Money for nothing (and your drugs for free)

[Lawman 27]

Some of you may remember that I have a neighbor several doors down who is a tad 'burnt out.' (Oh let's face it, thanks to some serious drug use, this guy can't spell his own name).

Thanks of course to some politicians, this guy gets massive disability payments so that he can continue his drug usage without fail*. (This makes sense as you wouldn't want this dirtball to have to sober up, get a job, and become someone...that would be cruel and unusual punishment).

It used to upset me that thanks to obscene taxes, my money (that I actually worked for) went to fund this dirtbag's drug use. It upset me more that he could party all night (making all the noise he wanted) because heck, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO WORK THE NEXT DAY. That is nothing to what I just found out...

Seems that since he is a drug addicted burn out, and his baby's mother is not much better, THEIR CHILD GETS MONEY (ALOT OF MONEY) TOO!!! Now, before you go peeing your pants on how wonderful it is that the child gets free money, please remember that this money doesn't actually go to the child. This money goes to the parents to see that the child gets food, or diapers, or medicine for this.

YEAH RIGHT, in reality THE PARENTS (such as they are) see MORE DRUGS for this!!!

Why doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this?


*The drug use caused the disability, but that is just a minor issue.

[rurdy]

Yes, another sign the USA is swirling around the toilet. Someone I know who is a bank teller in NY State has told me about all the baby mommas who have had their kids diagnosed with ADD to get SSI. They sometimes brag to her when they cash their checks that they got the 'other kid diagnosed'.

[OldBay]

Yes, another sign the USA is swirling around the toilet. Someone I know who is a bank teller in NY State has told me about all the baby mommas who have had their kids diagnosed with ADD to get SSI. They sometimes brag to her when they cash their checks that they got the 'other kid diagnosed'.

I feel bad for the kids. The parents should have been neutered as a condition of their own public assistance. The kids grow up with that dysfunction as their "normal" and continue the cycle - starting with public school where they demand special attention and are not discouraged by parents from acting out, creating disproportionate work for teachers and extra use of education funding. Worst, the kids who are there to learn are cheated by these developing scam artists. I have no problem with permanent sterilization of adults as a condition of public assistance.

[rurdy]

Remember all the cries of "Genocide!" and "Racism!" when Norplant was briefly required for public assistance? What hope is there for reform if any meaningful requirement for being on the dole is removed time and time again?

[BeHereNow]

Many groups of Christians object to sterilization, forced or otherwise.

Some of the beliefs that led to forced sterilization programs can still be found in society today, Lombardo believes. “People continue to talk about poverty as if it is something you inherit from your parents and people who are poor should not be allowed to have children,” he said. “There are still people around who think that [sterilization] is an appropriate response.”
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/n-...Gxo1QooL8XV.99

Those of us who support coerced or forced sterilization for social service recipients would respond that poverty may not be inherited, but it can be taught.
Families with zero adjusted income (for social service benefits), continue to have more children.
This can be referred to as 'teaching by example'.

[BeHereNow]

Some of you may remember that I have a neighbor several doors down who is a tad 'burnt out.' (Oh let's face it, thanks to some serious drug use, this guy can't spell his own name).

Thanks of course to some politicians, this guy gets massive disability payments so that he can continue his drug usage without fail*. (This makes sense as you wouldn't want this dirtball to have to sober up, get a job, and become someone...that would be cruel and unusual punishment).

It used to upset me that thanks to obscene taxes, my money (that I actually worked for) went to fund this dirtbag's drug use. It upset me more that he could party all night (making all the noise he wanted) because heck, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO WORK THE NEXT DAY. That is nothing to what I just found out...

Seems that since he is a drug addicted burn out, and his baby's mother is not much better, THEIR CHILD GETS MONEY (ALOT OF MONEY) TOO!!! Now, before you go peeing your pants on how wonderful it is that the child gets free money, please remember that this money doesn't actually go to the child. This money goes to the parents to see that the child gets food, or diapers, or medicine for this.

YEAH RIGHT, in reality THE PARENTS (such as they are) see MORE DRUGS for this!!!

Why doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this?


*The drug use caused the disability, but that is just a minor issue.

The money those parents receive is for an SSI child ($698/month).

Most children receiving SSI (hereafter referred to as "SSI children") lived in a family headed by a single mother, and less than one in three lived with both parents. A very high proportion, about half, were living in a household with at least one other individual reported to have had a disability. About 70 percent of children received some kind of special education.

SSI support was the most important source of family income, with earnings a close second. On average, SSI payments accounted for nearly half of the income for the children's families, and earnings accounted for almost 40 percent.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n2/v66n2p21.html

[Lawman 27]

The money those parents receive is for an SSI child ($698/month).

Be,

Several issues with that...

1) I don't care what it is called, it is free money from a hard working taxpayer given freely to someone who never earned it in the first place (and in the above mentioned case, I never see them even trying to earn it).

2) As a 'dad' (a title I am very proud of) I can tell you that even if all $698/month went to the child, it would not be enough, which leads me to point 3...

3) There is no way in heck you can convince me that ANY of that money goes to the child in my post.

[I] A very high proportion, about half, were living in a household with at least one other individual reported to have had a disability. About 70 percent of children received some kind of special education.

Yes, I know I paid my own way (and worked 2 jobs to make sure my children were taken care of), but to me DOING DRUGS TO THE POINT OF BECOMING A MENTAL VEGETABLE is not a disability that the public should pay for.

The money those parents receive is for an SSI child ($698/month).

SSI support was the most important source of family income, with earnings a close second.

No disrespect to you, but...

If you made people responsible for getting their money (instead of having it given to them) maybe EARNING IT would be number one.

[BeHereNow]

Be,

Several issues with that...

1) I don't care what it is called, it is free money from a hard working taxpayer given freely to someone who never earned it in the first place (and in the above mentioned case, I never see them even trying to earn it).

2) As a 'dad' (a title I am very proud of) I can tell you that even if all $698/month went to the child, it would not be enough, which leads me to point 3...

3) There is no way in heck you can convince me that ANY of that money goes to the child in my post.



Yes, I know I paid my own way (and worked 2 jobs to make sure my children were taken care of), but to me DOING DRUGS TO THE POINT OF BECOMING A MENTAL VEGETABLE is not a disability that the public should pay for.



No disrespect to you, but...

If you made people responsible for getting their money (instead of having it given to them) maybe EARNING IT would be number one.

There seems to be some confusion, let me assure you that we are on the same page.
I do not disagree with anything in any of your posts in this thread.
That is an understatement, and I meant only to reinforce your observations.

~ ~
It was considered a big improvement in disability determination for SSI and SSDI to NOT be awarded to drug addicts (licit and illicit), BUT, they still get it for what is caused by the drug usage.
I believe that was in 1996, prior to that, they got it for the addiction itself.

~ ~
SSI payment for Maryland exceeds $62 MILLION dollars per month.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statc...c/2011/md.html

That is the tip of the iceberg, in terms of cost to taxpayers.

I have often heard people complain about SSDI abuse, and are not even aware of SSI.
SSI is a much bigger problem.
I see fifty times as many families living off SSI and social services, compared to those living off SSDI and social services.

I have seen families not eligible for food stamps because their income is too high, and no one in the family works, 3 or 4 SSI checks, and other unearned income.
It happens.

~ ~
As bad as you think things are, it is probably worse.

[jessup270]

There seems to be some confusion, let me assure you that we are on the same page.
I do not disagree with anything in any of your posts in this thread.
That is an understatement, and I meant only to reinforce your observations.

~ ~
It was considered a big improvement in disability determination for SSI and SSDI to NOT be awarded to drug addicts (licit and illicit), BUT, they still get it for what is caused by the drug usage.
I believe that was in 1996, prior to that, they got it for the addiction itself.

~ ~
SSI payment for Maryland exceeds $62 MILLION dollars per month.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statc...c/2011/md.html

That is the tip of the iceberg, in terms of cost to taxpayers.

I have often heard people complain about SSDI abuse, and are not even aware of SSI.
SSI is a much bigger problem.
I see fifty times as many families living off SSI and social services, compared to those living off SSDI and social services.

I have seen families not eligible for food stamps because their income is too high, and no one in the family works, 3 or 4 SSI checks, and other unearned income.
It happens.

~ ~
As bad as you think things are, it is probably worse.

The issues you point out are real and happen every day.

That is one of the reasons that America's best days are behind us.

I am in my sixties and I can says without hesitation that I lived and experienced the golden days of this nation.

By 2050, this nation will likely be close to 3rd world status, just a shell of its former self. This will happen not at the hands of another nation, it will be happen as a result of its citizens.

Have you ever noticed that when an American city crumbles into decay and lawlessness, it never comes back. City by city, county by county and eventually state by state, will overtake this nation with decay from within.

[overtaxed]

I can add to this. I work with a guy whose kid is a drug addict and has a drug addict girlfriend and a child. They live with him and collect food stamps, wic and unemployment. The guy gets unemployment as he got fired because he is a drug addict. If you look him up you get pages on the judiciary search. All he ever gets is probation and then he gets probation for probation violation. this is all in AA county. Oh, he paid his bail with his unemployment debit card and the state is taking restitution out of his unemployment debit card for reimbursment to a owner of a house he robbed.

[sigmalady]

Some of you may remember that I have a neighbor several doors down who is a tad 'burnt out.' (Oh let's face it, thanks to some serious drug use, this guy can't spell his own name).

Thanks of course to some politicians, this guy gets massive disability payments so that he can continue his drug usage without fail*. (This makes sense as you wouldn't want this dirtball to have to sober up, get a job, and become someone...that would be cruel and unusual punishment).

It used to upset me that thanks to obscene taxes, my money (that I actually worked for) went to fund this dirtbag's drug use. It upset me more that he could party all night (making all the noise he wanted) because heck, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO WORK THE NEXT DAY. That is nothing to what I just found out...

Seems that since he is a drug addicted burn out, and his baby's mother is not much better, THEIR CHILD GETS MONEY (ALOT OF MONEY) TOO!!! Now, before you go peeing your pants on how wonderful it is that the child gets free money, please remember that this money doesn't actually go to the child. This money goes to the parents to see that the child gets food, or diapers, or medicine for this.

YEAH RIGHT, in reality THE PARENTS (such as they are) see MORE DRUGS for this!!!

Why doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this?


*The drug use caused the disability, but that is just a minor issue.

Have you reported them to CPS for child neglect?

[bmore_ken]

Personally I'm against all forms of welfare. I see no difference in what you describe in that story or the corporate welfare doled out to billionaire CEO's.

[Lawman 27]

Have you reported them to CPS for child neglect?

CPS? Really?

As a BPD Officer, I once found a child in the 5300 block of Cuthbert Ave with CIGARETTE BURNS over his whole body. I took the child right to the hospital and, after investigating, I arrested the mom for child abuse. As required, I contacted CPS.

CPS (I think they were called DSS back then) claimed that the injuries (THE FRIGGIN CIGARETTE BURNS IN HIS SKIN) were old injuries and they refused to get involved.

OH GOOD HEAVENS, you've gotten me on another rant...

In the 3900 block of W Northern Pkwy I found a small child in traffic. The mom had left him alone in the house while she went to the bar. DSS saw nothing wrong with this as they refused to get involved.

At the Giant store (5901 Reisterstown Rd) we found 3 small kids in a Chevette with no A/C, no nothing. (The mom had gone in the store, the grandmom didn't want to stay in the heat, so she went into the store too). A different Officer handled it, and he too found that DSS is one of most useless agencies in the State as they again, refused to do anything.

(Oh, but punish your child and DSS will do all they can to take your children).

_____________________

Back to topic...

I did note that the family has several animals which they keep penned up inside, so I called Animal Control. They came right out, investigated, found that the conditions were sickening, and took the dogs. (I guess animals are seemingly more important then humans when it comes to the MD government).

[sigmalady]

_____________________

Back to topic...

I did note that the family has several animals which they keep penned up inside, so I called Animal Control. They came right out, investigated, found that the conditions were sickening, and took the dogs. (I guess animals are seemingly more important then humans when it comes to the MD government).

The government is a reflection of the society as a whole. People seem to be much more concerned about the mistreatment of animals, than they are about the mistreatment of people.

[pepper]

Personally I'm against all forms of welfare. I see no difference in what you describe in that story or the corporate welfare doled out to billionaire CEO's.

The difference I see in that equation is that corporate welfare (often tax break packages as incentives for locating) often results in an influx of taxpaying jobs. (as in the White Marsh transmission plant) In those situations, the return is usually greater than the concessions.

Any CEO that is a billionair is likely the head of a large workforce. Thats why municipalities fight over companies looking to locate. It generates income.

The individual welfare system is very different, in that it feeds off generational dysfuction to keep it going.

[Just Pondering]

A depressing but eye-opening thread. Does it end here?

Are these stories presumed to be an isolated exception, unworthy of corrective action?

Funny, though. If this isn't a rare exception, then the "redistribution of wealth" is already well underway.

[bmore_ken]

The difference I see in that equation is that corporate welfare (often tax break packages as incentives for locating) often results in an influx of taxpaying jobs.

Have you seen the unemployment numbers? I guess the poor are easier to pick on

[Omaha Beach]

The issues you point out are real and happen every day.

That is one of the reasons that America's best days are behind us.

I am in my sixties and I can says without hesitation that I lived and experienced the golden days of this nation.

By 2050, this nation will likely be close to 3rd world status, just a shell of its former self. This will happen not at the hands of another nation, it will be happen as a result of its citizens.

Have you ever noticed that when an American city crumbles into decay and lawlessness, it never comes back. City by city, county by county and eventually state by state, will overtake this nation with decay from within.

Agree wholeheartedly. I am in same age category as you and I could cry when I look at my two ten year old and one eight year old grandchildren and think of what they face in the coming decades after the ones who created this mess are safely in their graves.

[pepper]

Have you seen the unemployment numbers? I guess the poor are easier to pick on

I'm not looking at it from that angle, just making the point that the two forms of "welfare" are not the same.

It does not bother me that Allison Transmission gets a tax break when they're bringing 350 good paying jobs to the area.

[county resident]

I'm not looking at it from that angle, just making the point that the two forms of "welfare" are not the same.

It does not bother me that Allison Transmission gets a tax break when they're bringing 350 good paying jobs to the area.

so your taxes stay the same or go up to subsidize allison and it's unionized workers. why didn't the workers take the hit to keep their union jobs? they are ones benefiting. otherwise allison would move their factory to a more hosbitable ]state, a right to work state.