PDA

View Full Version : Lottery winner still using Michigan Bridge card



RedGrouse
03-07-2012, 11:51 PM
Lottery winner still using Michigan Bridge card
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/investigations/Lottery-winner-still-using-Michigan-Bridge-card/-/1719314/9223492/-/yfwc6d/-/index.html

How ****ed up is this? A lottery winner on food stamps. :livid:

SarasotaRepub
03-08-2012, 12:11 AM
"it's just hard, you know. I'm struggling," she said.


Aaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Apache
03-08-2012, 12:43 AM
welcome to the entitlement era...

NJCardFan
03-08-2012, 02:48 AM
More than likely a Democrat voter. I mean, she has 2 houses after winning $1 million yet she's struggling. You're right. Welcome to the entitlement era. And of course our resident libs won't see a problem with this. Of course, chances are she'll be broke by the end of the year anyway.

noonwitch
03-08-2012, 10:29 AM
She committed fraud by not reporting her winnings, and will have to pay the state back. She also could be prosecuted for a criminal offense, although that will likely result in fines and not prison time.

If her fines amount to more than what's left of her winnnings, she will have to go to work to pay them off, since by committing welfare fraud she is not eligible for anymore benefits at the state level. I think that would be justice served.

fettpett
03-08-2012, 11:11 AM
She committed fraud by not reporting her winnings, and will have to pay the state back. She also could be prosecuted for a criminal offense, although that will likely result in fines and not prison time.

If her fines amount to more than what's left of her winnnings, she will have to go to work to pay them off, since by committing welfare fraud she is not eligible for anymore benefits at the state level. I think that would be justice served.

did she commit fraud? and did the State change the laws on lottery winnings after the guy won the $2 Million last year and was still collecting SNAP? If not, then within the law she didn't do anything "wrong" legally. Ethically...hell yeah, dumb entitled bitch shouldn't have it.

Starbuck
03-08-2012, 11:16 AM
She committed fraud by not reporting her winnings, and will have to pay the state back. She also could be prosecuted for a criminal offense, although that will likely result in fines and not prison time.

If her fines amount to more than what's left of her winnnings, she will have to go to work to pay them off, since by committing welfare fraud she is not eligible for anymore benefits at the state level. I think that would be justice served.

Evidently she did report her income; she said taxes brought her 1 mil down to 500K +.

She's just young and not very smart. And the kind of "not very smart" that she carries around will probably not be diminished by time.

Handling large sums of money is not easy. Most people simply cannot do it, and virtually no 24 year old can do it. I am a little encouraged by the house she bought, but only a little. Maybe things will turn out alright for her. As for the Bridge Card? May as well let her keep it; she's going to be reapplying anyway.

NJCardFan
03-08-2012, 01:38 PM
Handling large sums of money is not easy. Most people simply cannot do it, and virtually no 24 year old can do it. I am a little encouraged by the house she bought, but only a little. Maybe things will turn out alright for her. As for the Bridge Card? May as well let her keep it; she's going to be reapplying anyway.

This is why the left wasn't everyone to live in poverty except for a select few because they know that if everyone was brought up to the level of the wealthy(which would be the best option in any utopia). But yeah, lottery winners are proof that some people are just too stupid to have money.

enslaved1
03-08-2012, 02:11 PM
I've seen it pop up a couple of times in the past that by some state laws, multimillionaires can qualify for food stamps because their investment income isn't counted on the application. When this came up, I figured that the winnings weren't included as income. If so, we have two examples in one of poor laws running the welfare state and this wonderful entitlement mentality.

noonwitch
03-08-2012, 02:15 PM
did she commit fraud? and did the State change the laws on lottery winnings after the guy won the $2 Million last year and was still collecting SNAP? If not, then within the law she didn't do anything "wrong" legally. Ethically...hell yeah, dumb entitled bitch shouldn't have it.

She didn't report her change in income. Cases are reviewed every six months for eligibility. It was her responsibility to report her winnings.

NJCardFan
03-08-2012, 04:33 PM
She didn't report her change in income. Cases are reviewed every six months for eligibility. It was her responsibility to report her winnings.

But you heard her. She deserves that assistance. This is the thought process of these people.

noonwitch
03-08-2012, 06:33 PM
But you heard her. She deserves that assistance. This is the thought process of these people.


Trust me, I know this. I work in the same agency, just in the children's services end of it instead of the welfare end.

Eupher
03-08-2012, 06:41 PM
Evidently she did report her income; she said taxes brought her 1 mil down to 500K +.

She's just young and not very smart. And the kind of "not very smart" that she carries around will probably not be diminished by time.

Handling large sums of money is not easy. Most people simply cannot do it, and virtually no 24 year old can do it. I am a little encouraged by the house she bought, but only a little. Maybe things will turn out alright for her. As for the Bridge Card? May as well let her keep it; she's going to be reapplying anyway.

Once a welfare cheating moonbat, always a welfare-cheating moonbat.

The mind-numbing reality in this is, she really, truly expects a government handout. She has no sense of responsibility or sense of community -- it's all about her and what she wants.

I see this over and over again each day. :livid:

fettpett
03-09-2012, 02:10 AM
She didn't report her change in income. Cases are reviewed every six months for eligibility. It was her responsibility to report her winnings.

yes, i know all that, but from what I understand she did report it and they didn't take it away. It's assets not income as it's not earned. She did nothing against any law. There is one going through the MI state legislature (has passed the House/assembly and is going to the Senate) which would require the Lottery/gaming commissar to inform DHS and cross check with anyone on the list of winnings and then to remove them from receiving aid.

However this woman is bitching because she "only" got $500k out of the winnings after taxes and what not and is "struggling" give me a fucking break. one, it was her dumbass fault for getting a lump sum and two she has plenty of money to set herself up for life if she was intelligent about investing it.

noonwitch
03-12-2012, 02:31 PM
yes, i know all that, but from what I understand she did report it and they didn't take it away. It's assets not income as it's not earned. She did nothing against any law. There is one going through the MI state legislature (has passed the House/assembly and is going to the Senate) which would require the Lottery/gaming commissar to inform DHS and cross check with anyone on the list of winnings and then to remove them from receiving aid.

However this woman is bitching because she "only" got $500k out of the winnings after taxes and what not and is "struggling" give me a fucking break. one, it was her dumbass fault for getting a lump sum and two she has plenty of money to set herself up for life if she was intelligent about investing it.


Well, then they need to fix the computer program, because the workers put the information into it and the computer decides whether someone remains eligible or not. There's not much human oversight to it anymore. An older worker might have picked up the situation, but a younger worker would never question the computer.

fettpett
03-12-2012, 02:47 PM
Well, then they need to fix the computer program, because the workers put the information into it and the computer decides whether someone remains eligible or not. There's not much human oversight to it anymore. An older worker might have picked up the situation, but a younger worker would never question the computer.

a lot of the people that work there don't give a shit either.

Retread
04-17-2012, 05:54 PM
A Michigan woman who continued to get food stamps after winning a lottery jackpot was arraigned Tuesday on welfare fraud charges.

Michigan lotto winner charged with welfare fraud (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/michigan-lotto-winner-charged-welfare-164254140.html)

Artois
04-19-2012, 10:21 AM
I hope she's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm a bit nervous about the ramifications that may come about though. I could easily see the politically correct requirements, and generally prudent ideas, as far exceeding the savings the tax payer will ever see.

NJCardFan
04-19-2012, 01:19 PM
I hope she's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm a bit nervous about the ramifications that may come about though. I could easily see the politically correct requirements, and generally prudent ideas, as far exceeding the savings the tax payer will ever see.

Those who enabled her to carry this on shouldn't go unpunished.

Artois
04-19-2012, 01:46 PM
Those who enabled her to carry this on shouldn't go unpunished.

Who enabled her to go on?

Novaheart
04-19-2012, 03:40 PM
did she commit fraud? and did the State change the laws on lottery winnings after the guy won the $2 Million last year and was still collecting SNAP? If not, then within the law she didn't do anything "wrong" legally. Ethically...hell yeah, dumb entitled bitch shouldn't have it.

We are often told by corporations and millionaires in essence that there is no such thing as ethics; they maintain that the only relevant question is whether it is legal. We are told that in the absence of a legal prohibition, a corporation has not only a right but a duty to act solely in its own interest to the exclusion of impact or morality. We have been told that holding income out of reach of American taxes is legal and therefore smart, that there is nothing unpatriotic about it. And we have wannabes who cheer on this mentality in hopes that someday they will win the lottery and actually be one of those people (see Michael Medved's program about this).

What this woman has done may well be illegal : I don't know. I don't know if the "award" is month to month in which case it would appear that she ceased to qualify when she cashed the check, or if it's annual, in which case she probably didn't violate the law. I also understand the public reaction to her continuing to use the card- because most of the public reacts on moral analysis rather than legal analysis.

I wonder how many critics look at this as one subsidy compared to another.

Does Big Sugar stop taking the subsidy when they make a profit? Do they twist the books so that they don't make a profit so they can take the subsidy? How about corn and other growers? If they make a profit, do they return the subsidy? How about oil? How many of the pigs at the public trough are making a fortune while collecting a subsidy? How many million dollar CEO's cash their paycheck drawn on subsidized accounts?

This woman shouldn't take food stamps when she's flush. No doubt. But why does everyone land on this ant when there are gigantic hogs at the trough?

noonwitch
04-19-2012, 05:26 PM
We are often told by corporations and millionaires in essence that there is no such thing as ethics; they maintain that the only relevant question is whether it is legal. We are told that in the absence of a legal prohibition, a corporation has not only a right but a duty to act solely in its own interest to the exclusion of impact or morality. We have been told that holding income out of reach of American taxes is legal and therefore smart, that there is nothing unpatriotic about it. And we have wannabes who cheer on this mentality in hopes that someday they will win the lottery and actually be one of those people (see Michael Medved's program about this).

What this woman has done may well be illegal : I don't know. I don't know if the "award" is month to month in which case it would appear that she ceased to qualify when she cashed the check, or if it's annual, in which case she probably didn't violate the law. I also understand the public reaction to her continuing to use the card- because most of the public reacts on moral analysis rather than legal analysis.

I wonder how many critics look at this as one subsidy compared to another.

Does Big Sugar stop taking the subsidy when they make a profit? Do they twist the books so that they don't make a profit so they can take the subsidy? How about corn and other growers? If they make a profit, do they return the subsidy? How about oil? How many of the pigs at the public trough are making a fortune while collecting a subsidy? How many million dollar CEO's cash their paycheck drawn on subsidized accounts?

This woman shouldn't take food stamps when she's flush. No doubt. But why does everyone land on this ant when there are gigantic hogs at the trough?


Every welfare and child welfare case in Michigan receives a redetermination of eligibility every 6 months. For foster care cases, it is about whether the case is funded by the state, feds or by the county. For welfare cases, it's to determine eligibility. If she reported her winnings, the redetermination would have been triggered automatically by the computer system.

She had to post a $10,000 bond.:smile-new:

NJCardFan
04-20-2012, 12:06 AM
This woman shouldn't take food stamps when she's flush. No doubt. But why does everyone land on this ant when there are gigantic hogs at the trough?

Because while you're singling out one entity, there are thousands if not more people like this woman, that's why(not lottery winners abusing welfare but people abusing it in general).

m00
04-20-2012, 03:09 AM
Does Big Sugar stop taking the subsidy when they make a profit? Do they twist the books so that they don't make a profit so they can take the subsidy?

Yeah I watch my company's quarterly report with interest. We have really good accountants. It seems like when it's time to demonstrate our value to the market, our debts are "investments" and therefore "assets." When it's time to pay taxes, the exact same debts are written off to reduce taxable income. It's perfectly legal, and you are correct... in business there is no morals and ethics, just what's legal and not legal. Although, I'm not sure why exactly this itself is a case for less regulations (laws governing business).

Novaheart
04-20-2012, 10:03 AM
Because while you're singling out one entity, there are thousands if not more people like this woman, that's why(not lottery winners abusing welfare but people abusing it in general).

My friend Rick grows Christmas trees on his 90 acres in suburban Maryland. This allows him to maintain his status as "agricultural exemption" without which his property taxes would be immense. So while everyone else is paying taxes on every square inch of his quarter acre, my friend gets to play gentleman farmer and pay relatively little tax on 90 acres.