people that need these benefits for awhile. That's what these benefits were designed for. I am under the impression that if these programs were managed correctly and the abuse, such as this, were to be taken out of the system, these programs would be financially solvent. I could be wrong , but it sure would help.
Of course we face the problem of the administration and staffing encouraging the participation of more and more people as that is job security for them. If we purged the system of fraud and these types of people ,we would , of course, need less people to administer the system.
All we ever hear about is the cost overruns and need for more funding. This , of course includes the staffing, office management, facilities and benefits of those that are encouraging signups.
President Clinton passed a law requiring some work be done to qualify for these benefits. what happened to that?
Again, there is a need for this system for those truly needing support and I agree with that. It is not intended to be a career. We just need to get rid of individuals like this guy that plainly refuse to work. People of responsibility relocate all the time to take care of themselves and their families. Might not be a desirable thing to do, but provides for the family and integrity of ones character in the short term.
How many of you would like to be offered an $80,000/yr. job?

Loki Loc: Georgia

I was offered one. They were kidding.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I was once asked to run for public office, but I decided that being "on the dole" was not for me. You can call it what you want, but taking public money for doing nothing, is still being on the "dole".

Cherokee38 Loc: Atlanta

I am really getting put out with the democrats "we need to take care of the poor". The problem is the people have chosen to mooch off the programs rather than providing for themselves. The government tries to maintain people on $138/day which is about $60,000 NET per year. You would need a job paying approx $80,000 per year to net that amount. If you are trying to improve your sted, I have no problem helping you, however, if you are sitting on your ass, complaining what you don't have and how unfair life is, I hope you really go hungry. That will motivate you to start working somewhere. I only have 2 children, because that is all I could afford to raise properly. It is called living within your means. This is the country of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY -- NOT EQUAL INCOME!!! You want more?? No problem, EARN IT!!!

Loki Loc: Georgia

Actually, being a politician involves activity. So instead of being "on the dole" for doing nothing, you would be "on the take" for doing something. I hope this both clarifies the ambiguity, and vitiates any negativity that may have arisen. (Note: "Public Office" is herein differentiated from the version practiced by Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner, which is more properly classified as "Pubic Office.").

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Just take note of the fact that Sean only could find one asshole, so if this is the extent of the abuse, this is a pointless discussion.

...On the other hand, it could all be f**e for all we know...where is the worthless media when you need them to debunk? And from the truest conspiratorial angle: why would anyone that enjoys benefits, "carefree", be stupid enough to get on TV and brag about it?

Not everyone standing in a bread line is "On the Dole", they might be crazy, disabled, too old, too unhealthy, wh**ever.

Rather then passing this along, why don't you verify it? Sounds like a solid career for a future blog-instead passing along f**e or mostly unbelievable information.

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

You forgot the space, banjo! ........... ") ..... vs ..... " )

Or ..... maybe not! ")

Loki Loc: Georgia

S**t. Stupid face. Maybe I'll start using brackets. My day started at 5:00 AM, it's time to clock out.

rcksha

Your posting name says it all !!

mmpolovich

unfortunately, as long as the participants and administrators of any program consist of flawed human beings there will be waste, fraud and errors. that being said, the vast majority of users are truly needy people. the demographics, as i understand them, of the population are: 47% under age 18, 32 % over age 65 and handicapped, 21 % other. the 21% consists of unemployed (including veterans) and the parents of the under age 18 children. in Illinois, an unemployed single person with NO income qualifies for $148/month; an single handicapped person on SSI making $710/month qualifies for $48/month. i don't see how anyone can buy lobster/seefood on that budget. the cost of food stamps is dwarfed by the cost in federal farming subsidies. the program originally designed to protect small family farmers in the 1930's has morphed into a lucrative subsidy for large family and corporate farmers such as; ConAgra and Archer Daniels Midland and Congressional families like Michelle Bachmans (her family received in excess of $250,000 in 2011 for NOT farming. the farm program also includes generous cost supports for crop insurance premiums and federal guarantees for reimbursement of deductible costs to participating insurance companies. there seems to be far more fraud, mismanagement and greed in the subsidy program than in the food stamp program. demonizing the poor appears to be an attempt to distract attention and outrage from the farm subsidies programs. probably because those programs have better lobbies and better representation bought by generous campaign contributions. i have no problem feeding the hungry in a country that can (if all fields were utilized annually) produce enough to feed the world. i have a BIG problem subsidizing corporate farms, rich large family farms and insurance companies. i do not have all the figures at my finger tips, but i urge you to contact your local congressional office to obtain the actual costs of the bulk of the farm bill costs. each congressman has an office budget in excess of $922,000 annually to pay experienced members to provide this kind of information for their constituents. please avail yourself of the services that your tax dollars provide.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Not disagreeing with your post, but where do you get the $138 per day figure? I know only 2 people on welfare, one old lady who somehow did not qualify for SS.. The other a 50 something old man with brain injury so he has never successfully worked..He gets $800 and change per mo..I do not know how the high figures get into the mix, but can not believe they are correct...

mmpolovich

necessary program started by Ronald Reagan. benefits the neediest who would otherwise be left without valuable necessary communication and the cell phone industry. cell phone providers take donated/traded phones, refurbish them, donate them to the program and then get to take tax write-offs for both the value of the cell phones and the full retail value of the air time costs. valuable to those who otherwise could not afford phones or service; more valuable to the cell phone industry. a government/corporate win-win situation.

mmpolovich

i cannot find any source that corroborates your $138/day figures; what is your source for those statistics? the vast majority of those "moochers" are under the age of 18. do you suggest we take children out of school and put them to work? if so, what kind of jobs do you suggest? the largest single reason children and their single parent fall into poverty is due to the loss of the supporting spouse due to death or divorce/desertion. maybe we should make divorce/desertion illegal! the next largest contingent of "moochers" are those over 65 who loose 1/2 to all of a spouse's employer provider pension income upon the death of that spouse and must now survive on only ONE social security income. unfortunately, bills such as mortgages, rent, utilities, real estate taxes and insurance DO NOT always decrease. the next largest contingent are the handicapped who do not always have the sk**ls, training or opportunities for employment. should we just "let them starve"as you suggest? your reply seems to suggest that your family is very fortunate not to have any members who are elderly, handicapped or suddenly single. i am happy for you, but not everyone is so lucky. the amount needed to provide for lease among us could easily be provided by asking "those to whom much has been given" to pay their fair share of taxes. the current TOP rates are the lowest since before WWII; VERY few of those in that top bracket pay the top rate. most pay less that 1/2; some corporations pay $0.00 and even get tax REFUNDS after taking all available corporate tax credits. there is very little fair or honorable in that kind of behavior. REPUBLICAN presidents, such Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford, believed in a graduated income tax system with rates far higher than the current ones. taking care of the least among of us should be a decision of shared common decency.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

My bad! :oops: I never wanted a public pubis either.

rcksha

We do need to help the truly needy for some period of time. Who doesn't know those who have studied the laws and found a way to live life on these benefits? Or, could be working but would rather stay on benefits rather than work. I personally know a few and have expressed my opinion. These are the people that I speak about that are raping the system for others. By the way, $138.00/day equates to $4140/month and $49,680/ yr.
I agree there is significant abuses in the farm bill also subsidizing bare land and other means. That's a different facet of the problem than I addressed originally. I could go into many other completely unreasonable benefits, in my opinion, at a later date.
I don't need to read or broadcast support from other articles to know right from wrong. I'm talking about abuses and not reasonable and needed benefits to help those truly in need. The Gov. accounting office says there is several hundred million dollars, if not a Billion on abuses of this system. Those that don't believe it should wake up and look around. People exchanging food stamps for cash at the store, trading for drugs, selling for cash at a discount and many other abuses.
Not being willing to go to work when one has a chance, as long as it is at a reasonable wage, is inexcusable and should disqualify one for these benefits, is the point. I don't believe this is but a one person issue. There are many, in my opinion on food stamps, SSI, Soc. Security, State benefits and health care on the taxpayers backs. Just where is the management of these systems.