Tsarneavs Received Over $100K in Government Handouts
The Tsarnaev family, including the suspected terrorists and their parents, benefited from more than $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance — a bonanza ranging from cash and food stamps to Section 8 housing from 2002 to 2012, the Herald has learned.
“The breadth of the benefits the family was receiving was stunning,” said a person with knowledge of documents handed over to a legislative committee today.
Your tax dollars, hard at work.
Welfare recipients.
Terrorists.
Coincidence?
I think not.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/29/2013 @ 7:36 pmSo much for “be nice to them and they will love us once they live here” idea.
They “loved” us as much as Sayidd Qtub did. After his college stay here, he helped found The Muslim Brotherhood.
Patricia (be0117) — 4/29/2013 @ 7:38 pmExtraordinarily nice!/
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/29/2013 @ 7:39 pmShe’s a Killer [welfare] Queen/
Gunpowder, guillotine/
Dynamite with a laser beam/
Guaranteed to blow your [city]
Anytime
Raise your hand if you are making the point that welfare recipients are equivalent to terrorists.
JD (b63a52) — 4/29/2013 @ 7:40 pmCoincidence?
It’s certainly not a coincidence that an attitude of self-entitlement and a growing sense that the US is one big pushover — full of enablers at the highest levels (hey, Eric Holder, keep your heart bleeding profusely over the meanness and cruelty of traditional national borders and non-permissive immigration policies!!) — are pervasive during a period of dippy liberalism run amok.
Mark (f474e0) — 4/29/2013 @ 7:46 pmWell I mean… we’re all just trying to get a reaction, right?
Maybe I misunderstood.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/29/2013 @ 7:47 pmA family income of $100,000 spread over 12 years is not exactly hitting the lottery. That would be abject poverty nearly anywhere in the USA.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/29/2013 @ 7:48 pmThe larger issue for me is whether they were allowed here under asylum because their lives were in danger in Russia. This has been reported several places. Relocated asylum seekers do usually receive a stipend and assistance to help the family get settled. OK. But that then does not track that mom, dad and Tamerlan apparently all were able to travel back and forth quite freely. That seems odd if they were in fact living in America only because they were in fear for their lives “back home”.
elissa (718c61) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:13 pmKevin M (#7): You are correct. Nevertheless, spread out over time or considered in the aggregate, it’s a great deal more than the one red cent they should never have been given.
pa (4f643b) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:17 pmLeviticus, you are too clever by half.
Ag80 (19f299) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:30 pmTeh folly of yute…
Colonel Haiku (a1b619) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:34 pmHet racists, don’t you dare try to use this to slow up the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform, right as the train is leaving the station. Just trust Chuck Schumer and Janet Napolianto to take care of our security, ‘k?
Racists.
JVW (4826a9) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:40 pmIt really isn’t much of a coincidence that the terrorists were living off the taxpayer dime. At least one Islamic Preacher in the West calls it the “jihad seeker’s allowance.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/anjem-choudary-muslim-preacher-explains-government-assistance-to-fund-jihad-holy-war-2013-2
Choudray isn’t the only cleric in Islam who considers welfare a form of the jizya. The mandatory tax owed to the Muslims by the kuffar.
Just like Egypt’s Khaled Said isn’t the only Muslim cleric who considers US foreign aid a form of the jizya.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/egyptian-cleric-says-american-aid-mandatory-tax/?page=all
It isn’t just the media that’s gone to great pains to obfuscate and avoid discussing what’s actually going on in Islamic terms. So has the American left. Why do you think Obama had ship stain treated as a normal criminal defendant and mirandized so quickly?
No Islam to see here, folks. Move along.
But yes, Leviticus, in your attempt to be ironic you actually hit on something very close to the truth.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:40 pmWhoops, that should be “hey racists.” Didn’t mean to restrict the racist population to heterosexuals only.
JVW (4826a9) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:42 pmAmericans are the biggest suckers on the planet thanks to liberal largesse with other people’s money.
Colonel Haiku (0750a3) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:42 pmI need to point out two things. Anjem Choudray isn’t the only Muslim cleric to believe what he does about living on the dole as a right for jihadists.
And Khaled Said isn’t the only cleric to consider US aid a form of tribute payment that it owes to the Muslims.
This was exactly the position the Barbary Coast pirates took, the one that precipitated the first foreign war the United States ever fought.
Choudray’s and Said’s attitude is nothing new. As a matter of Islamic law their points are well founded. It’s been consistent since before this nation was a nation.
President Tiger Beat can’t shut up about how Thomas Jefferson had a Koran in the White House. He wants you to believe that indicates the religion of Islam was somehow important here in the US. When in fact Jefferson had it as a “know your enemy” guide.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:49 pmIf this doesn’t stop immigration “reform,” nothing will.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/29/2013 @ 8:49 pmSadly, DRJ, I think that indeed nothing will. I do think this should allow the House GOP to insist on tying amnesty to security, so I hope they can do it in a meaningful way.
JVW (4826a9) — 4/29/2013 @ 9:05 pmBy the way, as an ex-Bostonian let me just say thank God for the Herald. There is no way the Globe would have ever investigated this story, let alone published it.
JVW (4826a9) — 4/29/2013 @ 9:18 pmJust as I believe Holder and Obama need to be impeached when ship stain inevitably trades information to make a plea deal, any GOP Senator who votes for amnesty needs to get thrown out on their fat a**es.
Fortunately the way representatives Cotton and Goodlatte have been talking I doubt comprehensive immigration reform has a chance in the House.
While they’re debating that, as the stupidity of mirandizing the Boston Marathon bomber and trying him in the civilian court system grows clearer every day they need to hold parallel hearings on the DoJ’s betrayal of the American people and national security as a sacrifice to their traitorous leftist worldview.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/29/2013 @ 9:29 pmmama terrorist scares me cause of how freaky she is
plus she’s doing on chechnya what borat did on kazakhstan times like a thousand
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/29/2013 @ 9:41 pmIdle hands are the devil’s tools, Leviticus. That’s why it’s no coincidence.
Dustin (2da3a2) — 4/29/2013 @ 9:57 pmSandra Fluke says that $100,000 only represents like three years of contraception coverage for the family you right wing nutbagz.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2013 @ 10:05 pmThere’s a good video by Steve Coughlin, a former intelligence analyst for the Joint Chiefs, on the Boston Marathon bombing, the concept of individual jihad, and why the FBI could not find any derogatory information even if it was sitting right in front of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0l_4udm-A4&feature=player_embedded
It’s 50 minutes long, but people really need to watch it to learn just how derelict our government has been and continues to be. And, again, it provides all the information you need to know why the Obama administration didn’t declare ship stain an enemy combatant but instead mirandized him and in effect told him to shut up. For the same reason we use drone strikes to assassinate jihadis rather than capture them. They don’t want the intelligence, and they certainly don’t want it made public.
When Rep. Louie Gohmert says Obama has Muslim Brotherhood advisers I don’t think you know just how right he is. Hopefully he knows how right he is.
Dustin @22, in the case of Muslim terrorists the hands aren’t exactly idle but they are already the devil’s tools. Certainly you can’t really be idle when you have to build or test your pressure pot bombs in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, or assemble a 1,600 pound truck bomb in the case of Ramzi Yousef. But you also can’t hold down a job. Which is why, as Anjem Choudray advises, they need to live on public support.
As both the Tsarnaevs were. In ship stain’s case on a scholarship.
You know, ship stain was an outstanding student in high school. He was flunking out of U. Mass.
I wonder what he was doing instead of working.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/29/2013 @ 11:30 pm*I wonder what he was doing instead of
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/29/2013 @ 11:32 pmworkingstudying.*My Lady Wife is (legitimately, I add) on Social Security Disability. We CERTAINLY get more than that $100,000 in 10 years. I’m sorry; I don’t want government assistance programs to be tied to ideology. If they qualified for assistance, then it isn’t a bug that they got it.
OK, they were evil bastards. I think that a LOT of government departments failed miserably in not detecting this BEFORE the bombs went off. But that wasn’t the job of the departments that dole out assistance, and I don’t want it to be.
This is a “So the F*ck What?” issue.
If the amount they got is an outrage, then it would still be an outrage if a family of saints got it. Make an argument against the level of assistance available on that basis. Leave these rat-bastards out of it.
C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd) — 4/29/2013 @ 11:44 pmSandra Fluke says that $100,000 only represents like three years of contraception coverage for the family you right wing nutbagz.
Or 6 months of gigolos.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:05 amThat’s my point. You don’t have as much time to screw around with extremist nutjobs and bombs if you need to get a job to feed and house yourself. We have far too much of this idleness, and it’s fundamentally unnatural, undignified, and leads to many sad outcomes.
With all due respect, I think there’s something wrong with able bodied men qualifying for any welfare of any kind. I am sure your wide is a completely different matter, and please don’t interpret this as directed that way, but I do believe there are people on disability who should not be.
I also believe that we should deport many who are on any kind of welfare (to include any kind of welfare for dependents).
Here’s the basis: we don’t have enough money for this crap.
Dustin (2da3a2) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:10 amHopefully, none of our tax dollars are going towards funding law schools in New Mexico.
Icy (410242) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:12 amYou are missing the entire point. The issue is why did these people qualify for asylum and attain refugee status at all? And how did they retain it after making trips back to the very place that was supposedly so dangerous that they qualified as refugees.
Which wasn’t Chechnya. It was Russia. Neither of the boys were born in Chechnya, and as far as I can tell neither were their parents because the region of Russia that the family was from had a large population of ethnic Chechens.
There were plenty of places in Russia that they could have gone far away from Chechnya if they were worried about the conflict there. Or indeed other places in the Commonwealth of Independent States, as demonstrated by this very family when they lived in distant Kyryzstan on the border with China.
Of course they received public assistance. Refugees always do. The question is how did they qualify for that status.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:24 amVoters suck.
mg (31009b) — 4/30/2013 @ 1:11 amWe the people are afraid to respond with action.
Chicken shits finish dead last.
I think this will turn out to be a thing. Via the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/canadian-boxer-had-links-to-boston-bomber-20130429-2io3k.html
Yeah! The system works; thanks big sister.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 2:17 amAs an un-enrolled voter, my choices today.
Democrat
Ed Markey
Steve Lynch
Republican
A Hispanic who sends love letters to obama.
A Irishman who has no chance
And someone else who has no chance.
I’m thinking Lynch because Markey has never had a job!!!
mg (31009b) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:29 amI don’t want the arguments to be personal.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:29 amNo wonder the Patrick administration was fighting so valiantly to protect the dead terrorist’s right to privacy.
Bud Norton (29550d) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:37 amThe USSR and the PRC “worked” because neighbor spied on neighbor and children snitched on their parents and vice versa.
Otherwise, the ‘authorities’ are outnumbered hundreds to one and hobbled by their command and control inadequacies.
One wonders how the Collective thinks they’re going to pull off a quiet revolution without sufficient palm grease.
Transition to a command economy isn’t going well.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/30/2013 @ 6:10 amSteve 57; As I said; there are LOTS of departments that look like right fools, but none of them pass out money. The post is about the islamogerbils receiving over $100,000 in government handouts. OK, annoying. But the departments that pass out the cash depend on the findings of the departments that were SUPPOSED to keep bombers from getting in in the first place.
C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd) — 4/30/2013 @ 6:25 amJD wrote:
They’re certainly terrorizing my wallet!
The Dana raising his hand (3e4784) — 4/30/2013 @ 6:47 am#29 was cold, Icy!
Colonel Haiku (291aa2) — 4/30/2013 @ 6:55 am“But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar [non-believers].”
BTW, I just happened to catch a few minutes of the ABC World News program on Sunday, which had a segment on the one liners done by Obama at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The news show (and, yea, it’s a show) had snippet after snippet after snippet, after snippet, of his routine. That portion of ABC’s “news” was such a ridiculously drawn-out bit, that even a dyed-in-the-wool liberal would have to cringe and admit the segment entered the realm of the absurd. But the media isn’t biased to the left! How can they be?! They’re all owned by big capitalists! (We’re gonna need a lot more rope, folks.)
Mark (c5d4eb) — 4/30/2013 @ 7:04 amMr Schofield wrote:
I will be the guy who is an [insert slang term for the sphincter here] enough to ask why my tax dollars should pay for your wife’s disability, regardless of whether she is legitimately qualified for it or not. Why should I have to pay for your family’s misfortunes? Why should your family have your hands in my wallet? Why shouldn’t you be the one who has to support your wife?
If we want to end illegal immigration, the solution is simple: end welfare. If we want to stop Islamists from living on the public dole, the solution is simple: end welfare.
The solution to every problem we have is to require families to support themselves, to require everyone to either work or starve. It is our good-hearted generosity which has gotten us into the problems our society has: absent fathers, high-school dropouts, malingerers who believe that someone else owes them a living, virtually everything. We wouldn’t have illegal immigration if Americans didn’t have the option of not doing the jobs that the Mexicans will take.
You see, Mr Schofield, the question isn’t the level of assistance available, but the availability of assistance in the first place. Am I willing to see people go hungry rather than to pay for welfare? Yes, I absolutely am.
The Dana who is willing to tell the truth (3e4784) — 4/30/2013 @ 7:07 amThat’s why Islam denigrates hard work and glorifies slavery, “jizya” and banditry.
Really? They don’t check to see if people are actually incapable of work?
Rob Crawford (c55962) — 4/30/2013 @ 7:13 amHow dare you object to being enslaved!
Rob Crawford (c55962) — 4/30/2013 @ 7:14 amBread and the Games!
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/30/2013 @ 7:15 amMr Crawford wrote, with tongue firmly planted in cheek:
[scoffs]
The Dana answering a rhetorcal question (3e4784) — 4/30/2013 @ 7:29 amThe federal government — helping the foreign-born to build a better
Icy (410242) — 4/30/2013 @ 7:54 ambomblife here in America.Discretion and valor, Mr. Colonel. Moving along …
Icy (410242) — 4/30/2013 @ 8:01 amThe solution to every problem we have is to require families to support themselves, to require everyone to either work or starve.
Good luck with that.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/30/2013 @ 8:15 amMr M wrote:
Oh, I know, I know: it will never happen, because we are just to good and kind-hearted to do what needs to be done. But that we won’t do it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t need to be done.
The sadly realistic Dana (3e4784) — 4/30/2013 @ 8:30 amHelp someone one time, you get gratitude.
Help them all the time, you get an ingrate.
ras (9960c3) — 4/30/2013 @ 8:33 amPrez Obama says out-of-closet NBA player can “still bang with Shaq” and “deliver a hard foul”.
TMI
Colonel Haiku (ec1f48) — 4/30/2013 @ 8:39 am41, Dana (etc); No offense taken. If tomorrow the citizens of this country voted to end future disability payments, I would take it philosophically ( I would also scramble around quite a bit; it would leave a big hole in our budget). But we paid a lot of SS taxes when she was working. In theory (we weren’t real fiscally responsible when young) we would have had a heck of a lot more money if we hadn’t been required to pay into the system. Then, when she crashed, we took the money that our society offered us. If we could get food stamps, we would. I wouldn’t apologize for it, and I wouldn’t pout if they got stopped by over action.
I agree that putting an end to welfare would probably be a good thing, though I think that in an ideal world we would do something about the quality of inner city schools (like give control back to the locals) about 20 years before. But I’m not going to waste the energy to be angry at anyone who is on welfare; they didn’t hold the government or me up at gunpoint. They took what was offered them. And much good has it done them.
C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd) — 4/30/2013 @ 8:46 am49. Once upon a time, head of household would appear before the County Board, hat in hand, to request assistance.
Self-esteem suffered and the Feds stepped in.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/30/2013 @ 8:46 amHere are the people who deserve no help:
http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/04/obama-admin-threatening-benghazi-whistleblowers/
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/30/2013 @ 8:49 amStunning? Really?
I’m sure they were legally entitled to every dime.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 4/30/2013 @ 9:01 amDana #41 – I suspect that, like many of us conservatives and genuinely compassionate folk, you are willing to see someone go hungry, yet you would voluntarily share your food with someone who is starving who is also doing his or her best to work for food …
I am at the point where, when the current administration talks about the obesity epidemic (and wants to impose more central control) and about the hunger epidemic (and wants to impose more central control), my response is to recommend that the obese get together with the hungry and solve each other’s problem …
Irritatingly enough (cuz I enjoy both cooking *and* eating), there are studies to show that being hungry is good for us … whereas starving is not good for us …
Alasdair (a28b33) — 4/30/2013 @ 9:10 amAlasdair wrote:
More than you might ever imagine. And my charitable contributions — all to the Church, which runs plenty of programs for the poor — are substantial.
But as an entitlement, with no discretion other than eligibility standards, we have institutionalized poverty in a sick way: we have made the Faustian bargain that if a person is willing to agree to live in poverty, we will agree to give him enough to keep a (shabby) roof over his head and (poor) food on his table, and he will not have to work.
The good-hearted, highly educated and hard working people who devised our welfare system never really thought of it as a bargain like that; that someone would agree to live in squalor, as long as he didn’t have to either work or starve, was something simply so far outside their egocentric conceptual framework that it just wasn’t considered to be a serious problem. Societal shame would keep people from doing that, if nothing else.
But as welfare incrementally grew, as a few more and a few more people got on the dole, the shame factor withered. “Well, I know Bobby down the street, and his parents are OK, and they’re on welfare!” The government even got rid of printed Food Stamps, that everybody could see when used, and now it’s just a debit card, no different from the one I use for groceries, no muss, no fuss, no ostentatious display, and they get their food and they’re on their way.
I’d be very much for welfare, if welfare actually worked the way it was intended, a temporary hand up for people suffering a misfortune. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works anymore; it is the support for a permanent leeching class, and it is destroying our very society.
The Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 4/30/2013 @ 9:29 amYou will note there are two components to this post. The islamogerbils, and the $100k. I am focusing primarily on the former, not the latter, thank you very much.
Although I see both components as two sides of the same coin. The fact that bureaucracies tend to see the asylum seekers and the welfare recipients as their clients. They are not stewards of the public interest.
Bureaucrats like to grow their bureaucracies. The larger the bureaucracy the greater the prestige, and the better they do in budget battles in competition with other bureaucracies, and the better their salaries. So they tend not to look to closely at their clients as they really don’t want to disqualify people.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 9:43 amC. S. P. Schofield,
You seem to view welfare as an either/or proposition — either we have it as it is now, or we don’t have it at all. If so, I disagree.
I want people who need help to have assistance and I think most Americans feel this way, but I have a problem with: (1) people who can work but don’t, for any reason; (1) people whose disabilities don’t prevent them from working; and (3) families who rely on welfare to support them for generations. Instead of a helping hand, welfare becomes a lifestyle choice and we can’t afford that as a nation. In addition, it sends the wrong message about the value of work and providing for oneself.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/30/2013 @ 9:58 amI think this post doesn’t stand alone, but relates to Patterico’s earlier observation that a lot of criminals are on welfare.
what I’m taking from that is that if we reduce welfare, we’re going to be cutting off support for a lot of lifestyles that are bad for society even beyond wasting our children’s money.
And the money isn’t there for welfare anyway. We really need to cut almost all state assistance off and leave a small amount for homeless shelters… in blue states preferably.
Being on the dole should be seen as shameful: because it is.
Dustin (2da3a2) — 4/30/2013 @ 10:00 amIt still blows me away that you can arrive here on a tourist visa from Russia and then get refugee status. Apparently the father, Anzor, arrived on a tourist visa with his two sons. Then applied for asylum (you can’t go directly to “refugee” if you’re already in the country, refugees apply for the status from their home or third country). Perhaps defensively. If a tourist overstays their visa then applying for asylum means they can’t be deported while their application is being processed.
The 9/11 hijackers didn’t quit follow that route. They didn’t apply for asylum when they overstayed their tourist or business visas. They just stayed illegally.
Despite all the “security theater” at airports and elsewhere I bet there are still holes in our immigration system big enough to drive a truck bomb through. And I don’t see “comprehensive immigration reform” addressing any of them.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 10:01 amDRJ’s entire comment is well articulated, and I don’t disagree with what I’ve quoted. It’s just that we don’t have the money to help those who need help. We need to redefine ‘need help’ way down, unfortunately.
And I place the blame for this directly on the moochers and those politicians (in both parties) who have tried to buy their votes.
Dustin (2da3a2) — 4/30/2013 @ 10:07 amThat observation is spot on for this topic as well. The mother still has an outstanding warrant for felony shoplifting. Dzhokhar sold pot, but wasn’t caught. Similarly the dad also shoplifted, was caught, but wasn’t prosecuted.
I don’t know what Tamerlan was up to, but he drove a Benz and according to a friend of a girl he dated they’d all go out in his big nice car and he would pay for everything.
Where did all that disposable income come from?
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 10:17 am#41, #57
I agree with you, completely, Dana.
felipe (70ff7e) — 4/30/2013 @ 10:19 amApparently it was given by MA and federal politicians to a criminal, and will be paid for by the next generation. After all, a young thug can vote, but an innocent kid cannot, so the political call is a no-brainer.
Reason five billion why we should have balanced budgets at every level of government.
Dustin (2da3a2) — 4/30/2013 @ 10:22 amAll and sundry;
I don’t insist that welfare (or defense, or drug prohibition, etc. etc.) be all or nothing, those were just the two cases I brought up. Whatever. But if it is legal for someone to get welfare, or social security, or aid for mothers with dependent wombats, then I decline to get mad if they take it.
Similarly; I get some money from society, and will try really really hard not to whine if society decides to stop giving it to me.
And I still say that until it could be shown that they had broken the law, a government that would withhold some assistance that they would other wise be qualified for on ideological grounds is a government that scares me a hell of a lot more than these two squirrels.
In short; it ain’t a scandal unless it would be a scandal if a similar family that HADN’T blown up people got the same.
C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd) — 4/30/2013 @ 10:37 amI do get mad at people who apparently have no disability and no reason why they can’t work, but they still take welfare.
These young men worked hard at bombing the Boston Marathon, so they obviously had an ability to get something done. They could have applied themselves to jobs instead of the evil they chose. If nothing else, it might have kept them busy enough that they wouldn’t have time to do evil acts. The least we can do as a society is not make it easier for them to act.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/30/2013 @ 11:03 amThe government’s default position seems to be that people won’t ask for help unless they really need it. That may have been true at one time but it isn’t now.
The current Administration doesn’t want any limitations on welfare (i.e., its abolition of work requirement for welfare) so the only remedy society has is to blame the Tsarnaevs who did these evil acts and blame the government that helped enable them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/30/2013 @ 11:12 amI do blame able-bodied men for taking welfare. Even Democrats have been known to blame them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/30/2013 @ 11:17 amDRJ wrote:
The problem is one we’ve never managed to solve: how do you separate the people who really need assistance from the people who want to leech off the system. I have come to the conclusion that such cannot be done in any efficient and practical manner, and that leaves us with two options:
If those are my only two options, and I believe that is the case, I select option #2.
The practical and cold-hearted Dana (3e4784) — 4/30/2013 @ 11:54 amDRJ wrote that she had a problem with:
My doctor’s office has not one but two women working there who have disabilities: one with a badly deformed right hand and the other who lost her left arm just below her elbow. They seemed efficient enough at doing their jobs, and that means that they shouldn’t be on welfare.
That they are employed there means that the doctors gave them a chance, when they didn’t have to; a lot of employers wouldn’t. And that means that these slightly handicapped women, who are able to work around their disabilities, are both more likely to appreciate their current employer for giving them a chance, and have less of a chance to get hired elsewhere; that is a retention win for their employer, and smart business sense all the way around.
The Dana proud of his doctor (3e4784) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:08 pmObama has created or saved 150,000,000,000,000 jobs. No one could possibly need welfare or foodstamps or free cell phones any more.
Gus (694db4) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:13 pmSteve Sailor, referring to a WaPo article that mentions the Tsarnaevs’ sisters Bella and Ailina, who “moved to New Jersey, where Bella was arrested in December, along with a man named Ahmad Khalil, and charged with possession of and intent to distribute marijuana. …”
The whole family are a bunch of grifters. The government aid is a base to which they add via various sporadic illegal means. It also provides a certain amount of cover should anyone question how they manage to live without working.
Basta (e24e79) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:27 pmComment by Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:24 am
Which wasn’t Chechnya. It was Russia. Neither of the boys were born in Chechnya, and as far as I can tell neither were their parents because the region of Russia that the family was from had a large population of ethnic Chechens.
It is very hard to get the story straight. The older brother wass actulally born in Kalmykia we hear now – then the fanmily was in Kirgystan. that’s where Tamerlan’s passport was from. It was expiring. The father claimed taht his son was with him in Russia but he arroved after his son. He’s telling stories about being ill. I thinmk the Russian government doesn’t want him to talk too much or go to the US. There’s probably a lot wrong with the asylum poetition.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/30/2013 @ 12:32 pm“1 – Provide welfare, so that no truly needy person goes without, and accept that there will be a significant number of welfare malingerers; or 2 – Do not provide welfare, to force the malingerers to get off their dead asses and work, and accept the fact that a large number of truly needy people will go hungry.”
– The practical and cold-hearted Dana
I feel like that would be a hard thing to explain to God.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:11 pm“I feel that would be a hard thing to explain to God”
– teh pro bono Leviticus
Colonel Haiku (ec1f48) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:18 pmBut of course we both know those aren’t the only two options. Private charities existed long before welfare. One problem with private charity, in the eyes of the libfascists, is that private charities actually require people to modify their behavior to receive assistance. As we are seeing with the Tsarnaev family, public assistance does not. People receive public assistance even though the continue the destructive behaviors that make people poor in the first place.
You see the same thing in trust fund babies, as well. They never developed the kind of habits that generally speaking their grandparents who made the money had. So the money slips through their fingers like sand. Like welfare recipients they take the money for granted.
Remember the London riots a couple of years back? Those broke out when the government cut back on public benefits. So the rioters decided that since they were no longer receiving the money that was theirs by right they would steal their swag. Private charity doesn’t put up with that.
The second thing the libfascists hate about private charity is that it competes with the state as a source of authority. That’s why the Obama administration has declared religious hospitals, hospices, schools, soup kitchens, etc., have been declared non-religious and are required to violate their beliefs to continue operating.
Catholic hospitals must become non-Catholic or close.
This has nothing to do with making sure Sandra Fluke is kept well stocked-on birth control. It is pure hostility toward religion and its charitable mission. The kind you saw in the USSR, and China and the DPRK today.
But, no, if we eliminated welfare in all it’s forms no one who’s truly needy would go unclothed or unfed in this country.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:20 pmI feel like that would be a hard thing to explain to God.
He spoke nothing of what he might do as an individual, only to the proper role of our government.
JD (32eeec) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:25 pmleviticus, i am happy to explain to god that i did not steal from future generations and saddle them with great debt just so i could pat myself on the back for helping the poor.
instead i just go out and help the poor in person. most churches make doing this very easy, but you have to be willing to put in time… instead of mandating the “rich” pay for enormous dependency.
work is dignity and we shouldnt discourage dignity.
dustin (86a5d6) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:25 pmWork is what greedy people do ! You didn’t build that, anyhow !
Elephant Stone (65a34b) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:32 pm“i just go out and help the poor in person. most churches make doing this very easy, but you have to be willing to put in time… instead of mandating the “rich” pay for enormous dependency.”
– dustin
If we want to talk about things that aren’t mutually exclusive – and Steve does, apparently – then let’s start there: personal charity and government welfare are not mutually exclusive. If the [state-run] social safety net evaporated tomorrow, do you think the need would be met by private charity? I don’t – particularly insofar as a lot of Americans are extremely eager to jump to the conclusion that anyone in need of assistance is a leech on society. Not a particularly strong indicator of “charity” there, to my mind.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:57 pmJD is right, of course, that Dana spoke only of the role of government. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:59 pmI still meant what I said, though.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/30/2013 @ 3:59 pm#79… Right on, Dustin!
Colonel Haiku (cf3199) — 4/30/2013 @ 4:08 pm#81… It is tough not to think the worst when one sees it all around every day of the week. There is no justification for an able-bodied person to be on government assistance. None whatsoever.
Colonel Haiku (da54d9) — 4/30/2013 @ 4:16 pmOh, they are mutually exclusive. I’ve learned that from the left. A dollar given to charity is a dollar “stolen” from the US Treasury.
And you don’t know the meaning of the word charity. Charity is voluntary. Having party A vote to take from party B to give to party C is not charity. It’s extortion.
Do you really want to explain to God why you felt like ignoring the 10th Commandment?
To include his bank account and income.
Especially while it make you feel virtuous to tax the wealthy more, public assistance is more destructive than charity (which is why the word “private” is not necessary; all charity is private).
I realize you’ll insist that voting for more public assistance, but consider this. The left has come up with a definition of “charity” or “generosity” that is interchangeable with “voting in your own self interest.”
If you really want to sum up the phrase “voting in your own self interest” in one word, that word would be “greed.”
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 4:51 pm“I’ve learned that from the left. A dollar given to charity is a dollar “stolen” from the US Treasury.”
– Steve57
Bullsh*t. Support that or prepare to be ridiculed.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:04 pmNot that you’ll care, understandably, but still. I call shenanigans.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:05 pmTo be protected from those stronger than yourself, you agree to help protect those weaker than yourself. It’s like a contract. A… social contract.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:08 pmI love it how leftists who talk about programs like Obamacare as if we’re speaking of “charity” or as Obama himself put it “a more generous America” can’t hide their real goal; wealth redistribution. Which if you’re going to keep all the commandments, you can’t approve of since you’re not supposed to look at your neighbor’s ox or donkey and say “we ought to redistribute that.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo
Sen. Max Baucus, discussing how Obamacare is an “income shift,” a way to address the “maldistribution of income.” The rich are getting far too rich, and the left thought it was time to do a little “leveling” to use Baucus’ word.
This is supposed to be charitable? Explain that to God, Leviticus.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:09 pmI should copyright that “social contract” thing. It’s catchy.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:09 pmHey. When did leftists say that “A dollar given to charity is a dollar “stolen” from the US Treasury”, again?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:09 pmyeah *sigh* unfortunately most see it as a right – In Orleans Parish during many intake interviews – when we asked people for employment they felt that working the welfare system was actually a job.
Not just a random ancedote either
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:10 pmTo be protected from those stronger than yourself, you agree to help protect those weaker than yourself. It’s like a contract. A… social contract.
Comment by Leviticus
I call bullsh*t. Typical, self-serving liberal bullsh*t.
Colonel Haiku (4de8c2) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:12 pmhttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-04-07/news/0904060080_1_charity-dollars-charitable-donations-part-of-charity
Joel Stein, Apr 7 2009 explaining how it’s a zero sum game.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:13 pmJoel Stein at the end of the article, demonstrating the concept of voting in one’s own self interest being synonymous with his definition of generosity.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:15 pmI take it you haven’t studied contracts yet? It’s not a valid contract if you haven’t voluntarily agreed to it. It’s certainly not part of any valid contract to fork over cash with the threat of an IRS agent with a gun and prison hanging over your head.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:20 pmWell here’s a small codicil, we let you into this country, settle you, give you 100K, don’t blow up
narciso (c62917) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:23 pmeight year old boys okay,
I wanted to address this, Leviticus. I know you don’t believe that private charities could meet the need.
That’s what you’ve been indoctrinated to believe.
There was a time when all hospitals were charitable institutions. And that time isn’t too long ago. Those who could afford to pay had the doctor come to them.
As far as those in need being a leech on society, they are as long as they continue to behave in ways that led them to be unable to function in responsible society.
Private charities like the Salvation Army will help you if you’re an alcoholic or an addict. But not if you’re still drinking or using.
On the other hand you can qualify for food stamps or TAMP quite easily while continuing your bad habits. You can use your EBT card in a casino or strip club still in many states.
Do you think you can explain to God why you thought the second option qualified as “charity?”
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:27 pmThe natural progression of the welfare state continues apace:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/california-homeless-bill-of-rights_n_3147926.html
This is the thinking behind the welfare state. The state must do more and more for people. Destroying their ability to do for themselves. In Britain “council workers” will even clean the houses of people on the dole and cook for them.
So like the old Lords of the Manor, why should the cook and clean for themselves.
You know what prevents these people from finding jobs and housing? Thinking like this:
I used to step over several homeless people exercising their “fundamental right to rest” when I lived in a liberal college town on the coast and had to go from my apartment to my car.
Whoever came up with that idea, but they weren’t helping anyone least of all the homeless. But I bet they felt really, really good about themselves for being so generous with my apartment complex.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:39 pmAmmiano, is aggressively wrong on every subject, I figure he’ll eventually be in the House.
narciso (c62917) — 4/30/2013 @ 5:54 pm“Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved.”
X (5f9d7f) — 4/30/2013 @ 7:14 pmso these meetings serve no useful purpose, as even the Saudi GID warned Obama, according to the Mail
narciso (c62917) — 5/1/2013 @ 4:36 amhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317493/Saudi-official-Kingdom-warned-United-States-IN-WRITING-Boston-Bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-2012-rejected-application-entry-visa-visit-Mecca-2011.html
narciso (c62917) — 5/1/2013 @ 4:38 amhttp://news.yahoo.com/boston-police-3-more-suspects-custody-bombings-153012083.html
The decision not to treat ship stain as an enemy combatant may bite the Obama administration in the a**.
I really don’t get the stubborn insistence of the Obama administration to declare matters closed, to advance narratives, etc., while everyone knows the facts aren’t in.
I hate to look at the political ramifications of an atrocity like the Boston Marathon bombing, but the fact is people are going to care about that. It isn’t thousands of miles away like Benghazi. And if the “no Islam to see here, folks, move along” administration tries to bury the facts on this one to impose it’s twin preferred narratives (regarding the innocuous nature of Islam and that terrorism is really a criminal matter) on the nation that will not turn out well for them.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/1/2013 @ 9:45 amVia Ace.
http://ace.mu.nu/
I wonder if someone at the FBI is going to be reprimanded for this.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/@@wanted-group-listing
30 of the 31 most wanted terrorists on this list are Muslim. The 31st is an animal rights terrorist who’s blown up a biotech company and a nutritional products company.
Didn’t they get the memo that the main threat comes from right wing Christofascists? Ooh, Holder and big sis are going to be ticked off when they see this.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/1/2013 @ 10:15 amThe Third Book of Moses wrote:
And that’s an argument I’ve heard frequently from liberals, most frequently from those liberals who do not believe in God in the first place. Perhaps if they had read 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
Our Lord actually gave us the example, as documented many times in the New Testament. When he came upon a crippled man, he healed the man’s affliction, so that the man could get up and leave, presumably to find work now that he was able to work. Had Jesus been a liberal Democrat, he’d have left them crippled, but provided them with a magic, every-refilling begging bowl.
The needy deserve our compassion; the welfare malingerers are nothing but thieves. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 tells us what portion of the Kingdom of God that thieves will inherit.
The Dana who has actually read the Bible (3e4784) — 5/2/2013 @ 5:57 amThe Third Book of Moses wrote:
I’m at work, and don’t have the time to search for the appropriate citations, but it has been well documented that the states with the highest charitable contributions tend to be the same states with lower tax rates, while places like Connecticut and Massachusetts, where the government spends more on welfare and the like, have lower charitable contribution rates.
This is my story on it, from 2005. I’d bet that newer data will confirm the pattern.
The charitable Dana (3e4784) — 5/2/2013 @ 6:07 amThat is an apt analogy, Dana. When you see multiple generations of people whose way of life has been to depend on the feds for a handout and in some ways they’ve been reduced to the life of rats in a cage, they live in housing provided for them, eat food provided for them, and don’t know what to do with their spare time. That is not said in derision of the people in that situation, it is said in derision of those who made the cage and maintain it.
Like so much of what the left does, the intent on one level is to be nice and relieve suffering, but they try to solve things with short term cheap attempts of their own making instead of with respect to the truth of the human situation.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/2/2013 @ 6:11 amI’m not sure why you disagree with that notion, Leviticus. I’ve argued that Dana’s well proved onservation makes perfect sense, to a degree. If Joe Biden or some other person of the left gives little to private charity that makes sense to me becaused they think the govt has the responsiblity to care for the needy, even to support the humanities, so why give to private charity?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/2/2013 @ 6:17 amBUT, I also have thought that if those people were that concerned about the poor, they would give extra to the government above and beyond their tax bill, they should at least give “their fair share”, as they say.
The Philadelphia physician wrote:
For those who believe that they ought to pay more in taxes, the Treasury Department provides a helpful link where they can do just that.
The helpful Dana (3e4784) — 5/2/2013 @ 6:28 amThe Variously Named Dana,
My point was that it would be hard to explain to God a policy of harming the innocent to make sure you harmed the guilty. I do believe in God, and I have read the Bible. My understanding is that God doesn’t take kindly to a view of the helpless as candidates for collateral damage.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 5/2/2013 @ 6:37 amYes, it would be hard to explain to God a policy of harming the innocent,
but the welfare society is condemning children to poverty all of the time.
Back in the old ‘hood my wife had an interesting and tragic discussion with a few neighbor girls hanging out on our front steps.
First, they were amazed that she actually had a husband
Second, they were amazed he was not home because he had a job.
For those questions to reflect the “normal life” of a group of elementary age girls is deplorable. Something in the 30+ years (at the time) of the war on poverty was not working.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/2/2013 @ 6:47 ambut it has been well documented that the states with the highest charitable contributions tend to be the same states with lower tax rates
But it’s not just the human nature on display on a large level, but the human nature revealed on a personal basis. Studies indicate that a higher percentage of liberals — regardless of their income level — give less to charity than conservatives. That has played out among even the most visible people in society, referring to politicians running for the White House over the past few decades.
With a few exceptions, the tax returns of folks like Gore, Clinton, Obama and Kerry have shown they contribute less to charity than what is given by Republicans like Bush Jr and Sr, Reagan, etc. This snippet from 15 years ago is fairly typical, and was mirrored in 2008 in observations of the tax returns of our current beautiful, generous, humane president, at least before his run for the White House (and before he knew he would be entering a more intense public spotlight).
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Liberal biases apparently tend to make people two-faced and disingenuous.
Mark (28b929) — 5/2/2013 @ 7:23 amThe decision not to treat ship stain as an enemy combatant may bite the Obama administration in the a**.
? What choice is there? The military pretty much sucks at bringing terrorists to trial and imposing punishment. There have only been two verdicts out of Gitmo, in twelve years, and they have both been reversed on appeal.
The military is not good at this kind of thing — it’s not what its job is. The US district attorneys are, it’s what they do.
(And that’s without going into the unholy clusterf***k of a tribunal system Alberto Gonzalez fried up.)
nk (875f57) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:08 amNot wanting to fund programs that have demonstrably not helped innocents is somehow making innocents collateral damage?
JD (b63a52) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:08 amLeviticus, you are making a category error if you think that support for government welfare programs equates to concern for the poor.
The name under which these government programs go by sums up the very problem. Entitlements. Really? You’re entitled?
This is a destructive thing to teach people. I really don’t have a problem going to my grave knowing I’ll have to explain my position to God on this one.
It’s an old argument:
http://www.historycarper.com/1766/11/29/on-the-price-of-corn-and-management-of-the-poor/
(Benjamin Franklin, London, 1766)
But even though the argument is old and still rages, I think the evidence is clear. Private charity, which is provided on a conditional basis, can help. Public benefits, which the beneficiary is told he or she is entitled to, can easily be destructive. As has often, if not usually, proven to be the case.
I fail to see why I should have a problem explaining to God why I didn’t want to destroy people’s lives.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:30 amComment by nk (875f57) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:08 am
Your reference to the evidence does show there apparently is something lacking in military tribunals, unless it is that military tribunals can rarely make final determinations while hostilities are continuing.
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that Andy McCarthy, who knows about as much as or more than anyone on prosecuting terrorists, thinks that much is lost in a civilian trial, as often secret methods must be revealed which then makes them useless in further investigation and prevention of terror acts.
So, is you want to prosecute an individual criminal, a civilian trial may be the way to go; but if you want to maximize the opportunity to prevent attacks rather then scrape up the pieces afterwards, then a military tribunal that can keep some things confidential is a better bet.
I may be wrong or very wrong about that, but it is my understanding of the issue, FWIW, non-lawyer as I am.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:35 amNo, you’re right, MD. Information obtained by waterboarding and/or hanging somebody off the floor by his arms handcuffed behind his back would never be admissible in either a civilian criminal trial or a courts martial under the UCMJ. But it can be used to prevent future terrorist acts.
Also, indefinite detention, when the evidence is thin, for whatever reason (whether desire for secrecy or because the prosecution cannot put its case together), permissible in GITMO but not in America, serves just as good to incapacitate the terrorist as final verdict and sentence.
nk (875f57) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:45 amComment by Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:30 am
As one limited example, the Old Testament prescribed the practice of gleaning. In one way it meant the capitalist landowners were not allowed to be greedy in hoarding their rightfully obtained harvest, and the poor were provided the means on which to sustain themselves while looking for a better life. There was no mandate for equality, nor was the focus on the right of the poor (as I see it). Rather, the responsibility was on the “rich” to be generous while enjoying the fruits of their labor, and the poor were sustained while retaining the role of individuals with a degree of self-determination.
In an analogy that may break down under scrutiny, there is a difference between a collective and a cooperative.
The law (or the Law) cannot make people good, it can only point out and try to limit the bad. If a society is based in making laws to point out the bad of every little incident while ignoring the major issues, you get something that doesn’t work well. Caring for others, “being your brother’s keeper”, is a good that cannot be legislated.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:48 amYes, depending on the generosity of private citizens is very imperfect. But attempts to do better in the hubris of a Lenin or Marx or LBJ has been shown to be worse in the long run, causing more human misery.
nk, if you’re a combatant indefinite detention is an industrial hazard. Aricle III of the Code of Conduct states:
You’re not even supposed to let them get you off their hands.
Of course escaping is another thing entirely.
But still, being imprisoned as a combatant is not a judicial proceeding.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:55 amMD in Philly, Leviticus 19:
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 9:02 amMark wrote:
And there’s an obvious reason for this, why people in Mississippi, the poorest state in the union, and Utah, give so much more to charity: it’s because fewer liberals go to church. The money you put in the collection basket is a deductible charitable contribution.
When it was noted that Al Gore and his lovely, now ex-wife Tipper gave $353 to charity one year, many people pointed out that just $20 a week on the collection basket would have been over a grand . . . if the former (failed) divinity student had actually gone to church.
The Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 5/2/2013 @ 9:04 amAs long as we’re being Biblical and all on the subject of charity:
1 Timothy 5:
St. Paul placed conditions on charity.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 9:10 amNot wanting to fund programs that have demonstrably not helped innocents is somehow making innocents collateral damage?
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 5/2/2013 @ 8:08 am
— Bingo!
Well, because … you know, if you fund the programs then they at least stay alive while they’re doing absolutely nothing to take care of themselves or stand on their own two feet.
Icy (83d5c8) — 5/2/2013 @ 9:12 amNot at all, Doc. As Milton Friedman demonstrated, a free market is how you get cooperation without coercion. A willing seller, and a willing buyer. A cooperative.
A collective requires coercion.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 10:04 amFor crying out loud. This was not a failure of the f***ing welfare system, it was a failure of the f***ing immigration system which let these gypsies in on refugee visas based on lies about persecution. Refugees, real refugees, receive and should receive subsistence assistance. Other immigrants cannot get a visa, from F-1 to immigrant, without an affidavit of financial responsibility and proof of assets and financial support. Also health insurance. Look for immigration policies still aimed at giving Russia a black eye on human rights issues. Maybe. (Where’s Milhouse?)
nk (875f57) — 5/2/2013 @ 10:20 amnk, to be fair it was a failure of both. I’ve harped primarily on the failure of the immigration system. But I still have to wonder why a guy like Tamerlan is driving a Mercedes Benz and is getting welfare.
If the report about the Saudis denying Tamerlan a visa to go on the Hajj is true, wouldn’t you wonder why someone on welfare can afford to make the pilgrimage to Mecca?
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 10:28 amhttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/19/article-2311686-19643995000005DC-572_634x415.jpg
That’s Tamerlan second from the right in the back row with his boxing team mates in 2010.
As stated in the post at the top of this thread, the Tsarnaev family received $100K from 2002 to 2012. nk, can you tell me why we’re supporting golden glove boxers at public expense?
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2013/apr/19/coed-remembers-tamerlan-tsarnaev/
Seriously? This guy’s on welfare?
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 10:36 amWas it Pamela who explained it? The cars are in somebody else’s name, the plane tickets are paid on the wife’s credit card. No red flags on the computers even if DMV does talk to public aid which it probably does not.
nk (875f57) — 5/2/2013 @ 10:42 amOur Greek lawyer wrote:
Why? And if you believe that “real refugees” should receive subsistence assistance, for how long should that be the case?
Our welfare system is exactly that: a system of subsistence assistance, and the problem with that is that we allow people to subsist thereon for decades, for lifetimes, for generations, because we are too kind-hearted to allow people to starve to death.
If we could find a way to provide such assistance for only those who really, really cannot work, you’d find no opposition from me. But we have been completely unable to write regulations which are fraud proof, or even very fraud resistant, and we have, out of our good intentions, created a whole welfare class of malingerers.
Sometimes, when the structure is so badly compromised, with rust and rot and mold, the building can’t be saved, and it’s time to tear it down.
The inquiring Dana (3e4784) — 5/2/2013 @ 1:16 pmThe military used to be very good at this sort of thing. In WWII Germans in American uniforms misdirecting traffic went before a tribunal and then a firing before the day was out.
But then the legal monastary didn’t intervene on behalf of Nazis.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/2/2013 @ 6:36 pmThey scrubbed the tribunals, of anyone with any familiarity with the anti terrorist effort, this is how you end up with these weak plea bargains.
narciso (3fec35) — 5/2/2013 @ 6:39 pm