Welfare Recipient Lives In Million Dollar Home

[MJS]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...ient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html

A Seattle woman who is receiving welfare assistance from Washington state also happens to live in a waterfront house on Lake Washington worth more than a million dollars.
Federal agents raided the home this weekend but have not released the woman or her husband's name because they have not officially been charged with a crime.
However, federal documents obtained by KING 5 News show the couple currently receives more than $1,200 a month in public housing vouchers, plus state and government disability checks and food stamps. They have been receiving the benefits since 2003.
The 2,500 square-foot home, which includes gardens and a boat dock, is valued at $1.2 million. And even though the couple has been receiving the benefits for nearly 10 years, records show that they accurately listed the address of their current home when applying for the state and federal benefits.
A federal official told KING 5 that the couple likely took advantage of a loophole, which allows low-income individuals to receive financial assistance to help them pay their rent and move away from housing projects. However, the law does not require officials to verify what type of home the benefits recipient is living in.
As if the million dollar home weren't enough, the supposedly low-income couple also gave money to various charities and traveled around the world to locales in Turkey, Tel Aviv and resort towns in Mexico, according to court records.

Stuff like this really pisses me off, and this is why I feel that the time frame that people are allowed to collect, needs to be watched and limited to a set amount of time. These people should be made to repay every penny they stole and locked up for a while. Of course, the system as a whole should be revamped, so as to prevent any other 'loopholes' from happening.

 

[granfire]

well, house poor....Aside from Bill Gates, who has the money?

Then again, in Florida Bankruptcy laws can keep you in a million dollar mansion, too.

 

[punisher73]

I remember a news story not too long ago about all these millionaires that lost their jobs and are applying for unemployment etc. Unfortunately, it's a loophole that hadn't been exploited before so now they are getting huge checks for not working.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...ient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html

Stuff like this really pisses me off, and this is why I feel that the time frame that people are allowed to collect, needs to be watched and limited to a set amount of time. These people should be made to repay every penny they stole and locked up for a while. Of course, the system as a whole should be revamped, so as to prevent any other 'loopholes' from happening.

What did they steal?

They don't own the 'million dollar home'. They rent it.

They didn't lie on their application. They put down the correct address where they live.

They haven't been charged with any crime as of this date; people just seem outraged that someone on public assistance can live in an apparently-wealthy setting.

A federal official spoke to KING 5 News on condition of anonymity. He says the housing voucher program provides coupons that help low-income people pay their rent. He says it allows people to get out of housing projects and move into the place of their choosing. However, he says a “flaw” is that the program doesn’t analyze where people are living, even if it is at a ritzy address that should raise a red flag.

So if I understand the 'federal official' correctly, people on public assistance should damned look be miserable and live in the area of town set aside for miserable people, not uptown with the rich. If you're going to be on the dole, you'd damn well better be suffering, and look like it too. Is that about right? Shall we make sure they wear tattered clothes, too?

Court records show the couple gave money to charities and traveled around the world to exotic places like Turkey, Tel Aviv and resort towns in Mexico.

Interesting. Yet it does not say how they got the money to travel. Sounds outrageous, but what were the conditions that gave them this ability?

As to those 'limits' you seem to think do not exist...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009173949_welfare05m.html

About welfare
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the official name for welfare, primarily is a program for poor adults with children. The average TANF family has 1.7 children. A family of two (one parent, one child) receives a monthly cash grant of $453. The grant increases by about $100 with each additional family member. Many families also receive food stamps each month worth about $100 per person.

To qualify, you must:

• Be a parent or other adult caretaker of a child under 18, or 19 if they're still in school, or be pregnant;

• Be a citizen or fit within narrow criteria for noncitizens, such as being a victim of trafficking;

• Have income under the program limits — for example, a maximum $1,322 per month for a family of four;

• Have less than $1,000 in resources;

• Participate in WorkFirst activities designed to move families to self-sufficiency when required. That means 32 hours a week of activities such as job training or education. Child care is subsidized.

Source: Washington Department of Social and Health Services and Office of Financial Management

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/onlinecso/TANF_Support_Services.shtml

Time limitations:

As of August 1997, some TANF families are limited to sixty months of benefits in their lifetime.

If these people are found to have lied, cheated, or defrauded in order to get benefits, then I'm hoping they get arrested and punished. However, at first glance, it looks more like they are being offensive to the non-poor by not looking poor, desperate, and on the brink of starvation. If there is something wrong with living in a rented home that is in the 'wrong neighborhood' for a person on public assistance, I would challenge you to take a look at your prejudices instead. Apparently, there is a stigma; to get aid, the poor have to look and act poor.

More important by far are the groups and organizations defrauding public assistance to the tune of billions of dollars a year. We focus on Joe Sixpack driving an SUV while getting food stamps and ignore the doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies bilking and defrauding the taxpayer of billions of dollars in public assistance money. There's some thinking for ya. Way to keep an eye on the ball.

And since we're talking about people taking what they don't deserve, what are your thoughts on the trend towards police, fire, and other first-responders retiring on full medical disability these days instead of putting in a full 40 years and retiring on less pay in a healthy state? Funny how many retired cops live near me who worked maybe 20 to 30 years for the PD, and now strangely they were 100% disabled and have a great house, boat, snowmobile, jetskis, kids are in college, a nice hunting lodge up north, and yeah, they made maybe $50K per year on their best year with overtime, but somehow they are both 100% disabled and fully able to enjoy an active athletic life to the fullest at a young age. How about that. I guess the disability must by invisible.

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/c...millions-for-questionable-disability-pensions

 

[WC_lun]

If they are cheats, throw them in jail and make them repay the money. However, I saw nothing in the article confirming they were cheats. It looked more like prejudice baiting. None of us know the circumstance of thier rent agreement. Perhaps the wealthy homeowners are letting them live there as both a charity and security for thier property. Honestly, to me it lookks like more of the trend of making people on assistance look like crooks. If it becomes easy to believe the poor are all crooks, then it becomes easier to not help them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If they are cheats, throw them in jail and make them repay the money. However, I saw nothing in the article confirming they were cheats. It looked more like prejudice baiting. None of us know the circumstance of thier rent agreement. Perhaps the wealthy homeowners are letting them live there as both a charity and security for thier property. Honestly, to me it lookks like more of the trend of making people on assistance look like crooks. If it becomes easy to believe the poor are all crooks, then it becomes easier to not help them.

I'm not on public assistance, I am fortunate enough to have a good job, but I rent a house under the same circumstances you gave above. I live in a very nice neighborhood, well above what I could have afforded to buy into even when I owned my own home. The landlord had two houses and lived in one; they had intended to sell the other and then the housing market crashed. Their monthly mortgage payment is quite a bit higher than I pay them in rent; but it works for them because the house is not vacant and thus not subject to being broken into and looted for copper, and my rent does offset their mortgage payment some extent. Rather than losing the home entirely to foreclosure and ruining their credit, they keep it and hopefully someday the market will recover and they can sell it for what they paid for it. In the meantime, we have a nice place to live for less than we would otherwise be able to afford.

But perhaps it's not meet that a person such as myself should be so vulgar as to live amongst the decent people of society. I should stick to my own kind and live where my economic station demands I live. Otherwise, people might mistake me for someone making a good income, and we would not want that. Heaven forbid I should lose my job and have unemployment help pay my rent whilst I continued to live in such a high-falutin' neighborhood. I should immediately go live in a van down by the river, as befits the poor.

 

[seasoned]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...ient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html



Stuff like this really pisses me off, and this is why I feel that the time frame that people are allowed to collect, needs to be watched and limited to a set amount of time. These people should be made to repay every penny they stole and locked up for a while. Of course, the system as a whole should be revamped, so as to prevent any other 'loopholes' from happening.

Pisses me off also.... If they lived that life style around the more needy, they wouldn't last but a few days. I have nothing against public assistance, but don't be so blatant about it................

 

[granfire]

Well, on the other hand, having a house does not equal riches - not anymore.

And frankly, I loathe regulations that force you to strip any and all worldly possession to get benefits you need to eat etc.

It makes it nearly impossible for a person to recover from economic hardship that way
(I in turn find it more trouble some when people obviously on foodstamps or similar financial aid reach for the high price brands when the generic brands are just as good and much cheaper, but hey, it's not illegal)

 

[MJS]

What did they steal?

They don't own the 'million dollar home'. They rent it.

They didn't lie on their application. They put down the correct address where they live.

They haven't been charged with any crime as of this date; people just seem outraged that someone on public assistance can live in an apparently-wealthy setting.


So if I understand the 'federal official' correctly, people on public assistance should damned look be miserable and live in the area of town set aside for miserable people, not uptown with the rich. If you're going to be on the dole, you'd damn well better be suffering, and look like it too. Is that about right? Shall we make sure they wear tattered clothes, too?


Interesting. Yet it does not say how they got the money to travel. Sounds outrageous, but what were the conditions that gave them this ability?

As to those 'limits' you seem to think do not exist...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009173949_welfare05m.html



http://www.dshs.wa.gov/onlinecso/TANF_Support_Services.shtml



If these people are found to have lied, cheated, or defrauded in order to get benefits, then I'm hoping they get arrested and punished. However, at first glance, it looks more like they are being offensive to the non-poor by not looking poor, desperate, and on the brink of starvation. If there is something wrong with living in a rented home that is in the 'wrong neighborhood' for a person on public assistance, I would challenge you to take a look at your prejudices instead. Apparently, there is a stigma; to get aid, the poor have to look and act poor.

More important by far are the groups and organizations defrauding public assistance to the tune of billions of dollars a year. We focus on Joe Sixpack driving an SUV while getting food stamps and ignore the doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies bilking and defrauding the taxpayer of billions of dollars in public assistance money. There's some thinking for ya. Way to keep an eye on the ball.

And since we're talking about people taking what they don't deserve, what are your thoughts on the trend towards police, fire, and other first-responders retiring on full medical disability these days instead of putting in a full 40 years and retiring on less pay in a healthy state? Funny how many retired cops live near me who worked maybe 20 to 30 years for the PD, and now strangely they were 100% disabled and have a great house, boat, snowmobile, jetskis, kids are in college, a nice hunting lodge up north, and yeah, they made maybe $50K per year on their best year with overtime, but somehow they are both 100% disabled and fully able to enjoy an active athletic life to the fullest at a young age. How about that. I guess the disability must by invisible.

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/c...millions-for-questionable-disability-pensions

Well Bill, I can see this is one of those subjects that is touchy with you, just like imigration topics. I'm probably going to regret posting this topic, but hey, whats done is done, right.

Anywho....Bill, in a nutshell, my views are this: I'm all for helping people. Ya wanna better your life, sure, come on over the good ol' US of A, but God dammit...do it by the book! None of this sneaky ****, do it legally. If someone is poor and needs assistance, sure, I'm all for helping. BUT....lets cap the time that you can keep reaping the benefits. I mean, unemployment benefits don't last years and years and years and years, yet welfare does? Whats wrong with that picture?

From the link:

"A federal official told KING 5 that the couple likely took advantage of a loophole, which allows low-income individuals to receive financial assistance to help them pay their rent and move away from housing projects. However, the law does not require officials to verify what type of home the benefits recipient is living in.
As if the million dollar home weren't enough, the supposedly low-income couple also gave money to various charities and traveled around the world to locales in Turkey, Tel Aviv and resort towns in Mexico, according to court records."

If there is a loop hole, fix it! Do you like giving stuff to people who dont deserve it? If you do, then you're a better man, or a fool, either one. Me....again, if someone REALLY deserves it, I'm more than happy to help. But if you're on foodstamps, on welfare, if you're living in a slum, your kids shouldn't be wearing name brand clothing and you shouldn't be driving a fancy car. Could these cars and clothes be gifts? Possibly, but if the welfare recipient bought them, then theres something wrong. Perhaps those people should be re-evaluated to see if they really need that assistance.

I dont know about you, but this is the first time I've seen someone on welfare living in a million dollar home. And I find it hard to believe it was impossible for the state to know where these people live. The address doesnt give it away? I mean, where I work, if someone told me they lived on Ferry St., I'd know they lived in the north end of the city of Middletown, probably in one of the projects. If they told me they lived on Old Farms East, well, common sense would tell me they're in a $400k+ home.

Like I said, once again, if they're really in need, sure, help 'em out. But if they're not, if they're defrauding the system in ANY way, then that is wrong.

 

[MJS]

Oh and FWIW, my mortage isn't that far off, from what these people are getting from the state, and I'm not living in a million dollar house! LOL! In CT, I'd be hard pressed to find a multi million dollar house with a mortgage that was 1200. Then again, perhaps depending on the state, cost of living, etc, makes a difference.

 

[MJS]

And since we're talking about people taking what they don't deserve, what are your thoughts on the trend towards police, fire, and other first-responders retiring on full medical disability these days instead of putting in a full 40 years and retiring on less pay in a healthy state? Funny how many retired cops live near me who worked maybe 20 to 30 years for the PD, and now strangely they were 100% disabled and have a great house, boat, snowmobile, jetskis, kids are in college, a nice hunting lodge up north, and yeah, they made maybe $50K per year on their best year with overtime, but somehow they are both 100% disabled and fully able to enjoy an active athletic life to the fullest at a young age. How about that. I guess the disability must by invisible.

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/c...millions-for-questionable-disability-pensions

I'm sure you know that many of these types of jobs have a '20 and out' clause built into them. And if they're defrauding the system, then shame on them and shame on any and all who let it slide. Of course, we all know how legit and upstanding the doctors in the world are, so I'm sure finding someone who's a snakeoil salesman, isnt hard. I hurt my back, outside of work. I wanted my doc to give me a note stating that I could only work 8hrs./day. At least until it healed more than it was. Wanna know what he said he'd do for me? Give me a note saying I had to get up every hour and walk around. Jesus Christ, I don't need a note for that! LOL!

And as for the 50k.....again, I'm sure that must depend on the state, the dept, etc, because there're ALOT of LEOs/COs, that I know, that make WELL over that amount. Some are making 40 or 50k in OT alone, nevermind their base pay. Then again, they probably dont have lives outside of work. LOL.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well Bill, I can see this is one of those subjects that is touchy with you, just like imigration topics. I'm probably going to regret posting this topic, but hey, whats done is done, right.

Actually, I'm just in favor of accuracy and a bit of perspective. We get fed the 'outrage of the day' and we get outraged, just like the tools we are (and I'm not immune to it either). We ignore the bigger picture and the bigger problem.

Anywho....Bill, in a nutshell, my views are this: I'm all for helping people. Ya wanna better your life, sure, come on over the good ol' US of A, but God dammit...do it by the book! None of this sneaky ****, do it legally. If someone is poor and needs assistance, sure, I'm all for helping. BUT....lets cap the time that you can keep reaping the benefits. I mean, unemployment benefits don't last years and years and years and years, yet welfare does? Whats wrong with that picture?

There is a limit on welfare. Most states have lifetime caps. I'm not sure why people keep insisting that there are no caps; there are.

From the link:

"A federal official told KING 5 that the couple likely took advantage of a loophole, which allows low-income individuals to receive financial assistance to help them pay their rent and move away from housing projects. However, the law does not require officials to verify what type of home the benefits recipient is living in.
As if the million dollar home weren't enough, the supposedly low-income couple also gave money to various charities and traveled around the world to locales in Turkey, Tel Aviv and resort towns in Mexico, according to court records."

If there is a loop hole, fix it! Do you like giving stuff to people who dont deserve it? If you do, then you're a better man, or a fool, either one. Me....again, if someone REALLY deserves it, I'm more than happy to help. But if you're on foodstamps, on welfare, if you're living in a slum, your kids shouldn't be wearing name brand clothing and you shouldn't be driving a fancy car. Could these cars and clothes be gifts? Possibly, but if the welfare recipient bought them, then theres something wrong. Perhaps those people should be re-evaluated to see if they really need that assistance.

Loophole is just another word. It means someone followed the letter of the law but in a way that the lawmakers had not imagined or envisioned. It is neither immoral nor illegal to exploit the law; if there was a 'loophole' that allowed people with red cars to avoid traffic tickets, that would be the only color car sold.

Second, you're conflating all the stories about 'Welfare moms' to focus your anger on this story. I don't know what kind of car these people drive, or how they dress their kids. Do you?

Most social welfare that I'm aware of makes the recipient spend all their disposable income and liquidate all assets before they can receive aid. Only a few are strictly income-based. In any case, if this family did wrong, then I agree that they should be arrested, tried, and punished. If not, then I'd be interested to know how they legally were able to take exotic vacations while receiving public assistance. But in the absence of criminal charges, I have to assume (for now) that they did it legally and it's not really my business. Is there something wrong with a system that allows this? I don't know. I really don't think it's an epidemic problem, though.

I dont know about you, but this is the first time I've seen someone on welfare living in a million dollar home. And I find it hard to believe it was impossible for the state to know where these people live. The address doesnt give it away? I mean, where I work, if someone told me they lived on Ferry St., I'd know they lived in the north end of the city of Middletown, probably in one of the projects. If they told me they lived on Old Farms East, well, common sense would tell me they're in a $400k+ home.

Why does it make any difference what the net value is of the home they are RENTING? If the rent is in line with what's allowed, and they gave the information correctly, I fail to see the point; unless you wish to argue that certain people (the unemployed or poor) should not live in certain neighborhoods...

Like I said, once again, if they're really in need, sure, help 'em out. But if they're not, if they're defrauding the system in ANY way, then that is wrong.

But if they are really in need, you seem to think they should ACT like they're really in need. Wear rags, live in a ghetto, drive a ratty car, beg on streetcorners. If they manage to get a rich guy with an empty house he can't sell to rent them an empty mansion for cheap, well, that just doesn't look right. FORCE them to move into the crappy part of town, for the sake of appearances, not to mention that rich people really don't care for the poor living amongst them.

I'm not seeing the issue here, except we have someone getting public assistance (apparently legally, at least from what we know so far) who has the uppityness to not act poor and downtrodden and needy at us. I'm not sure if that shows us something bad about them...or us.

 

[Empty Hands]

Actually, I'm just in favor of accuracy and a bit of perspective. We get fed the 'outrage of the day' and we get outraged, just like the tools we are (and I'm not immune to it either). We ignore the bigger picture and the bigger problem.

I think this is a critically important point to remember. People don't generally do outrageous things for absolutely no reason. When you dig into these stories, there are almost always mitigating factors, reasons and explanations that add weight to the other side of the story. I don't know if it is being done on purpose, but we are definitely falling for the "outrage of the day" trap.

Perfect example: the "hot coffee" lawsuit against McDonalds. "Everyone knew" that some woman was getting rich by attacking McDonalds for serving hot coffee and for her spilling a little on herself. She should have known coffee was hot, right? What was the reality? The woman had extensive 3rd degree burns all over her legs which required multiple surgeries, McDonalds was deliberately serving coffee heated well above the normal serving temperature in an attempt to discourage refills, and McDonalds had had complaints and warnings about their coffee before which they chose to ignore. There was a lot more to the story.

Even in cases where I strongly disagree, such as the PATRIOT act and eroding liberties or the desire to teach creationism in science class, I can at least recognize the motivations and value systems of those making the bad decisions. They aren't just being evil for no reason.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think this is a critically important point to remember. People don't generally do outrageous things for absolutely no reason. When you dig into these stories, there are almost always mitigating factors, reasons and explanations that add weight to the other side of the story. I don't know if it is being done on purpose, but we are definitely falling for the "outrage of the day" trap.

The clue for me on this story was the point that the house is a 'million-dollar mansion' but then the same report says what they pay in rent. Accurate? Sure, probably. But people see 'million-dollar mansion' and assume they own it; they don't read the rent part.

The fact that they were raided seems to support the notion that something's not quite right here; and if they have broken laws, then hey, arrest and prosecute. But the story also said they had not been charged (yet) with any crime, and even noted that they honestly reported their address and the rent they pay. Not sure anyone's really seeing that part; too busy being outraged.

I get the basic premise. Public assistance is tax money; those of us who work and pay taxes are paying it to help others. And most of us don't begrudge that; to an extent; but we don't want our noses rubbed in it, and we don't want to feel like we're being taken advantage of. That's why so many of those stories have persisted over the years about 'Welfare mothers' who drive expensive cars and clothe their kids with $200 tennis shoes, all on the taxpayer's nickel.

I fell for that for a long time myself; it's easy to become outraged at such stories. And there are cases of fraud AND abuse, no doubt. Those few that are real, by all means prosecute them, lock them up! Hear, hear!

However, sometimes I also feel that there is a social stigma attached to accepting public assistance, and not only does it exist, but many of us WANT it to exist. We want the people to accept aid to be needy, grateful, humble, thankful, and above all, not appear to be doing OK. They should suffer and LOOK like they are suffering. It's not that we wish them ill, specifically, but we don't want to seem them driving a car as good or better than ours, we don't want to see them at the ball game or a McDonalds. They should stay our of our sight, and quiet, while they receive aid from our tax dollars.

Some countries go the other way. I have read (don't know if it is true) that people on the dole in the UK are paid by the government to vacation overseas because not having a vacation like working people is stigmatizing. I don't know.

Of course there is a line for public assistance. We really do not want to subsidize laziness and pay wealthy people not to work; rightfully so. But we have reformed Welfare in the USA; most states have a lifetime cap on benefits. I've mentioned it I don't know how many times, but those who dislike Welfare just keep asking "When will we cap benefits" as if we hadn't. I guess they want to pretend we have no caps on it. I don't know what else to say; the facts are the facts; the lifetime cap is not opinion, it's right there in the law.

All of us are hurting these days. Some more than others. I am not fond of a welfare state; but I don't think we have one. I think we lose a lot more money to fraud at a higher level; and we ignore it to focus on what we see or think we see; the daily outrage. I think that's sad, especially because it doesn't even serve the stated cause of cutting the amount of money we spend on programs like Welfare. It just lets us focus our anger on a couple of people; some criminals and some not. It lets us continue to cherish ill-founded beliefs that serve our prejudices. A true conservative, which I still claim I am, has to open their eyes and mind and as Rush says, "follow the money" to the actual issues, not whatever hapless slob is shown in the news getting a Welfare check whilst not groveling appropriately.

 

[Steve]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...ient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html



Stuff like this really pisses me off, and this is why I feel that the time frame that people are allowed to collect, needs to be watched and limited to a set amount of time. These people should be made to repay every penny they stole and locked up for a while. Of course, the system as a whole should be revamped, so as to prevent any other 'loopholes' from happening.

I want to make it clear that I don't know anything about this case, but based only on what's in this thread, even if the person owned the home, they may still be totally within the rules. It's pretty common in welfare situations for a person's home to be excluded as a resource. Whether it's a mansion or a shack, the laws are written so that a person won't be forced to sell their home by the government. If you think about it, this is a pretty reasonable rule. It frees up the state or federal case workers from getting into the highly volatile and labor intensive real estate appraisal business, and overall, it saves the tax payers a boat load of money. Other common exclusions include things like one vehicle, burial plots, and furniture.

This just isn't, IMO, that big a deal. Now, if she's got liquid assets she's been hiding, or has been actively defrauding the program, I am all for throwing the book at her. But in this case, if it's just her house, it's very likely that she gave the address and the case workers appropriately and correctly excluded the value of the home according to their rules.

This isn't a loophole as much as it's an administrative expedience grounded in what would be common sense in 99.9% of the cases. In most cases, this rule makes sense and it would be a huge waste of tax payer money to pay government workers to appraise every piece of property.

 

[ballen0351]

Perfect example: the "hot coffee" lawsuit against McDonalds. "Everyone knew" that some woman was getting rich by attacking McDonalds for serving hot coffee and for her spilling a little on herself. She should have known coffee was hot, right? What was the reality? The woman had extensive 3rd degree burns all over her legs which required multiple surgeries, McDonalds was deliberately serving coffee heated well above the normal serving temperature in an attempt to discourage refills, and McDonalds had had complaints and warnings about their coffee before which they chose to ignore. There was a lot more to the story.
.

And she was still stupid everyone knows coffee is hot so dont put a cup of coffee between your legs. End of story........

 

[Empty Hands]

And she was still stupid everyone knows coffee is hot so dont put a cup of coffee between your legs. End of story........

Besides ignoring the entire main point of my post...not "everyone knows" that coffee causes 3rd degree burns causing extensive damage and requiring surgery and skin grafts.

Not "everyone knows" that coffee will do this (WARNING - graphic tissue damage picture).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Besides ignoring the entire main point of my post...not "everyone knows" that coffee causes 3rd degree burns causing extensive damage and requiring surgery and skin grafts.

Not "everyone knows" that coffee will do this (WARNING - graphic tissue damage picture).

The only things I *knew* about McDonald's coffee was...

a) It used to taste terrible (it's much better these days). It was close to the most horrible coffee in the world; I'd never touch it except in extreme need of caffeine.
b) It was nuclear face-of-the-sun hot. I always went inside for my coffee, so I could dump some out and put ice in it. Otherwise, it would be scalding hot for hours. Utterly undrinkable.

In any case, the famous lawsuit was indeed blown out of proportion by all accounts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

[ballen0351]

Besides ignoring the entire main point of my post...not "everyone knows" that coffee causes 3rd degree burns causing extensive damage and requiring surgery and skin grafts.

Not "everyone knows" that coffee will do this (WARNING - graphic tissue damage picture).

I agreed with the rest of your post. Eveyone KNOWS coffee is hot and you shouldnt put it between your legs. If you dont KNOW coffee is hot you will when you touch the cup because the cup will also be hot. That should tell your brain not to try and hold the cup with your legs as you try to add sugar and cream because it might burn you.

 

[granfire]

The only things I *knew* about McDonald's coffee was...

a) It used to taste terrible (it's much better these days). It was close to the most horrible coffee in the world; I'd never touch it except in extreme need of caffeine.
b) It was nuclear face-of-the-sun hot. I always went inside for my coffee, so I could dump some out and put ice in it. Otherwise, it would be scalding hot for hours. Utterly undrinkable.

In any case, the famous lawsuit was indeed blown out of proportion by all accounts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

I think it was well known that the coffee was ridiculously hot. Part of the reason why so many people bought it.
I hardly ever buy coffee like that from anywhere, because it's too hot too long...and hardly ever good.

But how did we get from 'rich people' getting benefits to Micky D's coffee incident?