Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Welfare on the High Seas

If you don't live in the state of California, should you be concerned about what is going on over here? I'm thinking that you should. I say that because this state is going to go broke and it is the rest of the country that is going to end up bailing out this failed experiment at trying to create a utopia. And when you hear of some of the reasons that contribute to the state going broke and then you learn that nothing is being done about them, you're going to be angry that your taxes will (likely) go up to help straighten out this fuster cluck at some point in the future.

Let's take a look at a situation that makes me so angry that I want to take all of my money out of the banks and bury it in the backyard of my walled off compound so that no one else can piss it away like they are. According to an awesome story by the fine folks over there at the
LA Times, you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that between January 2007 and May 2010, "More than $69 million in California welfare money...has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami." Um...wuck?

That's right. Folks on welfare spending their benefits in Vegas, Hawaii and on freaking cruise ships?! Are you dry shaving me?! What the WHAT?! OK. Calm down. Calm. Down. Breathe. Breathe deeper. OK. Now...let's look at what the benefits were spent on and maybe that will shed some light on this that won't make it seem quite so bad, shall we? Sure. Great idea. It can't be as outright fraudulent as it sounds...can it? CAN IT?! Why aren't you answering me?!

Because you know if you answer me, I'm going to have a stroke. Let's see...in Hawaii, we have folks spending MY money by dropping "...$12,433 spent at the upscale Ala Moana shopping center, $3,030 spent at a group of gift shops next to Jimmy Buffett's Beachcomber restaurant on Waikiki Beach and $2,146 withdrawn from ATMs on the island of Lanai, home to a pair of Four Seasons resorts and little else." Breathe, Mare. Breathe....

What else? Oh, Vegas! Vegas took in almost $12 million of taxpayer money in benefits. What was that spent on? Well, there was "...more than $1 million was spent or withdrawn at shops and casino hotels on, or within a few blocks of, the 4.5-mile strip. The list includes $8,968 at the Tropicana, $7,995 at the Venetian and its Grand Canal Shoppes, and $1,332 at Tix 4 Tonight, seller of discount admission for such acts as Cirque du Soleil." Breathe, dammit. Seriously, I don't know if I can take much more. What else is there? "The data also show $16,010 withdrawn from 14 cruise ships sailing from ports around the world — Long Beach, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing. Eight sail primarily from Miami." That's IT!! I've had it!

CRUISE SHIPS?! For those on WELFARE?! Now, now. Calm down. Let's listen to an alleged voice of reason on this whole matter. Let's turn to a legislative advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, a one Jessica Bartholow, who tells us, "I think when somebody hears it's in a fancy hotel in Hawaii or Vegas, it's too easy to assume the [welfare recipient] is visiting that place and it wasn't somebody who stole their card." ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Are you freaking kidding me?! YES! Yes, that is EXACTLY what we think! We do NOT think that their card was stolen! That is correct! We KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed! And now we KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed with the help of Jessica Bartholow and her Center for Sending the Impoverished to Hawaii!! See, this is why you have to believe in God because otherwise, you wouldn't get the pleasure of believing that these folks will go to hell one day.

But what about others in California? Aren't there folks whose job it is to track down this sort of abuse? Of course there are, silly. But, as explained by a one John Haley who is the commander of the financial crimes division of the San Diego County DA's office, "...If it's a one-time thing in Miami, we would never check that out...We look for patterns of abuse." WHAT?! If you are in California and you are ON WELFARE, ANY time in Miami should be checked out! How the hell did you get there and why did you take MY money with you?! Is it because this sort of thing is rare? Uh, well....not exactly. See, Mr. Haley also told the LA Times that "...24% of all new welfare applications in his jurisdiction contain some form of fraud." One in four. But they're never going to catch you if you don't repeatedly go to Miami?! What in the hell kind of a system is THAT?!

Is it just in San Diego? It's not everywhere, is it? IS IT?! Well, um...see...it's like this..."A state audit last year found that none of California's 58 counties was adequately following up on information that could help root out fraud, including monthly computer matches that list clients who are receiving duplicate aid from other states, those who are ineligible because they're in prison and others who have died." Holy. S***.

Remember this when you hear that California has gone bankrupt and your Federal taxes are going to increase to help bail out this mess. And the next time you're going to work, remember that welfare recipients on the public dole are going to Hawaii and Vegas. And finally, remember that constructing a walled off compound is never a bad idea and it's never too late to start.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Illegal Immigrant Thinks We Owe Her


The twisted logic that people use when it comes to illegal immigration always amazes me. And I mean always. It also really confuses me as to how "illegal immigration" seems to be so easily confused with "immigration" when the folks who seem to favor illegal immigration try and paint people who don't favor it as simply "anti-immigration". But I think that might be simply because some folks seem to not define "illegal" in the traditional sense. You know. That of it actually being not legal.

Let's look at an instance of that. Let's look at the instance of a one Zeituni Onyango. (You can pronounce that however you'd like.) I should probably point out that why you're hearing what she thinks of the whole illegal immigration issue is twofold. Fold one: She is in this country illegally. Fold two: She is the aunt of President Barry. Frankly, it's the first point that is more important than the second one. The second one is kind of a little trivia nugget more than anything. But I'm sure you still want to know what she has to say...or something like that.

Ms. Onyango came here in 2000 from Kenya and, according to
AOL News, "...fell ill and was hospitalized." Aww. Well, these things happen. But then, "Upon her release...she was out of money. So rather than return to her homeland, she continued to live in the country in violation of immigration laws." Umm, OK. Yeah, those things happen, too. But they shouldn't. But what was she going to do? She was out of money, for cryin' out loud! Does Kenya give people money when they don't have any? I don't know if they do, but I could think of several reasons why they wouldn't or why they don't.

Now, in a sane society, one would think that if you're out of money, that's going to be a problem, especially if you're from another land. But not here in the good ol' US of A! Nope. Not a problem at all! See, "After stints in a Boston homeless shelter, Onyango was eventually put in public housing and began receiving disability payments." Hmm. Disability payments. Don't those come out of Social Security? Hmm. Aren't most folks expected to pay into that before they draw on it? Technically, yes. Actually, theoretically, yes. And people wonder why it's going broke. Duh.

Her story continues with us learning that "In 2004, an immigration judge ordered her to leave the country, but Onyango remained. However, she noted that her story was less about intentionally flouting federal immigration policy and more about its ineffectiveness. "I didn't take advantage of the system...The system took advantage of me." Uh, wait. What now? The system took advantage of HER?! How in the hell did the system take advantage of HER?! The system told her to leave! That's not taking advantage of her! That's booting her out! She stayed! How is it not her taking advantage of the system? HOW?! Of course, she doesn't elaborate on that.

But what she did elaborate on sent me over the proverbial edge. She said that "...she's done nothing wrong by illegally living in the United States for years and is therefore deserving of amnesty. "If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen." What the what now?

So, in her book, "illegal" doesn't mean "doing something wrong". It means "the system is taking advantage of you"? Where in the hell does she come up with that logic? And since when is any country obligated to a citizen from another country for anything?! I'm pretty sure there isn't any obligation here (other than on her part to get out). And finally, you delusional woman, you didn't come as an immigrant. You were living here illegally. You weren't an immigrant. You were an illegal resident! There's a difference! Why does everyone keep overlooking the difference between "an immigrant" and "an illegal immigrant"?! They're different, for cryin' out loud!

Wow. This is what it's come to? Really? People that don't have any legal right to be here thinking that they are owed something by this country simply because they are here? Really? Wow. I suppose that I should end this by mentioning that Ms. Unpronounceable was granted asylum earlier this year by the same judge that denied her asylum in 2004. (Gee. I wonder why that was? Hmm.) I should probably also mention that she still lives in public housing and still collects $700 per month in disability. She's never paid into the system and she's totally getting her entire lifestyle paid for out of the system. Sure, that seems reasonable. No, I can't see why that would be a problem in the long run. Or in any run. Good Lord, people....

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Casino Benefits For Welfare Recipients


I don't get up every morning just looking to brand someone a moron. I certainly don't get up every morning hoping that I can find someone to outright despise because of what they stand for and how they're going to contribute to the fall of society as we know it. It's not like I'm trying to be annoyed. But when I find out that in "California and Michigan, welfare recipients have been using their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards to withdraw state-funded payment from ATM machines in casinos", I tend to get a little testy.

According to something called Daily Finance, this absurdity that should not be occurring has been surprisingly recognized by politicians who (theoretically) can do something about it like make it so that the ATM machines in the casinos are programmed to not accept the EBT cards (which work like an ATM card does). And look, I realize that someone that is going to spend their money...oh, wait. I said that wrong, didn't I? I realize that someone that is really wants to spend MY money at a casino is going to. They're going to go to some other ATM, withdraw money that my taxes have funded, and then hop their sorry ass to a casino and piss away my money. I get that. But I don't think that the process needs to be made any easier by having the damn ATM AT the freaking casino be capable of giving them MY money.
In California, the surprisingly on the ball Los Angeles Times learned that "...79 out of the 148 tribal casinos and state-licensed poker rooms have welfare-friendly (aka, MY money friendly) ATM machines on the premises." That's over half. Not to mention that it's about 79 too many. And if you're thinking that maybe not a lot of people actually take advantage of this situation, you'd be wrong because "$1.8 million in state welfare revenues were withdrawn from ATMs in gambling establishments over an eight month period." Nice system, California. Whose freaking idea was this to begin with?

Now, you'd think that everyone would be able to be on the same page with getting something like this stopped, wouldn't you? You might think that, but again, you'd be wrong. And that brings me to the woman that I spent today simply loathing. A one Maureen Taylor is the state organizer of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization advocacy group (that's in Michgian). She has a problem with a bill that was introduced by Michigan Senator Bill Hardiman which would "...stop casino ATMs in his state from processing welfare payments." You know what the problem is that she has? Guess. Go on. Guess. You know what? It's so asininely ridiculous, you'll never get it. So, allow me...

Ms. Taylor "...feels that Hardiman's bill singles out welfare recipients unfairly." What? Singles them out? Well, yes. That's what it's supposed to do. You can't not single out a group that is already singled out. If you want to stop casino ATMs from processing welfare payments, that is automatically going to single out the group of people that are on welfare, that is correct. So, what is the problem that Ms. Taylor finds with this intentional and necessary singling out? She claims, "This is a way to corral low-income welfare recipients, put a red mark on their face and say, 'You're not welcome.' " ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Um, Ms. Taylor? Yeah, see, that's right! They're NOT welcome to take MY money and go spend it at a CASINO! They're on freaking WELFARE! They shouldn't HAVE any money to spend at a casino! If they did, they wouldn't be on WELFARE! What part of that do you not understand? It's not like we're trying to stop them from spending their money at a grocery store! It's a G-D casino, for cryin' out loud!

I'm glad that Ms. Taylor isn't in politics because that would be cause for alarm. I have no idea what the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization does exactly, but the fact that they use the word "Rights" in their title does not bode well with me. How come there is a "right" to be on welfare, but there isn't a "right" for those of us who pay for it to opt out? Oh, that's right. Because all of us would, that's why. I really wish that she had elaborated on that statement, but she didn't. And in a way, I think I'm glad. I don't know if I could have taken her explanation without needing an entire bottle of gin.

Side note: Against my better judgment, I went to the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization website to see what they were all about. I got as far as what is apparently their mission statement: "You get what you are organized to take!" I couldn't read any more after that, as I kind of think that says it all, don't you? Now, where did I put that gin?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...