Buying dolls with social security/welfare money?

I can give an example of myself, I won't use any "I know one person who knows a person" thing.

For two years I've been on benefits because my let leg was amputated.
I'm going to work at some point, doing something that isn't too hard so I can manage with the prosthetic leg.
I receive monthly benefits from the government for rehabilitation. For now, I pay half of the rent because I live with my fiancée. W
e have two cats. We buy food together and other stuff needed for the house, we buy cat food.

Still, I have bought 4 dolls in the past 7 months or so. I bought them all from the benefits after paying the half of the rent, some medical bills and groceries.
The reason I got the dolls, is because I paid a little every month, I was patient.
I bought my Luts Delf Moon secondhand from a forum that cost 300 euros, but I paid 50 euros for 6 months to get it.
I did that with every doll I have. I didn't splurge on any doll at once, they all are used dolls and they all were paid little by little. And they are very dear to me. I
can't do much outdoor sports or stuff like that yet because I'm still recovering.
These dolls give me joy, they improve my handiwork, because I sew and do lots of other stuff. I don't feel the need to put everything that's left somewhere safe for the future.
My life is now and I want to enjoy it. So it offends when I read stuff like, I shouldn't be buying these luxury items.

Why?

 

How do you know she won't be paying it off for two years, though? 'Buy now, pay later' is an incredibly popular option for people on low incomes, because it allows for them to enjoy something nice while they're paying off what is essentially a long lay-away. My parents did this many times when I was younger, and anyone who assumed we were wealthy/cheating the system somehow because we had a $1000 TV would have been ludicrously wrong, because we were paying about $50 a month for it.

I wish people would realise that any anecdote that boils down to "I saw a person I thought was poor with an item I think was expensive!" is just not worth sharing.

Maybe that TV was a gift. Maybe that TV was floor stock (which is massively discounted). Maybe that TV was sold to her off the back of a van by someone who nicked it and she got it for $100 flat. Or maybe she was sold it by a friend, who is wealthy and constantly buys the newest thing and discards the old. Maybe she's paying it off over six years. Maybe she has a friend who works in the business and gave her a great deal on it. Maybe the TV was a bootleg and she didn't tell you because she wanted to feel like she had something nice and impressive for once.

Maybe you know for a fact that she was dirt poor and paid 100% full price up front for it all, but your anecdote certainly doesn't say that. Instead of assuming 'poor person + expensive item = scum abusing the system', why can't you assume 'poor person + expensive item = smart person finding a way to get discounted goods'?

 

I agree. I see no reason why you shouldn't buy a doll. Clearly you are not ripping off the system. I don't think most people on benefits do so either. As someone who has spent many years teaching kids from welfare families, I can say this with a bit of authority. I have met exactly zero parents who owned fancy cars or living even a middle class life-- unless they were drug dealers. Does that mean no one is ripping off welfare? No, of course not. It's just not as common as people would like to think.

But it's so easy to make assumptions, isn't it? And it's easy to pick on the small acts of corruption we see (or think we see) rather than taking a look at the major corruption that is all around us. Compare the welfare recipient getting her nails done to the international bankers who caused the near collapse of economies around the world. Which action is worse? Yet one has been almost unpunished, and isn't even being discussed any more.

My dad spent many years as a medicare/medicaid fraud investigator. He didn't investigate individuals, but rather hospitals, doctors and healthcare companies bilking the system. His department was very, very busy. Note that these healthcare groups weren't committing fraud accidentally. Their plan was to steal as much from the government as they could. And they organized to do so. Yet, in the name of drastically decreasing the size of our "very wasteful" government, the agency responsible for investigating this kind of fraud was cut to the point where it could no longer investigate, and the wolves were left to guard the henhouse.

To me there is a HUGE difference between an individual talking a cashier into letting him/her purchase cigarettes with their welfare check (or saving a few bucks every month to put toward a new bike for their kid, or yes, even a bjd!) and a group of individuals getting together to plot how to defraud the government out of million/billions of dollars.

I think peoples' anger is completely misdirected.

Just to add some numbers:

Comparing the 1990s to now, there are 60 percent fewer people on welfare in the U.S. (about 4 million out of 311 million, or 1.2%)
The city of Philadelphia has 95,000 people on welfare. Philly has a strong welfare fraud unit, but only about 200-400 people per year are caught committing fraud. That works out to 4 in 1000 people committing fraud, or 996 out of 1000 not committing fraud. The federal government received around 129,000 tips on welfare fraud in 2008-2009, and recovered approximately $50 million after investigating.

Compare that to the organized medicare fraud -- which your taxdollars pay for-- which is between $13 billion and $80 billion a year. (I'd give a more accurate estimate, but remember, unlike the welfare fraud unit, the medicare fraud investigation unit was pretty much shut down in the name of saving money.) Note that the low estimate of $13 billion of medicare fraud is 260 times higher than $50 million in welfare fraud; that is it is 260x greater a problem, dollar for dollar.

 

maybe this is the most stupid remark ive ever made, feel free to shoot me if you or anyone else wants to.

Isnt, after the first needs of food and shelter are met, having an object to attach to and to comfort themselves with, as a solace also very important for children? Especially if the world around them is providing such an unstable and unsave environment. Not that i mean that every child in a war torn country should have a 1000K BJD INSTEAD of food, but i would really like the idea of all children having some sort of ragdoll to love and to hold, even if its just a stone with a bit of cotton on a stick.

If we do care packages we always try to include something cute and cuddly.

 

Because I also got to listen to her brag about how she was sooooo good at cheating the system. 2 + 2 = 4. (I also got to listen to her complain when the government finally closed those loopholes she had been exploiting.)

I know it's just one example. I know one example =/= the entire population. I know that most people on these various programs are just trying to get by. They're not out to screw anybody. And once again, I think that people (like your family) who work really hard and enjoy some nice things is totally OK!

My point is: I think this hobby works like anything else. It's only irresponsible if you're putting dolls (a want) above your other needs.

 

In my opinion the money should only be used for rent, food, other bills, and things like soap/new clothes when they are needed. I don't think the tax payers money should be spent on dolls, or other luxury items such as new tv's, games, ipods,beer, cigarettes or anything else unnecessary. I feel it is very disrespectful, and I know families who actually use welfare money on those things, and then complain about not having enough money to buy the milk. Oh well, there isn't much I can do about this situation. I can't expect everyone else to have the same morals as myself, we live in a very variant world.

 

I personally think that the money should be used for what its meant for and not things like dolls and tv's.

 

So true - thanks for shining light on the darkness here, Sakuraharu!

"To me there is a HUGE difference between an individual talking a cashier into letting him/her purchase cigarettes with their welfare check (or saving a few bucks every month to put toward a new bike for their kid, or yes, even a bjd!) and a group of individuals getting together to plot how to defraud the government out of million/billions of dollars. sakuraharu"

 

The thing is, some people are on things like welfare and social security disability because they are too disabled to work, and therefore you're essentially saying that people who are disabled should only be allowed to have food and shelter, and that's not right. Take for example a soldier who comes back from Iraq with some missing limbs, a traumatic brain injury, and who will never walk again. That person may be in receipt of VA benefits as well as Social Security, and likely does have a greater income than people who work full-time. But does that mean that person should not be allowed to have any enjoyment in life? Should they be allowed only to purchase the food they eat and the bed they sleep in? Why shouldn't they be entitled to hobbies and entertainment like everybody else?

People have a lot of misconceptions about Social Security and Welfare, it seems. Just because a person is in receipt of government assistance doesn't mean they are getting free money because they won't work out of laziness or poor work ethics.

So no, I absolutely do not believe that someone receiving government assistance should be restricted to spending their funds on food and shelter alone.

And for the record, aside from 2 weeks of unemployment when I was between jobs right after college, I have never been on any kind of assistance program myself. But I work for VA and meet people every day that are, and it's not due to laziness and it's not a majority that are cheating the system.

 

Fin Raziel I think with social security, and disability is is a little different because the people earned that money(I know quite a few people on disability) Though Social security can still be abused in many ways. But with welfare(I was aiming more towards welfare in my post), that is only meant to be used for survival. I absolutely loath people (at least in the spending aspect) who waste their welfare money on stuff they d not need. Especially when they have kids they need to feed. Then is people are being responsible with their welfare money, I still do not believe that, that should give them the right to spend the rest of the money as they please. In my opinion any leftover welfare money should be saved for emergency situations, since that is what it is meant for. That is just my opinion though, and what is within my own moral standards.

 

Tokajein. Humans need soul food as well. It isn't a life if you have to think that EVERY single penny should be saved that's left. If people on welfare take care of their homes, children etc., and there is money left then I think it's just positive they could use it for things that make them happy.
Moral standards have nothing to do with that.
It's the same with someone who is working. Why shouldn't they put all the money somewhere safe after buying just what's necessary? Why do working people need anymore than a non-working people, the necessities are the same for every single one of us; food, shelter, taking care of kids.

 

Not exactly.

People get far more out of social security than they put in, even when you consider the interest they would have gotten if they'd invested the money instead of being taxed. That's why social security depends on a larger base of working people than retired people-- the working people are paying for the retired. And as for disability, the amount of time you have worked has nothing to do with the amount of benefit you get. If I were to become disabled a year after taking a job, or ten years after taking a job, the benefit is the same. So the amount of money people get out of the program is not the same as the amount of money they put in.

That's why both of these programs are considered insurance. The cost is spread over many, many people, in the hope that not everyone will have to use the program. Just as medical insurers make a gamble that not everyone paying into the system will have a debilitating illness at the same time (or perhaps, ever).

And even if you have never worked (like my cousin, who became a C-1 quadraplegic at age 17) you can still get certain forms of disability payments, such as SSI. My cousin hasn't paid into the system at all, but the system exists precisely to make sure people like her don't end up on the street because they are unable to work-- regardless of whether they were able to work before their accident.

 

Because it's not about what they need, it is about what they deserve. At least that is the impression that I am getting, despite nobody saying it out loud.
Please correct me if I am wrong (as I really seriously would love to be wrong).

I can even in a way understand that, from the perspective that there might be a limited supply of money available for support and a big pool of people in need of some help. Then you have a problem with how you're going to distribute the resources that are available.
However, that is a practical/pragmatic stance, and the problem is more one of distribution then 'morality'.
And to be honest, that is not the argument that I see a lot of people make. Most of the time there doesn't seem to be an argument at all really, just a kind of instant distrust or 'justified' anger towards people receiving Wellfare.

 

Glammie I think there is a difference between earned money, and welfare money. Soulfood can be bought with the money the person earned themselves. I think welfare money should only go to what it was originally intended for. Anyways, I am getting the unwavering feeling we are off dolly topic, and I feel as if this debate is going in circles now. So I think this will be my last response. I am sorry we cannot come to an agreement, but I accept your opinion is different than mine.

Sakuraharu Well some people do. It really depends on the person. I have a friend who is on disability (in my opinion he deserves every penny of it) but there are some people like your cousin for example who hasn't really done anything to earn it. I know I just might get a table thrown at me for saying this, but I have MANY unpopular opinions. I think that in that case the disabled person should still try to find a way to earn money (There are so many jobs these days where physical labor isn't necessary) And then use that money on the extra things instead of money given to them by the government. With mentally disabled people I think the same thing. Just because someone is mentally disabled it does not automatically mean they cannot work, or earn money. My aunt works at a place that employs the mentally disabled, and they make decent money from it. So if a mentally disabled person wanted a doll, or another extra, then they could use that money for them. But anyways, this is likely my last reply if you didn't read my reply to Glammie. Hope everyone has a nice day/night c:

 

^This. All I’m hearing is that it’s about the mythical tax payer’s money. And those on government assistance, who have never paid a dime of tax in their live – didn’t you know? When you have had a secure job for years, there’s no way in heaven you could have a string of bad luck that leaves you homeless. It’s a fact, yo, especially since our current economy is so stable – they steal money away from worthy people!

So darn them for wanting a TV that works. They should be on bread and water alone. And while we’re at it… why not place some bars in front of their windows and doors, so we can make absolutely sure that they won’t sneak off and buy something else than the barest necessities. They won’t have to shop, we’ll do it for them, and we’ll decide what’s best for them, because we absolutely love it when some random stranger butts in with our own financial affairs, so I’m sure they’ll do too!

Although this an exaggeration, it has, in my opinion, very little to do with ethics or morals. If anything, it sounds a bit like jealousy, or even fear of missing out on something, because some of these people have items we’d want to have. Some of the ‘rules’ I’m hearing in this debate sound too strict for even a hermit living off of oatmeal alone to be able to follow. I get that people on government assistance can’t have anything they want, but I think it’s important to stay a little compassionate with them. Most would rather have a job, than to have to hold up their hands every month.

EDIT

I agree. But then again, I believe that most people already do this, because nobody wants to be limited by their disability. That doesn't mean that there are those who can't hold a job, no matter how 'normal' they might look to us. We simply don't know what's wrong with them.

And another thing: sometimes it's best to go for disability benefits first and get a job later. In my case, I tried to keep working as long as I could, because I didn't want to be a burden. I couldn't work the hours needed to get by in a month, but I was scraping every penny I could and - lucky for me - I had some savings. Recently, my condition is getting worse, my insurance is no longer covering my treatment, so I'll have to fully pay for it myself, I can't work as much as I could and yet my government won't give me assistance, because I had shown in the past that I was able to hold a job. I can tell you now that I could really kick myself for being too proud. If I had asked for help back then, I wouldn't be in such a mess now.

 

Could you please be so kind as to explain to me what job would be suitable for my autistic uncle who has worked for almost 45 years, but is now unable to speak or use his right arm and leg after cerebral infarction?

 

Tokajein: VERY VERY few empolyers will hire disabled people. As an able person its so easy to say to a disabled, that get a job, I'm sure you can do something. But unless you walk the mile in the other persons shoes there's really nothing you should say, since that only makes you look stupid (this meant in general).

And lets remember that there are many different versions of benefits. And the systems are very different. BUT none the less, we are all humanbeings, and to say that someone does not deserve a normal life with some luxury in it as well only because they have the misfortune of being on welfare is just... Well I can't say it here because that would be very rude and cursing is not aloud.

None of those who talk about people who are on welfare don't really know at all what they are talking about. As I said, walk a mile in someone elses shoes, and then you are allowed to make judgements. There are bad people everywhere, and those on welfare are very few. To talk only about a woman who someone new at some point who said to someone that cows fly is the absolute truth ... Well I guess it is to some people then.

 

You know, I have this conversation with my mother rather often. It's not always about dolls, but with that being my hobby, it often begins there.

I'm 14, and, while I like to think I know enough about how this government works and how people think, I know that I don't know the half of it.

I'd like to think that people getting financial help from the government (and the taxpayers, consequently) don't HAVE to think about this. If you're getting money that you haven't earned (so, welfare and not social security), I think you should worry about getting back in the black.

If I were on welfare, I would be focusing all my efforts on getting OFF welfare. That's the other thing: I think some people have a pride problem. A lot of people won't even consider getting a 'bad' job from somewhere like McDonalds or Wal-Mart, since that is the mark of poverty. Supposedly.

And then, those people collect welfare money and live off that. Honestly, it makes sense. Why work for money when you can just fill out some papers and get it from the government? Sure, you might think, 'to feel accomplished in life!'

No. That's not the way it works. Everyone tries to get more than they need or deserve. Everyone.

So, while I wish people on welfare don't even consider using their money for other things, like dolls, I know they do.

And with that said, it's not my problem to enforce. I don't pay taxes (yet), so I guess I have an unbiased view. But we all know I don't. My views are influenced by my parents, who DO pay taxes.

My rant might be a bit indecisive, but isn't everything?

*sigh* I have the feeling nothing I just said made any sense.

 

This might be a potentially stupid question, but...

What's the difference between this argument and the "people should be able to buy cigarettes with food stamps" argument? Both of them are luxury items that nobody needs. Both of them could theoretically be bought with leftover government funds (if it wasn't illegal to do that with food stamps).

 

This.

Tokajein, I was very specific about my cousin's particular disability, but in case you didn't bother to look up her condition, a C1 quadraplegic depends on a machine to breathe for her. My cousin is in bed most of the time, except for family events like weddings, etc. She has absolutely no ability to move her body below her head-- so she can't even move her neck. She requires 24 hour care to make sure she doesn't accidentally suffocate. She needs someone to change her catheter, change her diapers and menstrual pads, exercise her muscles so they don't contract, bathe her, feed her, etc. My cousin's parents each take an 8 hour shift to look after her (and have done so with little more than a one day break here and there, for the past 15 years), and an aide comes in to do the last 8 hour shift, because that is all they can afford with the allowance given to them by the state. They have nearly gone bankrupt taking care of her-- only friends/family and members of my cousin's high school prevented that from happening.

But to address your statement, what job would you have her do? Before her accident, she wanted to be an artist. She definitely has the talent. But although there are a couple of quadraplegic artists who paint via computer using voice commands or using a device that allows them to "sip" with their mouth to control a mouse/cursor, she isn't strong enough to do that. She doesn't have control of her diaphragm, the muscle that allows us to breathe and talk above a whisper. Oh. And when she tried to go to the local university back when she was in slightly better health and possibly able to use such a device, they refused to accommodate her. Against the law? Absolutely. But she would have had to sue to get justice. And (which should be pretty obvious as she depends on SSI for her income) neither she nor her parents have the money to do so.

But if you have money making options for her, like cyberspacegirl I would love to hear them. And I will be sure to pass them on to my cousin, who lives a life I am sure you would never choose for yourself.

You are right, she didn't do anything to "earn" her meager disability payments. But she also didn't "earn" the condition she is in. It was the fault of a drunk driver.

So, yeah. If she wanted to scrape together money over the next year and buy a bjd I wouldn't hold it against her. I'd be the first showing her websites and cooing with her over potential choices.