The New Welfare Swindle

[bonnie]

The New Welfare Swindle

By Christopher Orlet on 11.17.11 @ 6:08AM

SSI has replaced AFDC as the New Welfare.

Ever since I moved to the inner city one thing has puzzled me more than any other, and that is how my low-income neighbors get by. Assuming they aren't doing anything illegal, how do they afford their homes, their meals, their gadgets, their cars?

Few seem to work, even part time, for they are home in the morning when I leave for work, home if I stop by for lunch, and home when I return in the evening. They can't work the graveyard shift, for they keep me up half the night with their raucous music. I am left to conclude that they seldom, if ever work. Therefore, their funds must come from elsewhere. And none of them strike me as a trust fund baby.

The best I can figure is they make do with a patchwork of welfare programs. Besides, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which expires after five years, there is housing assistance, WIC (Women, Infants and Children) and Medicaid. There are food stamps, which also can be sold in parking lots for cash, and various lesser programs, such as heating assistance.

Beyond government subsidies, there is no shortage of help available from church and nonprofit groups. My mother volunteers at a pregnancy crisis center where the poor are given free diapers, clothing, and baby formula. Every day she has to turn away scammers who try to exceed their monthly allotment. Our parish sponsors a food pantry and local religious organizations provide free furniture. Meantime, nearly all of my neighbors have cable, big screen plasma TVs, and cell phones (I have none of these). From the smells that waft over our fence, many somehow afford illegal drugs.

But even with government subsidies, housing isn't completely covered. By my reckoning my neighbors must still come up with a few hundred dollars a month for rent and miscellaneous expenses.

THEN A SOCIAL WORKER friend clued me in. Many of the poor also collect federal disability benefits in the form of Supplemental Security Insurance, or "crazy money" as it is known on the streets, since one must "act crazy" to receive it. Oftentimes several people in the same household -- adults and children -- collect checks. This surprised me, since I had never for a moment guessed that my neighbors were disabled.

SSI was enacted in 1974 to supplement the Social Security benefits of disabled low-income seniors, and, as an afterthought, to help pay for the care of severely disabled children from poor families. As with any federal program, SSI has ballooned to Hindenbergian proportions, and now covers virtually any low-income person with any long-term ailment. Not surprisingly, easy-to-fake learning, behavioral, and mental disorders are the most common complaints, especially among children, making up 55 percent of all cases.

Poor adults, who in pre-welfare reform days were offered incentives to be idle and proliferant, are again incentivized to be idle and proliferant. And what an incentive it's been. Last year the Social Security Administration paid almost $50 billion in SSI benefits. More than $9 billion was paid to 1.2 million disabled children.

What's more, recipients are not required to get treatment for their or their children's maladies -- although this may be a good thing, since it is doubtless harmful for kids to take powerful psychotropic drugs for counterfeit or exaggerated symptoms.

My friend visits one such family in which four members collect SSI checks, one adult and three children. One child suffers from asthma, which would probably clear up if the mother -- who is unemployed -- bothered to clean her house. However, she has a monetary incentive not to clean or to seek treatment for her child, for if the asthma cleared up, and this was found out (an unlikely event since SSA workers routinely fail to conduct follow up visits), that could mean one less check. Also, like the now defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children, SSI encourages dependency and is cyclical in nature. More than half who go on SSI as a child, requalify as adults. And the cycle continues.

Economically speaking, it makes perfect sense for the poor to rely on SSI. Compared to the old welfare, SSI is a plump cash cow. Here in Missouri, one of the least generous states, TANF recipients receive a measly $136 per person per month, while each SSI recipient takes home about $674. A family of four could amass $32,352 annually, not counting other benefits. Besides, since most of my neighbors dropped out of high school, there is not much they could do to earn a living other than work in fast food for minimum wage. And why put yourself through that when you can watch television all day and collect more in aid? Why bother trying to raise yourself up?

In 1988, there were 4.46 million SSI recipients. Today, there are 8 million. It is impossible to know how many of these are fakers gaming the system, but SSI recipients know no color or geographic boundary. Federal data shows that roughly half are white, half black. Nor does the phenomenon apply to all of the poor. My social worker friend visits several severely mentally handicapped persons who work menial jobs rather than accept government largess. They take pride in going to work every day and in setting a good example for their children. My neighbors would think them crazy.

[Liz]

I guess TANF varies from state to state. We applied for TANF in Texas, and was denied because we have a home and a vehicle. So here one can't get TEMPORARY assisstance until one is homeless. Makes no sense.

I also think there needs to be more checks and balances in these programs.

While my family is working hard to stay off of government assistance, with each new diagnosis (and I mean real ones, not the fake ones mentioned in the article) it is getting harder and harder to do.

[bonnie]

I guess TANF varies from state to state. We applied for TANF in Texas, and was denied because we have a home and a vehicle. So here one can't get TEMPORARY assisstance until one is homeless. Makes no sense.

I also think there needs to be more checks and balances in these programs.

While my family is working hard to stay off of government assistance, with each new diagnosis (and I mean real ones, not the fake ones mentioned in the article) it is getting harder and harder to do.

There should not be any shame or condemnation where there is a true need.Unfortunately our aid goes to so many that milk the system leaving far to little for those that need assistance thru no fault of their own

My nephew is schizophrenic.A young man and very sad to watch.He is on SSI.HIs medications are paid for by the state and it is a constant worry when cuts are announced. MN is a welfare state and many come here just for that and all the benefits,leaving his medical care uncertain.He is maintaining well and does what every able bodied welfare recipient should be doing.

He earns what he is allowed by law thru different ways he has worked to establish.He takes care of as many of his own needs as possible.Yet what will happen to his very necessary care with more and more on the government system and paying less and less?

[Dr. Shane]

SSI is a problem but let's be honest about how it got started and why it continues. Lawyers. There are lawyers that specialize in Social Security cases and they look for these people so they can fight for their benefits. The benefits are almost always retroactive and the lawyer gets 1/3 of the back-payment which ends up to be thousands of dollars. If we limit the fee that lawyers can charge for processing SSI cases, we would see the number of applicants drop dramatically. The lawyers would suddenly find it more profitable to chase ambulances than to look for poor kids they can make disabled.

[bonnie]

SSI is a problem but let's be honest about how it got started and why it continues. Lawyers. There are lawyers that specialize in Social Security cases and they look for these people so they can fight for their benefits. The benefits are almost always retroactive and the lawyer gets 1/3 of the back-payment which ends up to be thousands of dollars. If we limit the fee that lawyers can charge for processing SSI cases, we would see the number of applicants drop dramatically. The lawyers would suddenly find it more profitable to chase ambulances than to look for poor kids they can make disabled.

It doesn't start with the lawyers. It starts with those that pass the laws without having clear,concise guidelines.Disabled has come to mean anything they want it to mean. Then those looking to game the system,already dishonest and grasping at heart go to the lawyers.

Without those wanting something for nothing the lawyers would not have nearly the business in this area. Lawyers do not produce the demand.

Personal responsibility and a little honesty would go a long way.I don't believe SSI is retroactive

[phkrause]

So why don't you tell my wife that she shouldn't be on SSI????? That its not something that we all work for our whole working days. She broke her back and is now on SS Dissibility, which I'm guessing you mean. What I'd like to know is what Welfare and SS had to do with each other????? Welfare is welfare and SS is something that all workers work for, do they not????? I keep hearing that there are so many people scamming the system, so lets see some names!!! Why not report them, or is it we really don't know any??? And Shane is correct about retroactive. It goes back from the time you file. So if it takes a few months, than they back pay, but all the back pay goes back to the insurance company.

[Dr. Shane]

It starts with those that pass the laws without having clear,concise guidelines.

Are most legislators lawyers or farmers?

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

It starts with those that pass the laws without having clear,concise guidelines.

Are most legislators lawyers or farmers?

I don't care what they are. If they are not intelligent enough to draft a concise,clear set of guidelines they have no business there.

Regardless,no matter how crooked/cunning the lawyer he/she can

do nothing on my behalf without my willingness,consent and written permission.

Last year I had five back to back surgeries.I did quite extensive research online.I am still getting bombarded with e-mails soliticing me to come for a interview to see if I have a claim.

The complaints listed are from serious issues that can arise with the types of surgeries I had to the ridiculous.

Anxiety and depression are just two.

None of those soliciting me have any power to do anything without my consent.It really begins with me

[bonnie]

Why not report them, or is it we really don't know any??? And Shane is correct about retroactive. It goes back from the time you file. So if it takes a few months, than they back pay, but all the back pay goes back to the insurance company.

From Wikipedia

SSI is not retroactive, unlike Social Security Disability. Social Security determines the first month of potential eligibility for SSI by the date of the intent to file an application for benefits as expressed to the Social Security Administration, and an application is filed within 60 days of the date of that expressed intention

[bonnie]

So why don't you tell my wife that she shouldn't be on SSI?????

[bonnie]

My husband was forced into early retirement.He began having strokes at age 58. The sixth stroke forced him to quit working at 62,especially in his profession.

Due to the fact he was of an age for early retirement it did not occur to me to file for SSD.Three years later in doing some reading on SSD it sounded like he qualified for SSD,which would give him full retirement benefits. We applied and went thru the process of tests and interviews and he was approved.SSD did pay retroactive

[Dr. Shane]

Shane is incorrect

A Social Security lawyer that specialized in getting people SSI use to have his office across the hall from mine in the office building I was in. We had all kinds of characters in the hall waiting for him. He would come over and show me his share of the settlement checks he would get and most were between $10K and $15K. I don't know the details but I know he was getting rich.

Of course I live in one of the poorest counties in the US. I don't know about other areas but here the lawyers pay for billboards offering to get people their SSI benefits. Seems there is big money in it for lawyers and they are all too willing to help people get these benefits.

[bonnie]

Not sure what he was showing you or claiming but it was not a share of a SSD or SSI settlement.

Attorney's cannot receive more than 25% of the settlement and that is capped at somewhere between 5500.00 and 6000.00.Don't remember the exact cap but it did not exceed 6000.00.Nor can the attorney charge a claimant addttional up to 10,000 and 15,000.00.The fee is paid from the federal or state agency directly to the attorney.

The bottom line is the attorney cannot help anyone legit or not till that person is willing and signs permission.The party hiring the attorney needs to make the first move in okaying any action

SSD is paid by Social Security(federal government) based on what you have paid in.SSI is paid by the states.

[Dr. Shane]

Not sure why that quoting didn't work. I tried to fix the quote but it didn't appear anything was wrong to fix. So I deletedd it completely since it was just quoting the previous post in its entirety.

I always thought it was odd that he was getting a check from the government for his fee. I mean, why wouldn't a lawyer get direct deposit. The state and federal construction projects we build pay us with direct deposit. So that seemed a little odd.

But that doesn't take away from my point which is that lawyers are the people hunting down this folks and getting them on SSI. Lawyers made the laws to begin with and then they take advantage of the laws. It isn't the poor chap "living off the system" that is so deserving of our ire. It is that fat cat lawyers living high on the hog creating the system so that he and she can later take advantage of it.

[bonnie]

I always thought it was odd that he was getting a check from the government for his fee. I mean, why wouldn't a lawyer get direct deposit. The state and federal construction projects we build pay us with direct deposit. So that seemed a little odd.

[Dr. Shane]

The "poor chap living off the system" that does not have a true and legit need is a crook.

If I respond to an ad I see from a lawyer, visit the lawyer and he or she tells me about all this government money that I have a *right* to, I certainly am not going to feel like a crook for accepting it.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

The "poor chap living off the system" that does not have a true and legit need is a crook.

If I respond to an ad I see from a lawyer, visit the lawyer and he or she tells me about all this government money that I have a *right* to, I certainly am not going to feel like a crook for accepting it.

If I go to a lawyer claiming a disability I know I don't have,the fault is mine.Government money is taxpayer money.

Must be a nice world so many live in.No personal responsibility,all the fault of someone else.

If I make up disabilities and find an unethical lawyer,it is his fault for being there.

If I choose to bring a child into the world I cannot care for it is the fault of the government for not protecting me from the consequences of my own behavior.

If I am poor it is the fault of someone else and they owe me.

If I cannot make a go of a business it is the fault of the bankers or those that undercut me.

If I want to go to college and someone doesn't pay they can just expect me to begin a life of crime or live on welfare

If my neighbor has more than I, the government says that is unfair and they will take it from him and make it right.

Personally I don't think that kind of reasoning worked to well for Adam and Eve or for the rest of us.

[Dr. Shane]

A lot of the time, the lawyer convinces them they have a disability. Of course, only low-income people qualify for the program so let's not covet their low-income status too much. Do we need to talk about the parable of the vineyard Owner again?

[bonnie]

A lot of the time, the lawyer convinces them they have a disability. Of course, only low-income people qualify for the program so let's not covet their low-income status too much. Do we need to talk about the parable of the vineyard Owner again?

They must first have it in their minds to get something for nothing.Poor people are not nearly as ignorant as you make them out to be.If someone has to convince you that you indeed have a disability you cannot be to disabled.Especially if you did not know you had one prior to seeking out a lawyer.

Low income DISABLED,not purely low income.I do not covet their low income status,nor do I elevate low income to a pedastal,one that entitles to what should not be theirs.

The parable of the Vineyard does not have any application to fraud and deceit.You can talk about it as much as you wish.

The parable deals with the owner of the vineyard doing what was lawful with his own money.Not money taken from others by a government and given to those that are guilty of deceit

[Dr. Shane]

The parable deals with the owner of the vineyard doing what was lawful with his own money.

Indeed. The tax-payers of the US have decided, through their elected representatives, what they want to do with their money. That is called democracy. Let's not covet the status of the low-come. It is Thanksgiving time. Let's be grateful for all the Lord has blessed us with.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

The parable deals with the owner of the vineyard doing what was lawful with his own money.

Indeed. The tax-payers of the US have decided, through their elected representatives, what they want to do with their money. That is called democracy. Let's not covet the status of the low-come. It is Thanksgiving time. Let's be grateful for all the Lord has blessed us with.

No they have not decided they want to provide for thieves and liars.

I do not covet the status of the low income. I do pity those children that are coached by parents so they qualify for what is refered to as "crazy money" I pity those that will scam the system so they can leech off of society and call it fair.

Many of these children are medicated needlessly all for the unlawful gain of parents that should never have had children.

I have a lot of sympathy for those that truly need the help and are shortchanged by the parasites.

I have zero respect for the opinion of those that want to present themselves as so christian and loving that they condone and promote fraud.

A friend of mine has a small professional kennel and frequently has small puppies for sale.On more than one occasion

she deals with parents that receive their income off their children thru SSI.Twice in the past week she had two families that could not control their children.One had four children and three supposedly have severe ADD.Climbing all over the furniture and dropping a couple of the puppies.The parents just shrugged and said they are hard to handle.Fran said Really? She told the children to sit down and do not get up till you leave or you will have to go to the car.Amazing these children that could not be controlled sat for the next 45 minutes very quietly.In the end Fran refused to sell them a puppy at any cost.A family on SSI should not be able to afford a 600.00 puppy.She also rents out a storage shed.One family brought their 7 year old son.Again,another one with ADD.Took a stick and started chasing and hitting their outdoor cats.The mother said he is so hard to control.Fran told the kid to stand by his mother and stay their till their business was complete.Amazing,again a uncontrollable child with disabilities

did exactly as told.She told the mother to leave the child at home the next time.These children are to be pitied.

SSI was never intended for the way it is now used.

Only the unchristian champion fraud and deception

[bonnie]

Quote:

It is Thanksgiving time. Let's be grateful for all the Lord has blessed us with.

I am very thankful for many things.

Some things stand out more than others.One is growing up knowing that poverty was not a excuse for self pity,for ignorance,unwillingness to do as much as possible for myself.Above all that poverty was no excuse to take what belonged to another thru fraud and deceit.

The surest way to get into trouble in our house was to blame someone else for our actions.For that I am truly thankful.

[Dr. Shane]

It's the lawyers. They write the laws and then take advantage of them.

[bonnie]

It's the lawyers. They write the laws and then take advantage of them.

No.The lawyers may spend time and money trying to influence the way the laws are written or have the education to bend them to a personal advantage but they do not write them.

Politicians with their hand out and pockets open write them.

If lawyers had written this one they would not be capped at 6,000.00 or less.

When you can show a person that has been dragged unwillingly to a lawyers office,told he is disabled, hold a gun to their head, and now sign here so I can get the money I might believe the lawyer is at fault.

The law firms that have contacted me over my surgeries,whether legit or not,whether they wrote the laws they now want to use or not,have no effect on my life whatsoever. They cannot in any way force me to claim a disability or to join a class action lawsuit.Only if I have a "entitlement/welfare mentality

interested in scamming the system,being dishonest,and to blame lazy to work for what I need,will those lawyers have any effect on what I do.

You promote/condone/approve of that mentality under the excuse of being poor. Does it make you feel superior to advance the idea that "poor" equals "stupid,ignorant,incompetent"? Or that it is a acceptable reason for being dishonest?

[Dr. Shane]

Many of the politicians are lawyers. They write the laws. This SSI problem is one that has been completely created by the lawyers. I don't blame the poverty-stricken soul looking for a little extra help.