Talk:Monthly tugboat

To do

• Chris's references to his monthly tugboat (see Smithey e-mails and Miyamoto e-mails).

BETTER TO DO

The origins are explained in the BlueSpike Skype log...somewhere. just...look for it. Clydec 20:14, 11 October 2010 (PDT)

Done, Cash Sifu. --SeventhBase 20:29, 11 October 2010 (PDT)

---

Random Thought: Since Chris gets paid from welfare out of our pockets, are we not paying for him entertaining us? It seems like a fair exchange for me. If anything, Chris should be thanking us (and everyone else who is an USAfag and pays taxes) for keeping him and his creepy obsessions alive. Since I have to pay for him, I want to get every cent worth from this lolcow. --Wild Sonichu 04:33, 12 May 2009 (CEST)

Disambiguation

'Monthly Tugboat' shoud just contain the definition and the times he's used the word, we shoud create another page titled 'Chris and Money' --Robotnik 01:38, 20 May 2009 (CEST)

I liek both the above ideas. --Jump 17:22, 30 May 2009 (CEST)

$800,$750?

I've noticed that some pages say that his tugboat is $750 and others saying that it's $800. Does anyone have evidence to show which value it is?(Drlugae 19:25, 21 July 2009 (CEST))

• The thing is, Chris has said about three different values. I believe he's said "$800" so let's try and find a citation for that. --Champthom 19:48, 21 July 2009 (CEST)
• The tugboat rises in value each year so long as cost of living increases, so it's definitely over $800. $750 might be an old number from a few years back. Elephant 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

State or federal?

Is the welfare program chris leeches off of paid for by all taxpayers or just the ones in virginia? V3N0M1300 21:18, 28 September 2009 (CEST)

• It's social security. So it's federal. And it is somehow arranged through Bob's SSN. Details as to how this works exactly are fuzzy. But it isn't typical state welfare. --Fuckingstupid 22:01, 28 September 2009 (CEST)

• It needs to be reiterated that this is not a welfare check but a disability check. It is a form of government welfare, but it is not welfare in a "you don't need to work" sort of way but that he has managed to establish he has a disability (namely autism) that prevents him from maintaining or keeping work. --Champthom 06:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On Advice of Bob?

Is there a source of where this came from? If it came from Chris I feel it may be a point to make that this may be Chris' point of view on the matter and may not reflect the truth. --El Presidente 12:14, 3 November 2009 (CET)

This is bullshit

NOT. A. FORUM. --Cogsdev 11:14, 4 September 2010 (PDT)

Sorry for asking here, but since the PVCC is private, where can we go to talk about the BS about Chris spending our money on his stuff at? -- Ashki

There may still be a /cwc/ board on 789chan. --Anaconda 02:22, 23 September 2010 (PDT)

Can someone explain this to me in Chris's terms?

"Even if this weren't enough, the most cursory research reveals that an SSDI recipient could have earned from $700 dollars a month in the year 2000, when Chris was 18, to $1000 dollars a month in 2010 without losing a cent of their SSDI income."

I'm not entirely sure how this works. Exactly, what did Bob do to screw Chris over? --AntonImaus 00:18, 15 August 2010 (PDT)

Whether Bob "screwed Chris over" is kind of a matter of perspective, but it works like this. If an SSDI beneficiary works a real job and makes enough money, they will receive reduced benefits according to how much actual income they earn. However, there's a threshold that has to be reached before that reduction starts happening, which is what that quote describes. Chris could get a job and earn as much as a grand a month before the government started docking his monthly SSDI check (and he'd have to earn a lot more than that before they stopped giving him any SSDI money at all). So the argument would be that Bob has misled Chris to his detriment by convincing him that if he works, he won't make as much money as he brings in just by waiting for his SSDI checks. The counter-argument would be that Bob still has two brain cells to rub together and knows that sending Chris into the workforce would just mean eventually having to deal with another court date. Dkaien 02:40, 15 August 2010 (PDT)

Alright, I should know how this works but it seems more clear now. Thanks. --AntonImaus 19:06, 15 August 2010 (PDT)

Chris gets around $9000/year from the gov't. Half of that goes towards "room & board" or something which like money the gov't would give to a mental institution or your caretakers. The rest is to pay for your living expenses including entertainment -- the gov't doesn't give a shit if you go see a movie or two on their dime. In theory they want you to be able to earn money on SSI, but if Chris did find and keep a job, even if it's washing dishes at Denny's, that could prove that his autism doesn't disable him hard enough to get free money. If he can work at a job then he's not disabled, and the tugboat goes away probably forever. Most of the money Chris has under his control gets spent on entertainment, because his parents still buy most or all of his food and gas. --Anaconda 02:31, 23 September 2010 (PDT)

Chris getting a job wouldn't end the tugboat; it's meant to supplement a low-paying job (as that's all Chris will ever be able to hold down) and provide a living wage. The disability payment is based on his autism, not on some judgment of how much he can or can't work. As noted above, his payments would only start to decrease once he started making over $12k a year. Kazmeyer 06:06, 23 September 2010 (PDT)

SSI is only paid if your mental illness is so bad that you can't keep a job. It's fairly easy to lose SSI. This is like when people get disability insurance payments for a back injury and are caught lifting heavy shit. $12k a year is $8/hr for 30/hrs a week, btw. --Anaconda 12:25, 24 September 2010 (PDT)

Specifically, you get SSDI if you can't do "substantial work," whatever that means. I'm not sure it means just the same thing as the $x/month. --Thepicklesuitintheman 18:48, 24 September 2010 (PDT)

There's a substantial difference between SSI (payments only to the disabled, end if you can work) and SSDI (payments to the disabled to supplement work income). Chris gets SSDI, he does not get SSI. (SSDI requires Social Security work credits, which is why Bob's work history was involved; SSI is paid out of the general revenues and would actually validate the Chris-on-welfare meme trolls like to get mad about.) Kazmeyer 19:58, 24 September 2010 (PDT)

I'm the one who wrote that. I know because I'm basically Chris. As SSDI was explained to me by a Social Security worker when I applied for it, you can make only up to a certain amount of money a month, after which you lose 100% of your benefits either immediately or after some sort of review process. This action is binary; there is no gradient similar to the $1 you lose for every $2 you make while getting SS retirement benefits. That amount changes yearly according to a certain, proscribed plan, I'm sure to adjust for inflation and shit. In 2010, the amount is $1000, i.e. person on SSDI—i.e. Chris—could contribute to society an amount of work a month worth $1000 without being penalized in the slightest, but Chris's dad, being an ignorant, self-important hick who holds some idiotic, arbitrary, long-dated sense of "honor" or God-knows what above any natural sense of decency, i.e. a Southerner, apparently convinced Chris not to bother. --Thepicklesuitintheman 18:43, 24 September 2010 (PDT)

I think, as has been speculated, Bob discouraged Chris from working in order to keep him out of trouble. Kazmeyer 19:58, 24 September 2010 (PDT)

That's obviously a possibility as Chris would IMMEDIATELY FUCK UP EVERYTHING if he got a job, but the article says that "[o]n the advice of his father, Chris doesn't get a job, supposedly because the tugboat gives him more money overall," which is just flat-out stupid advice. I read somewhere that people don't always say exactly what they believe, though. --Thepicklesuitintheman 21:25, 24 September 2010 (PDT)

Aye. I think "You can't get a job because you'll lose your disability" was just easier for Bob to use to convince him than "You can't get a job because you're a fuckup of cosmic proportions." Kazmeyer 04:59, 3 October 2010 (PDT)

Just to clarify

Since I edited the acronyms on this page -- when you're talking about the income that Chris receives from the gov't, that's Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the $800 or so he receives monthly. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is something different; in Chris's case, that's Medicare (the federally funded healthcare system in the U.S., for overseas CWCikipedians). Since he is permanently disabled (his autism won't be "cured" by GodJesus or any of Chris's forgiveness blessings), he will ALWAYS receive Medicare, which pays for 80% of most healthcare excluding dental, vision, etc, but, as noted, his SSI is contingent on his total income & the poverty level in Virginia. I think he technically receives more than $800/month, but the money that's not deposited into his bank goes straight toward paying his Medicare premium. Obviously it's different for every case. Anyway, there are several other Social Security type benefits like Veterans, Survivors, Death, etc, but it always causes confusion because the acronyms are all fucked -- the Nixon administration or whoever didn't think their cunning plan through. Talktalktalk 16:00, 3 October 2010 (PDT)

Thanks for clearing that shit up, I can see I was confused on a number of points. Well done. Dkaien 16:33, 3 October 2010 (PDT)

Actually, no, Chris's check is SSDI because they had to use Bob's work record to file for it. That wouldn't have been necessary if it was SSI. Chris would also be subject to extremely stringent asset rules if he was receiving SSI. Kazmeyer 16:59, 3 October 2010 (PDT)

Of course, now with the Jackie emails, things are confused again. Chris referred to his tugboat exclusively as SSI, but that's not something he would have had to use Bob's social security record to get, merely proof of his own lack of income/assets. It's good news for the "sink the tugboat" crowd if he's telling the truth, though; it's a lot easier to lose SSI benefits than SSDI. Kazmeyer 09:45, 9 November 2010 (PST)

• I think a lot of people get hung up over Bob's involvement when, in my case, they shouldn't be. I think when Chris comments on how Bob "pulled some strings" he was doing so to sound important, not because Bob did something shady (though I won't rule out the possibility). But this does bring up a good point, as I personally wasn't aware that SSI was also for disabled people. I thought SSI was regular social security, that is for those over 65, and SSDI was for the disabled but Wikipedia has proved me wrong. Has Chris said it's SSI? It would be safer to go with what Chris says. Find sources for that and add a note that it could be SSDI. --Champthom 07:34, 2 July 2011 (PDT)

• Dkain is correct. It's SSIDI (Supplemental Security Income for Disabled and some other shit that starts with an "I"). It's a program for disabled children of qualifying parents. Obstensibly it's money Bob paid into the system when he was drawing a paycheck (via FICA tax); in reality the payout ends up being more than what was paid in because of annual cost-of-living increases and the initial settlement. $800 is a common monthly amount and is pretty much the low end of the totem pole, but Medicare is included and the income is non-taxable. The beneficiary (in this case, Chris) is reviewed every 3 to 5 years to re-qualify -- there's little chance that Chris would be cut off, because if he ain't a hopeless nutjob, who is?

I get SSDI, (Social Security Disability Income) which is different -- basically it's what Bob would qualify for. (I'm older than all you punx but not of retirement age thx, plus I have all my hair.) I paid into the system for twenty years and don't feel bad about getting some of it back. It kind of blows getting by on what they hand out (I was making a tidy six figures before I got sick) and I'm about to nuke the whole thing by getting a j.o.b., but it was sure a leg up. Plus I have these groovy license plates. I was denied twice and had to appeal three times, it took about two years to do. The case worker came to see me while I was in the ICU once and I still got turned down. There's a thing called "ticket to work" that lets you make some outside income, but I could never get a straight answer about how much you can make before they cut you off so I didn't take the gig -- losing Medicare would have made things very iffy. Fun, but of a mild type.

One more clarification (Champ, accept my apologies and feel free to toast all this if I'm getting too forum-y) SSDI is paid on the 3rd of the month, supposedly at 12 AM unless the 3rd falls on a weekend or holiday when it gets bumped up a day or two. Ferexample, since the 3rd of this month (July '11) is a Sunday, benefits were paid on the night of Thursday May 31st (formally, midnight Friday morning). Most banks will let you take an (up to) one-month advance against a direct deposit, usually at a horrendous interest rate (Wells Fargo and B of A charge 120% IIRC) -- Chris could use this credit line on the sly without Bob knowing until the next month. It'd be interesting to know if he has done so, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Medicare is Federal and parts A, B, and D (doctor, hospital, prescription) come with SSDI. Being awarded SSDI qualifies you for Medicaid, which is optional and administered by the state. Medicaid takes care of the co-pays, but you have to pay a stiffish premium. It's also of course not deducted from your (Federal) benefits, you have to pay it yourself. (In my case, the Medicaid premium was over a thousand bucks a month but I was facing surgery where the co-pay alone would have been over $100K.) Reading between the lines, Chris doesn't seem to have Medicaid, probably a case of Bob being cheap and Chris' medical expenses not amounting to much anyway. - Smokedaddy 09:04, 2 July 2011 (PDT)

One thing I've been dying to know...

Why exactly is Chris villainized for spending a portion of his money on whatever he wants? This is the one and only thing I'll defend him on, because I'm currently on disability myself {with no job thanks to my old job being closed down last year and no local businesses hiring anymore}, and I don't appreciate people on such a program being called "welfare leeches" or being accused of stealing and/or wasting taxpayer money because they had the nerve to spend their share of it on video games or whatever. TheSwedishElf 12:16, 22 January 2012 (PST)

I suppose because there's a feeling that he could get a job of some sort, but he just prefers to stay on welfare all his life because it's easier. Also, he has claimed that it's "a stepping-stone in the right direction of [him] moving out" and generally to help him towards becoming a functioning person, but he never spends it on any kind of treatment or training, just entertainment. Eamoo 12:41, 22 January 2012 (PST)

• Unfortunately, this is something that should have been taken to the Forum, not something that's discussed here. What I will say though is this: Chris isn't made fun of because he spends "a portion" of his money; he spends a MAJORITY of his tugboat on video games, consoles, and his blow-up dolls. MOST individuals on a fixed income would save, Chris has never had much in his savings, he's even gone "in the red" multiple times because of his buying binges. He's also claimed that he gets this "free money" because God WANTS him to not have to work 'yet' (refer to Kacey Emails and Jackie Emails). It's the principal of the thing more than anything. If he spent maybe $40 a month on a game, he'd be fine; but he spends HUNDREDS a month on things that aren't necessary to survive. THAT'S why he gets so much hate...in a nutshell. There are other reasons, but again, that's for the forums. --4Macie 20:12, 22 January 2012 (PST)

@ Swedish Elf. I'd never begrudge anyone with a genuine disability their national benefits but if you are nothing but a fat, lazy waste of space then you should be forced to get a job. My Dad has MS and is on Disability Living Allowance. He works 2 hours a day as an in the home carer. As it's onky 10 hours per week he is allowed to do this with any affect on his benefits. My Dad has a debilitating illness is willing to work when he can but Chris who is a young man with nothing wrong with him other than being a fat, lazy perverted cunt should not receive a penny in benefit money. I'm all for grassing him up for benefit fraud.Trip2themoon 11:17, 25 May 2012 (PDT)

Know of a benefit rip off? Then give us a telephone tip off.

The title I've given this comment is from a 1990s public ad campaign for anonymous tip offs for people you believe to be cheating our national benefits system. I was wondering if such a thing existed in the US. I believe Chris to be the biggest benefit fraudster I've ever came across and he deserves the immediate cessation of all his benefit money. Millions starve as this fat waster gets even fatter but there is absolutely nothing stopping him from getting a job. Apart from being a fucking idiot I don't see why he shouldn't have to work. Now I'm no doctor but AFAIK being a fucking idiot is not a disability. I'd gladly be the one who reports him for his benefit fraud. In America if you are found to be a benefit cheat would you have to pay all ill-gotten monies back? That's how it works here in the UK. The thought of Chris working until retirement age paying all that money back makes me happy.Trip2themoon 11:05, 25 May 2012 (PDT)