Feds Raid Million Dollar Home of Welfare Recipient in Washington State

The Blaze / King 5 News ^ | 12/05/2011 | Christopher Santarelli

[thefoundersrock]

Residents of a wealthy lakefront community near Seattle are surprised to learn that one of their neighbors, who has lived in a $1.2 million home for the last 8 years, is the recipient of more that $1,200 a month in public housing vouchers, federal and state disability, and food stamps.

Video at link

[pgkdan]

bump...

[Responsibility2nd]

I’d vote for the candidate promising Welfare Reform.

But there ain’t one.

So this sorta stuff just goes on and on and on....

[Hodar]

$1,200/month, or $300/week - just isn’t that much.

Consider, he had a business and likely had his business buy his home. That isn’t unusual, then the business ‘rents’ the home to the business owner for $1/yr. This is perfectly legal. Perhaps the home was fully owned by the business; but thanks to the Obama Recession we now enjoy, the business goes bankrupt.

We have the business owner, now without a business; living in a home he earned and paid for; and is living on welfare. So, now we are faced with a quandry - do we expect every unemployed welfare recipient to sell their home before we give him Welfare? Or, do we only get to pick on those people who were once successful before their business failed?

I sincerely doubt he’s happy living on $300/week (food, utilities, gas, insurance, car repairs, ect); when he was likely having disposable income that is several orders of magnitude greater.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Somewhere in Kirkland maybe?

[lonevoice]

bfl

[Hodar]

Note to self - read the story .... ugh!

Cheats are cheats, throw the book at them.

But, not everyone who is getting welfare is a bum ...

[gimme1ibertee]

(Document presented in language of applicant).....Public Assistance Implementation and Usage Contract. This contract, entered into on (date) and expiring on (18 months from implementation date) by the (state agency) and applicant(s) listed herein (must submit names of applicant and children born to her via birth records),allows for the provision of food,housing allowance,child care and education for the purposes of job placement during the contract period,and is understood by all parties concerned that the provision of aforementioned assistance is on a one-time basis,not to be repeated or reinstated at any time for any reason between the applicant(s) and the agency named herein,and is for the aforementioned time period only,and can only be implemented following presentation of documents proving legal citizenship status and a drug screening process,both of which are to be conducted by the agency. Once legal citizenship status and drug screen results are known by the agency and the applicant and found to be favorable,this contract can then be implemented.The following covenants hereby apply and are agreed upon by both the named agency herein and the applicant(s) seeking assistance (failure of any one of these covenants will be considered a contract breach on the part of the applicant,and will result in immediate termination of the contract;assistance will be terminated immediately and can never be reinstated at any time in the future for any reason: Applicant MUST disclose the name(s) of the absent parent of applicant's child/children so that an attempt to obtain monetary support for those children can be made through DNA analysis. Failure to disclose the absent parent's name will result in automatic immediate cessation of benefits. applicant will submit to random home visits which will be unannounced and will occur during the 5-day work week,normally during the early afternoon hours; applicant will submit to random drug testing as directed by the agency; applicant must not conceive,adopt (formally or informally,including family members,immediate or extended) marry or cohabitate during the contract period; applicant must attend a one-year vocational program via a voucher provided by the agency;applicant must attend each class ( two absences will be allowed during the contract period and a doctor's note must be submitted upon returning to class for each absence) and a transportation voucher will be provided by the agency for transportation during class hours;child care will be provided by the agency during class hours only. Once applicant graduates from vocational training, a two-month job-placement period will commence,with child care provided by the agency; Upon applicant's employment,there will be an additional 4 months of ongoing assistance to allow applicant enough time to establish themselves in their occupation and to make child-care arrangements for after the contract period. Once this contract has reached its expiration date,the assistance provided,all provisions and covenants and financial considerations as well,will cease and terminate permanently.The applicant is barred from any and all future assistance. I,________________ hereby agree to adhere to all covenants,rules,etc of this contract. I realize and fully understand that I am bound by this contract in order to receive assistance in any form,and that any violation or breach will result in my not receiving any form of assistance any further. I agree further that this contract was fully explained to me by the agency caseworker and that I will fully comply. (sign & date here)____________________________ Agency hereby agrees to and will implement to the best of its ability and obligations,all covenants of this contract. (agency sign & date)_______________________

[thefoundersrock]

“do we expect every unemployed welfare recipient to sell their home before we give him Welfare?”

If it’s a million dollar home - I would say yes, we do.
Welfare should be only for those who have no other recourse - widows and orphans, as the bible says.

A better question would be should someone who works the b_tt off to make ends meet be forced to subsidize someone who’s living in a million dollar home on the water?

Not even government money grows on trees - that money comes out of working people’s pockets (both present and future.)

[C210N]

Why is he being unfairly picked on? Obviously, he’s one of the 99%.

[Maverick68]

wow

[PermaRag]

Nice. But if we want to eliminate far more common (but high taxpayer-expense) welfare cheats I’d suggest the feds work up the courage to not just invade mansions in cushy neighborhoods, but focus on the ghettos too, where there is no shortage of fraud being aided & abetted by guilty white liberal “social”(ist) workers.

It seems like the majority of “repamarations” welfare animals drive down to the local luxury grocery store in their Cadillac Escalades (handicapped parked spot of course) to purchase filet mignon and — of course — mac & cheese at our expense and then hurry back to plop their fat asses on the couch to watch Oprah on the 60-inch plasma TV.

If that’s “poverty”, I gotta get me some because it sure beats the hell out of working....

[thesaleboat]

This dude took lavish trips to foreign places, I highly doubt he was able to afford them on $300/week buddy.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I guess this is part of the millionaire tax Obama keeps talking about.

[Hodar]

I guess I disagree with you on this.

The man who was once successful, and built a company; and is now bankrupt, at one time contributed heavily to our tax burden. I would say that his contribution is typically going to be far greater than his load on the system. Making him sell his home, and start from utter bankrupcy and no home is an unfair burden.

Now, compare this to the bum who has no intention of ever getting a job, and has been on welfare his entire life. The bum is starting off with a substancial advantage, never having tried, he hasn’t filed for bankrucy; and he gets to keep his home.

Whereas, I believe, the man that tried and failed once, is likely to attempt to try again - and perhaps this time he will be successful on a longer term.

[absolootezer0]

We have the business owner, now without a business; living in a home he earned and paid for; and is living on welfare. So, now we are faced with a quandry - do we expect every unemployed welfare recipient to sell their home before we give him Welfare?

yes. welfare should be based on assets as well as income.

Or, do we only get to pick on those people who were once successful before their business failed?

no, i'm also just as adamant that we pick on *anyone* with assets receiving government aid. If you can afford a big screen tv, game systems, smart phones, ipods, and all the other popular electronic gadgets; drive a new car, live in a nice house, get your hair/ nails done every couple weeks, wear designer clothes, afford your smokes/ alcohol/ drugs, etc.. sell your crap and pay your own way.

[oldbrowser]

Last year I had a prospective tenant tell me that he makes his living off of government grants. He researches grants that are available from the government and applies for the ones he may be eligible. For instance his wife (40 years old) goes to college under some sort of grant. They were driving a brand new Mercedes (it was filthy) which he bought with grant money. He used to be a college professor but prefers this life style because it gives him more time with his wife and two children.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Did you read the story? They travel to choice luxury locations, give to charities, etc. Clearly they have other income or resources. When I was growing up in NYC, you could not register a car if you were on welfare. Certainly lots of couples had a mother on welfare and a drop in "husband" with a welfare Cadillac.

BTW, welfare was once considered a loan, not a gift, hence the stories (in NYC, at least) of welfare recipients hitting the State lottery and having to fork over all their winnings. Only to be back on welfare.

[Hodar]

If that’s “poverty”, I gotta get me some because it sure beats the hell out of working....

In Idaho, a family of 3 can expect food stamps amounting to $900/month! My wife and I are spending close to a third of that much, and we eat pretty well. I can't imagine spending $900/month on food. And we are talking about Mom, Dad and a 2 yr old.

[denydenydeny]

You can’t even say “unbelievable” because it’s very, very believable.