Is it within the rules for someone to post on the SDMB, “How do I knock off a convenience store, because my child is starving?” Clearly not. So how is AuGratin’s OP in the other thread any different?
Benefit fraud is illegal. Getting married just to obtain benefits (like citizenship, for example) is fraudulent, so why wouldn’t getting divorced just to obtain benefits be just as fraudulent?
What are the false pretenses? Are you under the impression that divorces are particularly hard to get? My guess is that if she divorces him it is because she no longer wishes to be married to him.
I noticed you are posting here as a guest. You do realize that this board is running and you are able to post here because the majority of us have paid to post here. So technically, you’re getting a free ride here at our expense.
A newbie logs on to the SDMB and averages 40 posts per day (x). If he shows himself to be a dick by day 2 of his guest membership (y), how many days will it be before he storms off the boards in a huff when he realizes people won’t put up with him?
Extra credit: Express in ratio form the likelihood of the newbie creating a large inflammatory Pit thread as his or her last post.
Your story seems to be changing a bit now that you are the only one on that side of the fence. :dubious:
If you admit that she deserves the help, she knows what will make her husband eligible for help, none of it is illegal, why can’t she do it? She will still have to acknowledge that she lives with him and that may or may not factor into his eligibility. Again, none of this is illegal. I wish our government had the foresight to make this a moot point, but sadly it doesn’t.
In the end, divorcing her husband to increase his eligibilities will probably cost less than if they stayed married. Remember, if they stay married, they are likely running two lives into the ground (and onto social services roles). Sometimes the ends do justify the means.
Where did you get the idea that I cared? You asked a question, I answered it.
Oh please. If she files for divorce she must want to. Q.E.D. I suppose what you are trying to ask is would such a divorce be legal? One would have to assume so. If a judge grants a divorce, who are you to complain? Are you suggesting that you know better than the court who should be married and who should not? Do you spend your free time checking court records to make sure that all divorces are properly administered?
From the thread YOU LINKED. (bolding mine)
*"Let me state that I am trying to deal as best I can, *within the bounds of the ** law, with a situation that seems to have given me three choices:"
*Your story seems to be changing a bit now that you are the only one on that side of the fence. *
Show me where it has changed. Red, as the only resident on this side of the fence for 40 years - trust me. I don’t wither in the face of opposition so easily.
*If you admit that she deserves the help, she knows what will make her husband eligible for help, none of it is illegal, why can’t she do it? *
Because it is illegal. Divorcing someone so you can get benefts is about as legal as marrying someone to get citizenship.
She will still have to acknowledge that she lives with him and that may or may not factor into his eligibility. *
Getting a bit ahead of yourself there Red. Tell me about the answers given when asked WHY the divorce is being requested.
Again, none of this is illegal. I wish our government had the foresight to make this a moot point, but sadly it doesn’t. *
Disagree, it’s totally illegal. BTW - whatever happened to govt of the people, by the people, for the people?
Why is it that every time something fucked up happens that we don’t like - it’s the gov’t fault? Aren’t you the Gov’t? Aren’t I? Whatever happened to honesty and personal accountability in thos country?
In the end, divorcing her husband to increase his eligibilities will probably cost less than if they stayed married. Remember, if they stay married, they are likely running two lives into the ground (and onto social services roles). Sometimes the ends do justify the means. *
Perhaps. But a lie is always a lie.
Where did you get the idea that I cared? You asked a question, I answered it.
What the hell does PC, socialism, or liberalism have to do with any of this?
Here’s my analysis, for what it’s worth:
(1) The question of whether it’s OK to steal a loaf of bread to save a starving child is not at all a cut and dried one. If someone asked you if it was right to do so, and you said “absolutely not”, then, well, I just plain don’t understand you.
(2) That said, it’s not at all clear that this case is analogous to that. The social safety net laws were set up in an attempt to fairly provide a decent level of support to everyone. But there are always going to be corner cases of people who fail to qualify for the letter of the law even though they would qualify for the spirit of the law. And there are various levels of “deceit” and “fraud”. There are shades of gray.
For instance, if there were a special program that was only available to veterans, which would pay for life saving surgery, and someone who was not even remotely a veteran forged some ID to enter this program, and used it to get money for cosmetic surgery, that would be VERY BAD. Suppose, however, that this program was open to people who had served for 5 years consecutively, and someone who had served for 12 years, but in 3 stretches of 4 years, so who didn’t technically qualify, dummied up his papers? That’s still fraud, but it’s clear (to me) that that’s not nearly as bad.
This situation strikes me as far more like the latter than the former. If the woman and her husband had never gotten married in the first place, then presumably he’d be eligible for this medicine, even if they’d lived together and so forth. That indicates to me that he’s not clearly and grossly NOT intended to be eligible, rather, it’s a question of paperwork, technicalities, and letter of the law. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be fraud, or wouldn’t be wrong, I’m saying it’s not as Bad-with-a-capital-B as you seem to be making it out to be. And, in fact, if they live in a state with no-fault divorce, they are perfectly free to divorce for any reason whatsoever. If they’re never signing paper saying “I don’t love this person any more” but just paper saying “I want this legal contract to end”, then there’s (imho) (and I’m not a lawyer) no fraud at all.
To put it yet another way, there are some evil acts (for instance, child molestation) that I’d hope I would never commit, ever, period. I also am quite confident that I’m not going to generally commit, say, perjury. But, could one construct a hypothetical situation in which I would, reluctantly, perjur myself? Probably. Does that make me a Bad Person? Or a socialist PC liberal whiner?
milroyj asked me that question. Believe me, had he known the answer he would have said it. I don’t know the answer either. Therefore, since you are certain of the answer: cite?
The question of whether it’s OK to steal a loaf of bread to save a starving child is not at all a cut and dried one. If someone asked you if it was right to do so, and you said “absolutely not”, then, well, I just plain don’t understand you.
Because I would never steal to feed a life I created. Why would you steal when you can ask? To steal is to deny the owner of that bread the ability to feed his own children. You think he got that fucking bread for free? What, did the govt give it to him or some shit?
That said, it’s not at all clear that this case is analogous to that. The social safety net laws were set up in an attempt to fairly provide a decent level of support to everyone. But there are always going to be corner cases of people who fail to qualify for the letter of the law even though they would qualify for the spirit of the law. And there are various levels of “deceit” and “fraud”. There are shades of gray.
Not in my wallet. No gray there at all. Just an ever increasing dissapearance of green.
For instance, if there were a special program that was only available to veterans, which would pay for life saving surgery, and someone who was not even remotely a veteran forged some ID to enter this program, and used it to get money for cosmetic surgery, that would be VERY BAD. Suppose, however, that this program was open to people who had served for 5 years consecutively, and someone who had served for 12 years, but in 3 stretches of 4 years, so who didn’t technically qualify, dummied up his papers? That’s still fraud, but it’s clear (to me) that that’s not nearly as bad.
It’s just as bad. Obtaining services under false pretences is fraud, and I don’t care how you spin it.
This situation strikes me as far more like the latter than the former. If the woman and her husband had never gotten married in the first place, then presumably he’d be eligible for this medicine, even if they’d lived together and so forth. That indicates to me that he’s not clearly and grossly NOT intended to be eligible, rather, it’s a question of paperwork, technicalities, and letter of the law. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be fraud, or wouldn’t be wrong, I’m saying it’s not as Bad-with-a-capital-B as you seem to be making it out to be. And, in fact, if they live in a state with no-fault divorce, they are perfectly free to divorce for any reason whatsoever. If they’re never signing paper saying “I don’t love this person any more” but just paper saying “I want this legal contract to end”, then there’s (imho) (and I’m not a lawyer) no fraud at all.
*Fine. As long as they live up to the divorce CONTRACT. Which means they seperate and don’t combine income from the state under one household, under the pretense they are living seperately. *
To put it yet another way, there are some evil acts (for instance, child molestation) that I’d hope I would never commit, ever, period. I also am quite confident that I’m not going to generally commit, say, perjury. But, could one construct a hypothetical situation in which I would, reluctantly, perjur myself? Probably. Does that make me a Bad Person? Or a socialist PC liberal whiner?
No, not at all. Until the deed is done, it’s all conjecture.