Living In Luxury AND Collecting Off Government

[dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com]

From Yahoo! News:

A Seattle woman who is receiving welfare assistance from Washington state also happens to live in a waterfront house on Lake Washington worth more than a million dollars.

Federal agents raided the home this weekend but have not released the woman or her husband's name because they have not officially been charged with a crime.

However, federal documents obtained by KING 5 News show the couple currently receives more than $1,200 a month in public housing vouchers, plus state and government disability checks and food stamps. They have been receiving the benefits since 2003.

The 2,500 square-foot home, which includes gardens and a boat dock, is valued at $1.2 million. And even though the couple has been receiving the benefits for nearly 10 years, records show that they accurately listed the address of their current home when applying for the state and federal benefits.

A federal official told KING 5 that the couple likely took advantage of a loophole, which allows low-income individuals to receive financial assistance to help them pay their rent and move away from housing projects. However, the law does not require officials to verify what type of home the benefits recipient is living in.

As if the million dollar home weren't enough, the supposedly low-income couple also gave money to various charities and traveled around the world to locales in Turkey, Tel Aviv and resort towns in Mexico, according to court records.

I wonder if it's a case of too little government or too much government that allowed these folks to slip through the cracks. They could be charged with fraud, but only if their paperwork reflects falsehood or some sort-of discrepancy. Otherwise, the state (or federal) government gave them a Get Out Of Jail Free card with that loophole!

Instead of blathering about corporate tax loopholes, people should be more concerned with THESE loopholes!

Comments

[eajou.livejournal.com]

The whole article is infuriating, and it is ridiculous that no one caught on to this abuse beforehand.

However, the law does not require officials to verify what type of home the benefits recipient is living in.

Ok, I agree that this is frustrating and should not have been allowed. However, when someone is given money to move out of the housing projects to what extent should the government be allowed to regulate the type of home a person is living in. Where is the cut-off value? Who determines if someone lives in a house that under or over the allowed rate, especially when it comes to houses that are project levels and those that are not? Or will the new "approved" homes become the new projects after a certain amount of years of people only being allowed to live there.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

When people have figured out how to jimmy the system for favors, it's the end of the Republic.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

This isn't "abuse" this is fair use. The fact is, the state created the subsidy and set the amount. These people were creative and efficient in making use of those funds. Nothing more, nothing less.

The disturbing part is that this is the lifestyle that is actually *paid for* for every individual on the dole. The fact that they actually *live* much poorer lives is purely the fault of bad decision making on the part of the recipients.

I can take you to the home of several families of 6(+-1) living in a 5 bedroom single family home (they own it, welfare pays the mortgage), on a 1 acre lot in an urban area, that routinely travel to europe, posess modern smartphones, wear current fashions, enjoy pants-less indoor heat in winter and longsleeved shirt air conditioning in summer, drive late model cars, Smoke 1 pack per day per person, drink a sixpack per day per person, Eat remarkably high on the food chain, and essentially want for nothing material, all on the dole, all legitimately according to the rules the state has created.


The entitlement class in the US is paid a Cadillac wage, the fact that they generally live a yugo lifestyle is down to bad spending behaviours.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

*rages*

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

There was another story about a man who won the lottery to the tune of "enough to comfortably retire" and continued to legally receive food stamps.

And I don't think this was a case of "too little government" but rather a prime example of the government not properly managing its current assets. If the government properly screened people for eligibility and closed loopholes that allow people like this to "work the system," I don't doubt we would be able to reclaim billions of dollars in waste.

[proverbial-one.livejournal.com]

I read this last night. The husband and I agreed that the couple hasn't technically broken any laws. They recorded their address accurately, so there was no intent to commit fraud there. It is likely that they have 'assets' such as the house. They might not have an income because they have cash in the bank. Now okay, they shouldn't be getting public housing vouchers or food stamps, but if they paid disability out of paychecks when they were earning then I think they're entitled to that if one or both has a legal disability.

I think in this case the system probably looked at their income only rather than income plus assets. The problem comes if you start including assets then some people risk actually losing their (small) home. There is probably no 'one size fits all' solution, but at the same time working on a 'case by case' basis leads the door open for accusations of discrimination.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

More appalling news from Entitlement Nation:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/woman-denied-food-stamps-kills-self-shoots-children-181629410.html

Give me Food Stamps or give me death!

[eajou.livejournal.com]

I think that this is in bad taste. She may have really been in need of food stamps in order to feed her kids, had been seeking a way to survive until this point and then was turned down from social services. Extreme poverty has a way of making people snap, and she may have really been in need of assistance. No, it does not excuse her actions, but it is nothing to make fun of. To say that a woman who is apparently desperate for help is "entitled" and then the give me Food Stamps and give me death thing is terrible. Or, she may be an example of someone who just wanted money for the sake of it, but the news story does not give out much information to make judgement.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry but being denied public benefits is no reason at all to shoot your children. Clearly the woman was nuts and/or depraved. Perhaps my tone was a bit cavalier but I believe this story shows how trying solve social problems with government programs do more harm than good.

[eajou.livejournal.com]

Did I say that it was a reason to shoot your children? No, I did not.

Actually, this story proves the exact opposite because if this woman completely snapped because she felt as though she had no other choice than to resort to extreme desperation when she was denied food stamps, and in extension FOOD for herself and her children, then I would say that it IS a social problem that should have been covered by a government program. The government programs are a last resort for the people who use it properly and for those who need it.

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

If the government hadn't put itself in the position of caretaker, then this woman would never have looked to the government for assistance in the first place. I didn't catch if the article mentioned whether or not she'd tried a food pantry, a church (etc), a homeless shelter, etc.

Also, I have a hard time buying her "desperation" when she had enough money to own and operate a gun (ammo isn't cheap). I have some pretty nice things. I also can get myself to a library and sell those things on Craigslist, eBay, or pawn them etc if I needed money. Instead of taking hostages, shooting her children and herself, why didn't she pawn her firerm? That could have easily fed her family for awhile while she disputed the assistance application. This woman obviously had other issues that had nothing to do with the food stamps.

Honestly, I get that there are people who genuinely need help. The question is: is it the government's role in any way/shape/form to provide that assistance? My belief, which I think is consistent with the founding principles of this country, is that it is not. When there is a need for something, an industry will spring up to fill the void. Right now the spread of such industry is not what it could be because the government already fills that role.

As an aside: since the government can't even properly vet who qualifies/truly needs these programs it is extremely wasteful to have them at all. While this lady who was obviously needy got denied, there are people like the ones mentioned in the other post who don't need the assistance yet are getting it anyway. Yet again it proves that government shouldn't have been involved in the first place as they are completely incompetant at meeting the most basic goals of the program.

[eajou.livejournal.com]

You know that I respect you and consider you to be a good online friend so I'm not going to have this debate with you since I genuinely like you.

I just believe that there are more "laughable" and better examples of people attempting to get government assistance (like the woman with god-knows-how-many kids) than an obviously disturbed woman reaching out for help and then going ballistic. You and I could go on about this particular story for a while, but I'm not going to because we don't know the details. Maybe she owned the gun or maybe it belongs to someone else, maybe her apartment is full of stuff and maybe she has nothing left at all - we do not know the background so it is irrelevant to argue this story and whether this is a case of blatant entitlement, laziness or just desperation.

It's the fact that lazypadawan decided to make a joke about a sad situation that ended with children being shot that disturbs me.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

I have a very left-handed, snarky way of addressing things even truly bad things. I didn't want people to laugh at what this woman did.