Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Paterson makes welfare fraud easier

From NY Daily Balance:

In remarks sure to evoke empathy from hardworking taxpayers, Paterson cited NY’s rising unemployment as the best justification for the [welfare] hike, even though the vast majority of jobless would never even considering asking for the benefit.

Paterson doesn’t mention, though, that in addition to the grant increase, he also approved changes to welfare that unravel many of the reforms that helped reduce the size of the relief dole to levels unseen since the 1930s.

Paterson’s signature undid a requirement for fingerprinting of welfare applicants, a measure designed to root out double dippers.

Democrats said the requirement was unnecessary, since it had turned up only a few cheats in recent years.

But that’s precisely the point.

Who is going to apply if they know their going to get caught double dipping?

Paterson’s other welfare “reforms” also eliminate a “workfare” requirement for college students and many able-bodied single men and women that advocates felt was denigrating.

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

Patterson has to reinstate anti-fraud provisions pronto. It is unfair to undermine the pitiful benefit that the legitimately destitute receive in order to spread money to thieves and hogs.

Also, if you are able-bodied, work. No one is entitled to a free-ride, all you are entitled to is a chance and a temporary helping hand through a bad patch.

Anonymous said...

This is awful, and with a state deificit who is paying for this?

Anonymous said...

wait until you need welfare's crumbs then you won't write this kind of crap.

if there were jobs available for Americans no citizens would need welfare.

how come it's okay to give money to rich people but not to poor people who need it?

Anonymous said...

I agree that it is outrageous to give corporate welfare to the rich, but I am unemployed and receiving government benefits and I still don't think that the government shouldn't audit for abuse, insist that people make reasonable efforts to look for work, train for new skills or otherwise try to better themselves.

There is a difference between assisting people and kicking the legs out from under them. Make it too comfortable to be on the dole and it becomes a way of life.

I had 70 year old farmer relatives of mine in Ireland who were working in fields and unable to hire younger labor because the youth were drinking up their dole money in the local pubs.

There is a middle ground between starving people and infantilizing them.

Anonymous said...

wait until you need welfare's crumbs then you won't write this kind of crap.

if there were jobs available for Americans no citizens would need welfare.


--------------


Taking in welfare? Fine. go out and pick up trash in the streets, take care of public parks and gardens, paint over graffiti, volunteer in a nursing home, etc.


If the options are either (a) Stay home and collect welfare check or (b) go out and be of use to the public and collect a welfare check, why cant they do (b)?


There is stuff in this city that needs to be done, and there are people available to do it. Why not solve two issues at the same time?

Wade Nichols said...

how come it's okay to give money to rich people but not to poor people who need it?

So, since the rich cheat, that makes it OK for the poor to cheat?

Since O.J. Simpson murdered his wife, does that make it OK for me to murder mine? After all, he's a rich guy.......

Anonymous said...

who is giving money to rich people?

Queens Crapper said...

Alcohol and drug use puts a lot of people on the welfare rolls even during good times when jobs are plentiful.

And I would say that giving gigantic tax breaks to rich folks is the same thing as giving them money.

Art-fool Dodd-ger said...

Since O.J. Simpson murdered his wife, does that make it OK for me to murder mine? After all, he's a rich guy.......
----

Only if he gives you reason to Wade ...

Snake Plisskin said...

It is called Tweeding and it will not be covered by the Queens Weeklies.

Anonymous said...

And I would say that giving gigantic tax breaks to rich folks is the same thing as giving them money.

Absolutely. Tax benefits for homeownership are also equivalent to giving free money to the middle and upper classes. But when the topic of public housing or other housing support for the lower classes comes up, the more fortunate howl and gnash their teeth.

Anonymous said...

When someone doesn't have to pay taxes for 25 years on a property simply because they built a few "affordable" units on it (along with a ton of market rate housing), it's a lot different than a homeowner getting a few hundred dollars rebate.

Living on the public dole for life is unacceptable. Let's not forget if you get welfare, you probably also get a housing subsidy, food stamps, Medicaid and God knows what else.

Anonymous said...

Since O.J. Simpson murdered his wife...allegedly

Anonymous said...

Nope, that civil jury found him responsible for both deaths.

Wade Nichols said...

Since O.J. Simpson murdered his wife...allegedly

Only a black person or a wimpy white liberal would say something as stupid as that.....

Guess Who said...

Why would you even THINK of murdering someone, Wade? Dont get your point...

Anonymous said...

Wade didn't say he was thinking of murdering someone. He said that anyone who thinks OJ "allegedly" murdered his wife instead of actually murdered his wife is in denial.

italian girl said...

White liberals can't think OJ was guilty? Don't be ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

No one said they can't think that, but it's a pretty safe bet that the aforementioned statement was certainly not voiced by a conservative.

Wade Nichols said...

White liberals can't think OJ was guilty? Don't be ridiculous.

They can think it, but they won't publicly say it.

If you said it in a public forum, you'd immediately be branded a "Racist!", publicly admonished, and shipped off to a re-education camp in Zimbabwe for your thought crimes.

Why would you even THINK of murdering someone, Wade? Dont get your point...

Bad example, of course I would do no such thing.

I should have said: "Since O.J. Simpson murdered a person, does that make it OK for me to beat Michael Moore with a baseball bat?


I actually didn't write the original comment on my wife. I've outsourced some of my comment writing to a couple guys in Bangalore, India. It frees up some of my time during the day to do things like leisure reading, go to the museum, have a cup of coffee, girl watching, etc.

The problem with the Indian guys I hired is that they don't fully understand the nuances of the English language, so they occasionally write bad comments like the one above.

I'll have to tongue lash those guys in Bangalore, crack the whip, and make sure they don't write any more hateful comments.

That's the problem with outsourcing and using "undocumented guest workers" as construction workers. They're definitely cheaper, but the quality of the work is poor.

Anonymous said...

There are plenty of parks that need to be cleaned, put them to work. Why should we pay for nothing?

Anonymous said...

Jews control governor paterson so blame the real culprits.

Anonymous said...

Exuse me crapper, but giving tax breaks is NOT the same thing as giving them rich money.

That money is MY money, the government is dipping their hand in my wallet to take it out. No one is giving me anything. This get repeated so often people accept it as a fact.

If I beat you up in an alley and take $100 from you and as I'm walking away take pity on you and throw you a $10 bill, do you consider that someone giving you $10?

italian girl said...

"They can think it, but they won't publicly say it."

I don't agree. I've heard many in the media either say or even imply that OJ is guilty. OJ is often even used in jokes referring to how he got away with murder.
From what I've seen, the only people that won't say anything about OJ are most black people.

Queens Crapper said...

Not sure I understand the analogy you were making, anonymous. If developers are dependent on handouts from the government to build their projects (think Ratner who is famous for this), then I don't see how that makes them any different than the welfare recipient who lives off the multiple government teats provided to them.

Anonymous said...

Giving a tax break to a developer is money taken from us which could have gone toward improving our community - sewers, electricity, parks, etc.

Anonymous said...

You are ducking the question QCrapper - you said "Giving gigantic tax breaks to rich folks is the same thing as giving them money."

Do you now agree with me that that statement is rubbish? If you take $90 from me instead of $100, would you consider that giving me money??? No one is giving the rich anything. Stop the lies.

Queens Crapper said...

Yes I would if you were supposed to pay $100 and only paid $90. However the numbers we are talking about are much larger when it comes to developers.

Anonymous said...

White liberal: OJ was guilty when he was acquitted and innocent when he was found guilty.

White liberal: Let's make welfare a last ditch thing and make it temporary unless there are special circumstances AND lets eliminate the tax breaks for the rich and make them pay the same percentage of their income to taxes like we do

Anonymous said...

OMG- the angry teeth of the conservative pro-rich are biting Crapper!

Tax anyone who gets rich making our neighborhoods more crowded and uglier!

Anonymous said...

Who care about developers? I'm talking individuals. You can't give something that isn't yours to begin with. Like others I work hard and earn every dollar I make. No one including the government gives me anything. I on the other hand give the government a portion of MY salary. Unlike the welfare scammers and lazy babymakers who can't keep their legs closed long enough to get a job. So save the corporate welfare rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Listen welfare is bad but don't ignore the rich paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes then the middle class

Anonymous said...

I think close to 90% of the taxes collected come from the top 10%. I think they are already paying their fair share.

Anonymous said...

90% of the taxes do not come from the top 10%. While the wealthy pay the disproportionate share of income taxes, they are hit comparatively lightly in sales taxes, excise taxes and social security and medicare taxes.

Well-off individuals often get a large portion of their money through incorporated businesses and run personal expenses through as business expenses before they even take a salary.

Furthermore, data shows an increased concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. If the rich are taxed that badly, why are they getting richer every year? Talent and hard work can only account for so much.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Jews control governor paterson so blame the real culprits.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009
=================================

And hatred controls your mind.

It's not Queens Crapper's fault, obviously, but it's amazing how this site attracts Anti-Semitic scum like you.

Wade Nichols said...

90% of the taxes do not come from the top 10%. While the wealthy pay the disproportionate share of income taxes

Source???

they are hit comparatively lightly in sales taxes, excise taxes and social security and medicare taxes.

You're correct on social security and medicare taxes, but how do the wealthy pay less in sales tax? Sales tax is the same percentage across the board. The percentage is generally the same whether you buy a Maybach or a Hyundai.

Furthermore, data shows an increased concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. If the rich are taxed that badly, why are they getting richer every year?


The ranks of the rich aren't static - take a look at the list of the wealthy in Forbes from 20 years ago, or 100 years ago. How many of those folks are still up top?

You don't hear the names "Carnegie", "Rockefeller", "Morgan", etc. etc. too much anymore. If the wealthy are able to retain their fortunes so easily, why don't we hear those names in the news any more?

Talent and hard work can only account for so much.

No quarrel here. That explains why Milli Vanilli sold millions of albums, while most talented opera singers toil in obscurity. Will Smith sells millions of movie tickets, yet Shakespearean actors perform in small community theaters.

I've always suspected that Will Smith made a deal with Satan, much like blues singer Robert Johnson. Will Smith is a horrible actor! If it weren't for him selling his soul to the Prince of Darkness, he'd be commiting welfare fraud.

Anonymous said...

Source???

Sorry. I was a bit off as I was doing this from memory. The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Pay 71 Percent of Federal Taxes. The Top 25 Percent of Income Earners Pay 86 Percent of Federal Taxes.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/-progressive-taxes-interactive-chart.aspx

Educate yourself on the issues and don't believe everything you hear on TV.

Anonymous said...

And by the way the top 4 percent of taxpayers in New York State pay 55 percent of all of the personal income taxes. The top 25 percent of NYS taxpayers account for more than 96 percent of all personal income tax liability.

We are taxed enough. Stop throwing away our money on welfare crooks.

Anonymous said...

And on stadiums and on developer tax breaks. Amen.

Anonymous said...

I think close to 90% of the taxes collected come from the top 10%. I think they are already paying their fair share
-------------------------------

STUPID ARGUMENT!!!!!

Top 10% make over 93% of the income earned!!!

Over 93% of the income earned only pays 90% of the taxes.

That doesn't sound fair!!!!

Anonymous said...

The reason that sales tax and excise taxes are regressive, rather than proportional, is that those who are living hand to mouth are spending a much higher proportion of their total income.

Since there is no sales tax on money saved or invested, the poor pay a much larger percentage of their total income on sales and excise taxes.

For example, suppose you make $100,000 dollars and buy a $20,000 dollar car. Assume a sales tax of 10% for a total tax of $2000.00. That is 2% of your yearly income.

Suppose a person who makes $50,000 dollars buys the same $20,000 dollar car. His tax represents 4% of his income.

Obviously wealthier people often buy luxury goods and spend more, but there is some base beyond which it is difficult to cut. When sales taxes and excise taxes are assessed, the hit is much worse on lower income people.

Anonymous said...

What Nonsense.

White liberal: OJ was guilty when he was acquitted and innocent when he was found guilty.

White liberal: Let's make welfare a last ditch thing and make it temporary unless there are special circumstances AND lets eliminate the tax breaks for the rich and make them pay the same percentage of their income to taxes like we do
_______
He was guilty and watch your words knee jerk conservative folks. Many gulf war vets who are liberal, but sure as hell not wimps, think some of these sad analogies are getting old.

Your inability to converse with someone slightly different is juvenile and ignorant like the jumping ship Palin.

Taxpayer said...

Why was it mandatory and non-intrusive for the federal government - the US Army and later the civilian General Services Administration, then the bank that hired me to take and file my fingerprints, but it is forbidden to fingerprint someone who wants me to hand over my money so he/she can live a jobless life? And, likely double or triple-dip at that. And, have the entire family collecting. And, all the illegal aliens?

This is ACORN at work - the only work most of them perform. How to effectively steal from the taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

STUPID ARGUMENT!!!!!

Top 10% make over 93% of the income earned!!!

Over 93% of the income earned only pays 90% of the taxes.

That doesn't sound fair!!!!

----------------

Maybe they should pay 100% so you can sit on your fat ass and collect a government check. Does that sound fair? I don't know where your data comes from, so provide a source, but even if it true I'd say 10% covering 90% of your denfense, health care, retirement, roads, etc. is more adequate.

Anonymous said...

who is giving money to rich people?

Former Governor Pataki and the NYS Legislature, that's who. Over the past fifteen years, they have reduced the taxes that the wealthiest new yorkers pay. That, in addition to the recession, is the main reason New York's economy is so bad. Most people on this blog, however, know nothing about the state's tax policy. They would rather blame all of NY's problems on immigrants and supposed welfare cheats. The most significant welfare cheats are the doctors and hospitals who over bill for Medicaid, not the poor people who actually need the help.

Anonymous said...

"Suppose a person who makes $50,000 dollars buys the same $20,000 dollar car. His tax represents 4% of his income."

A person who makes 50K shouldn't be buying a 20K car. But then again, that's the problem w/ this country - the freaken sense of entitlement!

Anonymous said...

I gave the same example to make the math easier. By the same token, Rockefeller could buy a beater if he liked, but the numbers would be impossible to compare. If you like, use the example of the same tax on a 5k beater for both, the percentage of income would remain unchanged.

There are certainly times when a 50K person might buy a 20K car--sales for example. You need the reliable car to work, and you don't have a clue what your income would be.

A person living in the middle of the American West surrounded by desert where a beater car that craps out could kill. That person might have a very high car expense and not be a maniac.

Wade Taken to the Woodshed said...

PRO
Furthermore, data shows an increased concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. If the rich are taxed that badly, why are they getting richer every year?

CON
The ranks of the rich aren't static - take a look at the list of the wealthy in Forbes from 20 years ago, or 100 years ago. How many of those folks are still up top?

You don't hear the names "Carnegie", "Rockefeller", "Morgan", etc. etc. too much anymore. If the wealthy are able to retain their fortunes so easily, why don't we hear those names in the news any more?

REALITY
Rich marry rich, and wealth sleeps with wealth. Today even more so than in the past to the degree that many fear social stratification in this country.

You did not answer the question. Wealth IS getting concentrated in a smaller and smaller circle. What source do you find disproving this?

And the old adage that a crime is behind every fortune is true today as it was when coined after the Civil War.

If a guy is caught shoplifting, he might well serve time. If a rich guy is sued for stock fraud, a good lawyer gets him off every time.

PRO
Talent and hard work can only account for so much.

CON
No quarrel here. That explains why Milli Vanilli sold millions of albums, while most talented opera singers toil in obscurity.

Will Smith sells millions of movie tickets, yet Shakespearean actors perform in small community theaters.

REALITY
If daddy sends you to the nice school, and a bed partner is determined by the size of their (bank account), then you will have a temporary ‘advantage’ -- among shallow people.

Some people stop at nothing - breaking up marriages, bullshitting their way along, living in murky tax havens, name dropping this or that to disguise the hollowness inside. When it all boils down, they are tiresome and tedious. A showy display of wealth is always greeted with frozen smiles.

Sooner or later reality catches up - and , if they are lucky, they find that it takes a hell of a lot more than the dollar to determine true success. That is the easy part.

It is the intangibles that will gets one accepted to good company.

A lesson some people obviously still need to learn.

Now where were we, ah yes, welfare fraud. Hmmm. sounds a bit like stock fraud.

Wade Nichols said...

What source do you find disproving this?

It's not my job to disprove you, it's your job to prove your assertion, whatever the hell that is.

If a rich guy is sued for stock fraud, a good lawyer gets him off every time.

EVERY time? So, that explains why: Bernard Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, and Bernie Madoff are "scott free"?

I've been accused of going on "drunken rants", but I have no idea what the hell you are saying, least of all, what your point is?

Are you smoking PCP again? Or is it DMT this time? Where do you get that stuff?

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to point out that welfare recipients do not receive money for "free." They are required to be involved in employment programs and work activities, in order to find jobs and improve job skills (as they should be), so that they can move off of welfare. I just wanted to make sure folks understood this part, because receiving welfare benefits is not as easy as some people on this board are making it out to be. In fact, having dealt with the welfare system, I honestly believe that (a great majority of) those receiving welfare would rather have their own independent job. The system is not a walk in the park.

Queens Crapper said...

Paterson just eliminated the work requirement. Read the article.

Anonymous said...

I did read the "blog post", and no he didn't. According to the post, the work laws were removed for some welfare recipients that are in college. Also, the article doesn't offer cites to the official legislation and the article from the Times and Governor's press release, which are linked in the blog, do not mention these supposed changes in workfare. Oh, and for a single person, the amount in welfare benefits went up $14.

Anonymous said...

"Paterson’s other welfare “reforms” also eliminate a “workfare” requirement for college students and many able-bodied single men and women"

Prove this is wrong.

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't read what you believe, is all I'm saying. Cite me the legislation. I did a quick search, and couldn't find any changes to welfare law, as mentioned on the blog. The blog offers links to a NY Times article and a press release, neither of which mention changes to the law, besides the increase in the monthly cash grant.

Queens Crapper said...

"Paterson doesn’t mention, though, that in addition to the grant increase, he also approved changes to welfare that unravel many of the reforms that helped reduce the size of the relief dole to levels unseen since the 1930s."

That's because he doesn't mention it, as stated in the article. It would be political suicide for him to do so.

Anonymous said...

But my argument, Crapper, is where is this coming from? Where is the actual legislation that proves this? Just because it's written in a blog?!? Come on...that's ridiculous!

Some self-disclosure here, since I only think it's fair, is that I work with a lot of folks that receive welfare benefits. Because of that, I try to stay on top of changes to the law. So I was aware of the increases to the cash grant. There have been NO changes to the work requirements for a majority of welfare recipients. And I just double-checked some of the recent law changes, to make sure I wasn't losing my mind, and the change to finger imaging, aka fingerprinting, is for Medicaid-only recipients. Those receiving any type of cash assistance or food stamps still MUST be fingerprinted. The article is deceiving, Crapper, and that's all I wanted to point out.

Queens Crapper said...

Where's the bill that shows that welfare was increased? Bills

Anonymous said...

Cutting taxes is not giving money to rich people. Cutting taxes allows people who have worked for their money to keep more of it. Its not the same thing. You can't give me something that already belongs to me. Get it through your thick head.

Anonymous said...

Since the government still needs money to run, "cutting taxes" means shifting the burden from one group to another.

The last few decades the shift has been from a more progressive income tax paid proportionately higher by wealthier individuals to increased reliance on real estate taxes, sales taxes and excise taxes paid proportionately higher by the working and middle classes.

Falling wages, rising debt levels and unfair taxation is why America is now in the sewer.

Anonymous said...

Falling wages, rising debt levels and unfair taxation is why America is now in the sewer.

------

No, spending like there is no tomorrow is the reason why America is now in the sewer.

Anonymous said...

Right now the landlords expect that a 35,000/year secretary pay $1000+ for a studio apartment in the worst neighborhoods in the city. You are right that we are spending like there's no tommorrow--people are strangely addicted to having a roof over their heads, eating regularly, seeing a doctor when necessary, having transportation to work and wearing clothing--how dare they!