I would like to see a protest against .....

[BubberMiley]

You just keep proving my point .............

I'm glad to help clarify it for you. I prefer to look at these issues on the scale of damage done rather than looking at it as "both those groups cost us money so we should denounce them equally." (quotation mine)

[cybercoma]

All the evidence in the world can show declining crime rates and few incidents of welfare fraud, yet you still have people fuelled by ideology saying, "yeah, but it's the undetected/unreported cases!"

[cybercoma]

Pay no attention to the criminals behind the curtain! Just keep looking down the ladder. Nothing to see up top here!

[Guest American Woman]

I'm glad to help clarify it for you. I prefer to look at these issues on the scale of damage done rather than looking at it as "both those groups cost us money so we should denounce them equally." (quotation mine)

Ok. So let's look at it your way.

You have $100,000.

Someone comes along and steals $50,000 of it.

A lot of someones - 1000, to be exact - steal the rest of it over time.

So you're only concerned with the loss of the first $50,000 right? Because the scale of damage in the loss of the second $50,000 is only $50 per person. A $50,000 theft is so much worse than a $50 theft, right? So you would simply ignore the loss of the second $50,000 - those involved in that theft shouldn't be denounced. That $50,000 loss wasn't equal to the first $50,000 loss morally; therefore, why concern yourself with it?

Or perhaps the final outcome, the final cost/loss, is what we should be concerned with ............. equally.

[msj]

Again, I wonder how much goes undetected.

I'm still wondering how many protesters you talked to about their views on welfare fraud?

[cybercoma]

Ok. So let's look at it your way.

You have $100,000.

Someone comes along and steals $50,000 of it.

A lot of someones - 1000, to be exact - steal the rest of it over time.

So you're only concerned with the loss of the first $50,000 right? Because the scale of damage in the loss of the second $50,000 is only $50 per person. A $50,000 theft is so much worse than a $50 theft, right? So you would simply ignore the loss of the second $50,000 - those involved in that theft shouldn't be denounced. That $50,000 loss wasn't equal to the first $50,000 loss morally; therefore, why concern yourself with it?

Or perhaps the final outcome, the final cost/loss, is what we should be concerned with ............. equally.

You did not seriously just suggest that the amount of welfare fraud is even remotely close to the amount of money that has been lost due to white collar crime that began with the deregulation of banks in the early 80s. Between the Savings and Loans scandals and the most recent "crisis" there have been billions stolen from people. Equating the two is nothing short of laughable.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm still wondering how many protesters you talked to about their views on welfare fraud?

And I'm wondering how many protesters you've seen protesting welfare fraud - since protesting is what this thread is about.

[Guest American Woman]

You did not seriously just suggest that the amount of welfare fraud is even remotely close to the amount of money that has been lost due to white collar crime that began with the deregulation of banks in the early 80s. Between the Savings and Loans scandals and the most recent "crisis" there have been billions stolen from people. Equating the two is nothing short of laughable.

Again. I am referring to fraud and abuse - which are two different aspects of the problem. But go ahead and laugh - if you think welfare fraud and abuse is a laughing matter. Again, you prove my point. You are bending over backwards to gloss over this - I have seen no evidence of any concern.

"Nickle-and-diming" the system adds up. It's a drain on our system, our budget, our economy. Saying we should be concerned with both equally is hardly laughable to anyone who is really concerned with fraud - and not just concerned with going after the rich.

[msj]

And I'm wondering how many protesters you've seen protesting welfare fraud - since protesting is what this thread is about.

I don't attend protests but nice evasion.

You should be a politician.

[BubberMiley]

You have $100,000.

Someone comes along and steals $50,000 of it.

A lot of someones - 1000, to be exact - steal the rest of it over time.

I believe that's called a strawman equivalency.

[bush_cheney2004]

..."Nickle-and-diming" the system adds up. It's a drain on our system, our budget, our economy. Saying we should be concerned with both equally is hardly laughable to anyone who is really concerned with fraud - and not just concerned with going after the rich.

...and it's not just welfare fraud. There is a multi-billion dollar underground economy that escapes taxes, fees, and regulation costs. They might be "poor", but they are not stupid.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't attend protests but nice evasion.

You don't watch the news either? You don't listen to the news? You don't read the news?

And speaking of evasions ..... Again.... The thread is about "protesting" what one is concerned over, mmmkay?

You should be a politician.

I realize the political world can always use an intelligent candidate with good common sense, but sorry, I'm just not interested. Thanks all the same, though.

[Guest American Woman]

...and it's not just welfare fraud. There is a multi-billion dollar underground economy that escapes taxes, fees, and regulation costs. They might be "poor", but they are not stupid.

Right. It's definitely not just welfare - and I mean to include it all in my protest.

[msj]

You don't watch the news either? You don't listen to the news? You don't read the news?

And speaking of evasions ..... Again.... The thread is about "protesting" what one is concerned over, mmmkay?

I realize the political world can always use an intelligent candidate with good common sense, but sorry, I'm just not interested. Thanks all the same, though.

You still have not answered my questions.

Oh, and I am willing to guess (and I admit that it's a guess) that most protesters aren't protesting welfare fraud because they know it is a crime and expect the government to perform it's duty to reduce it.

Now if only the government would change various laws and regulations so that we all can have similar expectations when it comes to white collar crime.

[Guest American Woman]

I believe that's called a strawman equivalency.

I believe that's called a cop-out - but it doesn't matter. We both know you'd be just as concerned with the whole loss - regardless of whether it was stolen in one large chunk by one person or in small amounts here and there by many. "Moral equivalence" would hardly enter into it.

[Guest American Woman]

You still have not answered my questions.

I most definitely have answered your questions.

Oh, and I am willing to guess (and I admit that it's a guess) that most protesters aren't protesting welfare fraud because they know it is a crime and expect the government to perform it's duty to reduce it.

Interesting. So they aren't protesting welfare fraud because of their faith in the government. Good to know. I was beginning to think they didn't have any faith in the government. Furthermore, there is no law against abusing the system. As I said, "fraud" and "abuse" are two different aspects of the problem.

At any rate, their faith in the government doesn't really explain why they aren't protesting against the people who commit the fraud and abuse the system. I'm thinking maybe becoming pen pals with them might be a good start.

Now if only the government would change various laws and regulations so that we all can have similar expectations when it comes to white collar crime.

Ummmm. If there weren't already laws and regulations, how could what they are doing be white collar crime?

[msj]

I most definitely have answered your questions.

Lets agree to disagree so you stop wasting my time.

Interesting. So they aren't protesting welfare fraud because of their faith in the government. Good to know. I was beginning to think they didn't have any faith in the government. Furthermore, there is no law against abusing the system. As I said, "fraud" and "abuse" are two different aspects of the problem.

I have faith in government too when it comes to going after the little people. That's the thing about webs - the little flies get caught while the big wasps buzz right through.....

I really don't think you have any capacity for comprehending the difference between some people performing petty crime (welfare fraud) versus white collar crime (mortgage fraud).

At any rate, their faith in the government doesn't really explain why they aren't protesting against the people who commit the fraud and abuse the system. I'm thinking maybe becoming pen pals with them might be a good start.

Yes, good idea. Maybe yous should try to talk to them rather than spew your crap on these forums.

Ummmm. If there weren't already laws and regulations, how could what they are doing be white collar crime?

There is white collar crime and there is poor regulation.

Often white collar crime is found to be unethical but since the burden of proof is so high it is very difficult to get a conviction.

Add to that the financial lobbyists who own Congress and it's no wonder your taxpayers have to carry the entire burden for bailing out your banking system.

But keep ignoring crony capitalism while whining about the lack of protests over all those welfare cheaters.....

Edited October 22, 2011 by msj

[dre]

And I'm wondering how many protesters you've seen protesting welfare fraud - since protesting is what this thread is about.

Well these type of public movements arent usually that specific... but in a way a lot of the tea party protesters have that covered. They rant about entitlements, and people living on the public dime, and they protest the welfare state.

These two things are both pretty big issues. The runaway cost of the welfare state, and all the waste, fraud and abuse is a serious issue. Rampant abuse by big players in the financial system, the consolidation of wealth and political power into an ever shrinking number of hands is a serious issue as well. Macro economic policy and the debasement of currency is also potentially a big problem.

And theres pretty big and vocal movements against all these things.

As for your OP... your "puzzlement" over how people could protest "wall street" without also protesting welfare fraud is really just silly. Your average grade 3 student could see through that logic, and it demonstrates an ignorance of history of political protests. They are pretty much ALWAYS fairly focused movements that form around narrowly defined issues. They dont try to tackle everything at once.

Its perfectly normal for someone to protest welfare fraud without protesting wallstreet, or to protest wallstreet without protesting welfare fraud. These movements just have different perspectives.

Edited October 22, 2011 by dre

[dre]

At any rate, their faith in the government doesn't really explain why they aren't protesting against the people who commit the fraud and abuse the system.

Theres nothing to explain. Different movements form around different causes, people become attached to them and identify with them for a variety of different reasons.

It would be completely normal for a person to take a strong position against welfare fraud without taking a strong position against abuse in the financial sector, and its perfectly normal and understandable for people to do the opposite as well.

Are you REALLY puzzled by this? Seriously?

[cybercoma]

Except that welfare fraud and abuse are not significant problems. They're strictly monitored and the policies are enforced.

[Guest American Woman]

Except that welfare fraud and abuse are not significant problems. They're strictly monitored and the policies are enforced.

:lol:

[BubberMiley]

:lol:

Don't you hate it that they limit the number of smiley faces you can use as a response on this board? I'm not allowed more than two.

But I agree---total economic devastation or a few people with mental illness you perceive to be "abusive" of the system---that's no strawman equivalency at all.

Edited October 22, 2011 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

Don't you hate it that they limit the number of smiley faces you can use as a response on this board? I'm not allowed more than two.

But I agree---total economic devastation or a few people with mental illness you perceive to be "abusive" of the system---that's no strawman equivalency at all.

Mental illness?? Everyone taking undo advantage of, abusing the system, committing fraud - is "mentally ill???" Just when I thought I'd heard it all .........

Do carry on. You give validity to my remarks/thoughts/observations every time you respond .......

[cybercoma]

Feel free to ignore this report on welfare fraud in Ontario. The results don't support your beliefs:

http://www.oaith.ca/assets/files/Publications/Poverty/Welfare-Fraud-as-Crime.pdf

1% of all allegations result in conviction and only amounts to a tenth of a percent of all social assistance cases.

It's ok... you can feel free to continue to ignore the fact that only one-tenth of one percent of all social assistance cases are fraudulent.

Another interesting piece of the report you can feel free to ignore, AMWO:

Introducing the welfare fraud hotline on October 2, 1995 then

Minister of Community and Social Services David Tsubouchi proclaimed in the House

that, "[w]elfare fraud is a problem that hurts the most vulnerable people in our society.

Every cent that is paid to the wrong person through fraud is help taken from the needy.”

He noted that experience had shown hotlines to be an effective device to ensure that

does not happen, projected savings of $25 million per year and invited the people of

Ontario to call 1-800-394-STOP to help "stop fraud and to protect the system for people

who really need help."95 With respect to virtually no other 'crime' that we can identify, has there been such a vigorous effort to bring the public so actively into the task of surveillance and denunciation.[my emphasis]

You also need to be more clear about what you're talking about. You've now moved from talking about fraud to saying "fraud and abuse". You're moving the goalposts. The problem with identifying "abuse" is that people are going to make unintentional mistakes when filing for social assistance. According to the report, "Mr. Justice Weagant noted, one could readily anticipate very large numbers of inadvertent rule breaches" and MPP Deb Matthews elaborates:

there was probably nothing I heard about more than the need to simplify the rules… There are now approximately 800 rules and regulations within the system

that must be applied before a client's eligibility and the amount of their monthly cheque can be determined. Many of those rules are punitive and designed not to support people, but rather to keep them out of the system. Because there are so many rules, they are expensive to administer and often applied inconsistently from one caseworker to another, even within the same office. Further, the rules are so complicated that they are virtually impossible to communicate to clients, and it takes years to train a caseworker. [my emphasis]

So, you need to be clear what you're talking about here. If you're talking about fraud, out of all the allegations in Canada's largest province, only 1% of them were fraudulent--that amounted to 0.1% of all social assistance case files. If you want to introduce abuse, as something different and in addition to fraud, you're going to have to be very clear about what it is that you're considering abuse. Many people inadvertently "abuse" the system because of how complicated it is. Nonetheless, the system is highly regulated and designed to keep people out of it. So, it's highly unlikely that intentional abuse, however you want to define that, is status quo.

Edited October 22, 2011 by cybercoma

[BubberMiley]

Do carry on. You give validity to my remarks/thoughts/observations every time you respond .......

I'm glad to help. I know how badly you need to be validated.