If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Attention poor people: You are less important than azaleas   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 141
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

15743 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2011 at 4:29 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-06-19 12:43:35 AM
connection-revolution.com
 
2011-06-19 12:58:36 AM
What are those assholes doing on the porch?


Those aren't assholes. It's pronounced *azaleas*.
 
2011-06-19 01:07:02 AM
Let them eat azaleas.
 
2011-06-19 01:26:34 AM
What's an azaleas? That what the ol' lady got planted out yonder front the porch?
 
2011-06-19 01:31:30 AM
Mr. President, we cannot allow an azalea gap!
 
2011-06-19 02:17:35 AM
I don't know about YOU subby, but my garden looks better with azaleas than it does with starving women and children!
 
2011-06-19 02:29:35 AM

markie_farkie: What are those assholes doing on the porch?


Those aren't assholes. It's pronounced *azaleas*.


FSM bless you for posting that. It's now the first thing I think of when I hear "azaleas". One of the best lines in a very quotable movie. Maybe even the best line, if not for "I can't fark a gorilla!"
 
2011-06-19 03:03:06 AM
Is this that compassionate conservatism thing?
 
2011-06-19 04:38:00 AM
Who is to say that humans are more valuable than azaleas? They are both made of the same atoms as every bit of matter in the universe. Why is one special? It's all the same. We are all made of stars.

Discuss
 
2011-06-19 04:43:03 AM

Here let me help you with that: Who is to say that humans are more valuable than azaleas? They are both made of the same atoms as every bit of matter in the universe. Why is one special? It's all the same. We are all made of stars.

Discuss


I don't think either Minbari or Vulcans would follow you that far.
 
2011-06-19 04:46:01 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-06-19 04:47:11 AM

GAT_00: Is this that compassionate conservatism thing?


that department is getting cut big time, so it directs the National Arboretum to ask for donations and to make sure when they are tossing out the thousands of Azaleas, they specifically don't toss out the National Boxwood Collection and the Glenn Dale Hillside portion of the Azalea Collection. who gives a fark. oh, we needed another troll thread. carry on. and thx mods. hit us with a *why Obama is like Geraldine Ferraro* article while your at it, we haven't hit the minimum ration yet.



National Arboretum Funding Crisis

November 29, 2010 by GCV Member
Azalea 'Darkness' (Glenn Dale)


There's trouble brewing at the United States National Arboretum in Washington DC. The nation's only federally funded arboretum is facing a funding crisis and plans call for the fall 2011 removal of up to 10,000 undocumented azaleas as well as some perennials and boxwood around the 446-acres of gardens.

According to Kathy Jentz of Washington Gardener blog, the arboretum's interim director Dr. Ramon Jordan spelled out the facts about the loss of private funding for two gardener positions translating to 30% of the actual gardeners who are needed to catalog and move plant collections to save what they can. Outrage over the plans for the removal of azaleas, boxwood and perennials is being heard all over the internet.

As a guest blogger on Washington Gardener blog site, Don Hyatt, noted azalea expert, breeder and grower, expressed a powerful argument against the removal of azaleas . Garden Rant's Susan Harris addressed the subject, inviting supporters to link to a Azalea Cause facebook site or Save the Azalea site where emails of senators and congressmen are listed. Today, in the Washington Post, a column by Adrian Higgins summed up the fury of azalea lovers.

Each spring, more than 100,000 visitors from the US and elsewhere flock to the hillside of azalea blooms, color grouped for maximum impact and splendor. Lets hope that renewed quest for funding will save the gardens before the time runs out.
 
2011-06-19 04:48:24 AM
so what? we can't have nice things because idiot woman have kids they can't take care of?
 
2011-06-19 05:01:16 AM
Battlestar Girlactica:

^This, and I'll raise you a
marwaberry.files.wordpress.com
/hot
 
2011-06-19 05:07:42 AM
Well, I'm glad I've resulted to eating Azaleas years ago.
 
2011-06-19 05:08:37 AM

gregoropolis: so what? we can't have nice things because idiot woman have kids they can't take care of?


There is no reason why we can't do both. However, if you do have to choose, then yes, investing in children so they are more likely to be productive and you don't pay more later to house them in jail is more important than having nice flowers.
 
2011-06-19 05:13:09 AM
yes, bail out the azaleas. But let's not forget that the azaleas will trickle down their wealth into the pockets of poor hungry people, who, let's face it, are poor and hungry because they hate freedom and are too lazy to get jobs (possibly because imigants took them).
 
2011-06-19 05:30:10 AM
i know that i am less important than a lot of things.. as far as this world goes.
 
2011-06-19 05:33:36 AM
If we're not going to pay for the children of poor people than we're going to have to pass a law sterilizing them or enforcing use of birth control.
 
2011-06-19 05:35:52 AM
Every now and then the republicans do something that makes me smile. This is one of those times, and I don't even like azaleas that much.
 
2011-06-19 05:36:23 AM

sjcousins: are too lazy to get jobs (possibly because imigants took them).


Damn Democats giving all our jobs away to imigants. Nothing but flagant hypocisy!
 
2011-06-19 05:38:13 AM
Did I miss the part where they said how much money was being funneled to the azalea's?

I wouldn't think that it is the entire $832 million that is being cut from WIC.

I think I'll go with the...buh, buh, but the azaleas are only like 0.000098357934578934578% of the deficit so why does it matter?
 
2011-06-19 05:43:08 AM
Tending to both would be nice... But if you want to spark some fauxrage, at least lie and say the Azaleas cost $1.2 billion or something, rather than the thousand or so they probably actually do.
 
2011-06-19 05:44:35 AM

Slappajo: Did I miss the part where they said how much money was being funneled to the azalea's?

I wouldn't think that it is the entire $832 million that is being cut from WIC.

I think I'll go with the...buh, buh, but the azaleas are only like 0.000098357934578934578% of the deficit so why does it matter?


Thank you, that's what I was thinking.
Also gardening is an art. Why does Huffpo hate funding for the arts?
 
2011-06-19 05:47:04 AM
Why should they care? Most GOP'ers have never actually seen a poor person. Well, except maybe the ones who do their landscaping.

Once they starve, we can process them into fertilizer for the azaleas. Brilliant!
 
2011-06-19 05:51:24 AM

Old enough to know better: Why should they care? Most GOP'ers have never actually seen a poor person. Well, except maybe the ones who do their landscaping.

Once they starve, we can process them into fertilizer for the azaleas. Brilliant!


I'd probably extend your "never actually seen a poor person" comment to include all of Congress.
 
2011-06-19 05:58:44 AM
FTFA: "I am prohibited by law from having any contact with the House or Senate for 2 years -- ethics reform trumps the Bill of Rights -- so, no, that was not my request," emailed back former Utah senator Bob Bennett, commenting on the fact that he's not allowed to lobby Congress.

Awww. Poor Bob Bennett has to wait two whole years to cash in on his public position. Won't somebody think of the future lobbyists?
 
2011-06-19 06:16:32 AM

Old enough to know better: Why should they care? Most GOP'ers have never actually seen a poor person. Well, except maybe the ones who do their landscaping.


Depends on the landscaper, honestly. A lot of landscaping services are small family businesses, so they actually do pretty well for themselves. Now, the people employed by the landscapers... I don't know so much. But those people typically have jobs on the order of mowing grass.

The guy across the street is a landscaper, and his two neighbors are a lawyer and an engineer.
 
2011-06-19 06:19:04 AM
So, someone's society wife has a thing for azaleas and it was just easier to put this in a bill than see her get surly at her weekly bridge games. Now she can be proud of her husband. And he doesn't have to put up with her going on about the outrages of the gardening world.
 
2011-06-19 06:34:11 AM
plans call for the fall 2011 removal of up to 10,000 undocumented azaleas d

Good!
They can send them back to Mexico where they came from so they stop taking jobs American azaleas don't want.
 
2011-06-19 06:39:19 AM
Azaleas? Is this a story from the Bush administration?
 
2011-06-19 06:56:46 AM

WeeKeef: Azaleas? Is this a story from the Bush administration?


What you did there, I see it :)
 
2011-06-19 06:57:31 AM

Slappajo: Did I miss the part where they said how much money was being funneled to the azalea's?


From the article, it sounded like it was unfunded. Meaning $0.00 are going to it.
 
2011-06-19 07:06:12 AM
Uh, that sounded like the organization is being directed to maintain a specific exhibit because their funding is being cut and they have to pick and choose which to maintain.

That's kind of exactly the opposite of what the editorial is incompetently trying to imply. The funding for both programs appears to be being reduced, unless I'm reading it wrong.

... and, in the broader sense, the government is really more about things that advance society as a whole, which includes things like science, the arts, and so on. It's not really designed to feed you on a regular basis. Honestly, speaking just for myself, I would rather see the government money that goes toward feeding me (agricultural subsidies mostly, in my case) go away than see the "useless" things like the NSF, arts funding, and NASA get slashed again. The government is supposed to be for shiat we collaborate on, learn to feed and clothe yourself.

Additionally, WIC is only one of a half-dozen programs with overlapping purviews (welfare/food stamps, medicaid, state welfare, etc) designed not to miss anybody. The people involved are going to be fine. Even the planned parenthood nonsense was more consequential a funding change than this in the larger sense.

//The fundamental argument of "x was trimmed, while y completely unrelated thing was maintained" is the political equivalent of a logical fallacy anyhow, government does not operate in a one-thing-at-a-time manner.
 
2011-06-19 07:06:57 AM
Fta: " If you're an azalea at the National Arboretum, you're in luck -- a Republican on the House Appropriations Committee is looking out for you."

Fta: "It's not clear who is responsible for the azalea provision"

Wat?
 
2011-06-19 07:09:13 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Fta: " If you're an azalea at the National Arboretum, you're in luck -- a Republican on the House Appropriations Committee is looking out for you."

Fta: "It's not clear who is responsible for the azalea provision"

Wat?


Well, if they're cutting off food to poor people, it's a Republican. Hurting people is what they live for.
 
2011-06-19 07:15:25 AM
This is exactly why democracy is a doomed experiment. No, not because they are protecting the azaleas, because people have a problem with it for the wrong reasons. It's an unfunded mandate. It's saying, "Arboretum, when you draw up your budget, you have to include the azaleas in it." It's not taking money from single mother Jane Smith at 42 Wallaby Way. It's taking money from the sugar maples at the other end of the arboretum that can't get care because the azaleas get their portion of the budget instead or more importantly from the research scientists working on a cure for banana fungi or ash borers.
 
2011-06-19 07:15:46 AM

NobleHam: Tending to both would be nice... But if you want to spark some fauxrage, at least lie and say the Azaleas cost $1.2 billion or something, rather than the thousand or so they probably actually do.


In other words, take a lesson from the right.
 
2011-06-19 07:22:45 AM

senoy: This is exactly why democracy is a doomed experiment. No, not because they are protecting the azaleas, because people have a problem with it for the wrong reasons. It's an unfunded mandate. It's saying, "Arboretum, when you draw up your budget, you have to include the azaleas in it." It's not taking money from single mother Jane Smith at 42 Wallaby Way. It's taking money from the sugar maples at the other end of the arboretum that can't get care because the azaleas get their portion of the budget instead or more importantly from the research scientists working on a cure for banana fungi or ash borers.


Some plants are more equal than others.
 
2011-06-19 07:24:01 AM
FTA: While azaleas are being carefully tended to, the bill would cut $832 million from a program that provides food assistance to low-income mothers and children. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the reduction could result in as many as 475,000 people being turned away from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) if food prices continue to rise.

"Everyday people across the country leave their homes in search of work, only to return at the end of the day with more worries and less hope," said Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), the agriculture subcommittee's ranking member. "At a time that people continue to struggle to make ends meet, Republicans want to cut funding to food programs that are helping put food on the tables of those most in need."
 
2011-06-19 07:41:09 AM
Scrooge has only disgust for the poor, thinking the world would be better off without them, "decreasing the surplus population,"
 
2011-06-19 07:51:57 AM

jso2897: senoy: This is exactly why democracy is a doomed experiment. No, not because they are protecting the azaleas, because people have a problem with it for the wrong reasons. It's an unfunded mandate. It's saying, "Arboretum, when you draw up your budget, you have to include the azaleas in it." It's not taking money from single mother Jane Smith at 42 Wallaby Way. It's taking money from the sugar maples at the other end of the arboretum that can't get care because the azaleas get their portion of the budget instead or more importantly from the research scientists working on a cure for banana fungi or ash borers.

Some plants are more equal than others.


Are you saying our survival depends on our political connections? Who does the azaleas know that we don't know? Mr Obama, why do politicians get to pick winners and losers?
 
2011-06-19 08:11:38 AM
Is this the modern equivalent of, "Let them eat cake"???

Law grinds the poor, and rich men rule the law. - Oliver Goldsmith, 1770
Nice to know things have changed...

/The GOP, our elitist Nobility
 
2011-06-19 08:12:27 AM

Gwyrddu: gregoropolis: so what? we can't have nice things because idiot woman have kids they can't take care of?

There is no reason why we can't do both. However, if you do have to choose, then yes, investing in children so they are more likely to be productive and you don't pay more later to house them in jail is more important than having nice flowers.


It's cheaper to jail azaleas than bad kids.
 
2011-06-19 08:15:55 AM

gregoropolis: so what? we can't have nice things because idiot woman have kids they can't take care of?


It's not the kids' faults they were born. They had no choice in the matter. Having the most advanced society in the history of mankind should compel us to take care of them, not only for their sake, but to also break the cycle. And yes, I approve of at least encouraging people to only breed if they're going to be good parents...
 
2011-06-19 08:19:11 AM
Combine this with the story yesterday about the homeless man who would have died without anyone bothering to notice, except that he had a dog, and you see just how Christian this nation truly is.
 
2011-06-19 08:19:25 AM

More_Like_A_Stain: Gwyrddu: gregoropolis: so what? we can't have nice things because idiot woman have kids they can't take care of?

There is no reason why we can't do both. However, if you do have to choose, then yes, investing in children so they are more likely to be productive and you don't pay more later to house them in jail is more important than having nice flowers.

It's cheaper to jail azaleas than bad kids.


Even better would be to put the bad kids through a wood chipper, then they make an excellent fertiliser/mulch for the azaleas.
 
2011-06-19 08:26:19 AM
I predict this azaleas > food stamps whaargrbl will fuel the upcoming slow summer news cycle.
 
2011-06-19 08:32:14 AM
Should probably RTFA, but just wanted to comment on how awesome the National Arboretum is, especially in spring, and most especially the azaleas in spring. And given its interesting location on New York Avenue is widely available to many of the less fortunate DC residents. So they can easily visit when starving.

/also next door to the Washington Times printing plant...hmmm...
 
2011-06-19 08:37:27 AM
Since our poor people are fat, I don't have a problem with this.
 
2011-06-19 08:41:09 AM
This article would have been more true and less derp if it was just about them cutting funds to the poor. Then again, if that was the case no one would probably notice or care.
 
2011-06-19 08:42:53 AM
Ow My Balls: It's not the kids' faults they were born. They had no choice in the matter. Having the most advanced society in the history of mankind should compel us to take care of them, not only for their sake, but to also break the cycle.

Dammit, man, this is FARK! We don't make sense on Fark! NEEDS MOAR WHAARGRBL

/born into poverty
//on food stamps for much of childhood
///broke the cycle, now...lower middle class
////[cue sad trombone]
 
2011-06-19 08:53:18 AM
Maybe Republicans think people can take care of themselves and azaleas can't.
 
2011-06-19 09:16:24 AM
The bill merely asks the association to support azaleas. It even asks them raise funds for it ie the money isnt coming from the public purse.

Overall the money for foodstamps is set to 71 billion. 2 billion less than what Obama asked for. It doesnt sound too bad does it? And as Obama says he's working on jobs then surely number of people on foodstamps should fall next year.
 
2011-06-19 09:24:11 AM
But we must save 'cowboy poetry' at all costs, right hypocrites?
 
2011-06-19 09:31:09 AM
It's no fun,
Being an illegal azalean.
 
2011-06-19 09:34:20 AM
Attention poor people: You are less important than azaleas

www.gracesgraphics.com

Approves
 
2011-06-19 09:38:51 AM
We all know that "poor people" is code for "black people," and "aid" is code for "socialist totalitarian reparations for slavery that was caused by Democrats in the first place, in spite of what the Founding Fathers wanted when they sent Paul Revere off on his bell-ringin', gun-shootin', British-warnin' ride, you betcha."

And "azaleas" is code for "tax cuts for billionaires."

The only way to balance the budget is to *finger quote* plant more azaleas.
 
2011-06-19 09:42:13 AM
But remember republucans are "Christians".
 
2011-06-19 10:27:23 AM
I read "most" of the article. But did it actually mention how much was being spent on maintaining the Arboretum? I find it unlikely their spending half a billion dollars. Yet how much is still being appropriated to welfare after any sort of proposed cuts? Not sure about that figure either.

As children, my brother and I were recipients of the old Gov't cheese and bread in those generic brown boxes.

Now, I am only speaking for myself and not the actions of my parents or anyone else. I'm completely okay with not having my own kids right now because I am completely capable of taking care of myself financially, but I'm not responsible enough to take care of kids as well.

(So now am I supposed to miss out on some nice azaleas I'll never see just to ensure Shaniqua can get some Similac for her forth baby because that particular baby's daddy isn't paying child support because he doesn't work?! Well that's a bummer.)
 
2011-06-19 10:31:16 AM
Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.
 
2011-06-19 10:33:41 AM

Slappajo: Did I miss the part where they said how much money was being funneled to the azalea's?

I wouldn't think that it is the entire $832 million that is being cut from WIC.

I think I'll go with the...buh, buh, but the azaleas are only like 0.000098357934578934578% of the deficit so why does it matter?


BECAUSE RACISM, THAT'S WHY!
 
2011-06-19 10:40:34 AM
Did everything in the right order. College, then marriage, THEN children.

I think it's reasonable to not have to expect all the tech jobs going to India, creating an over saturated market in the U.S. So yeah, my family and I are on food stamps.

But I'm back in college and upping the ante by retooling for a different field. When I'm done I'll send my family to be around their (maternal) parents/grandparents and go find work. When I've reestablished a base, I'll call for them.

/hey, it's the best I can bloody do.
//at least if I screw up when I'm out there, I won't kill them along with me.
 
2011-06-19 10:42:59 AM

smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.


They gotta get them a flat screen! Duh! At least a 42". You don't expect little Jimmy to watch Blu-ray movies on a standard def TV, do you? Sheesh! And Xbox on an SDTV? Forget about it!
 
2011-06-19 10:46:39 AM

smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.


A shame right-wingers don't hold corperations to the same 'We caught a few of you cheating, now you'll ALL have to do without!' standard when it comes to handing out cash.
 
2011-06-19 10:47:02 AM

ajgeek: Did everything in the right order. College, then marriage, THEN children.

I think it's reasonable to not have to expect all the tech jobs going to India, creating an over saturated market in the U.S. So yeah, my family and I are on food stamps.

But I'm back in college and upping the ante by retooling for a different field. When I'm done I'll send my family to be around their (maternal) parents/grandparents and go find work. When I've reestablished a base, I'll call for them.

/hey, it's the best I can bloody do.
//at least if I screw up when I'm out there, I won't kill them along with me.


Bummer of a break. Good luck to you out there.
 
2011-06-19 10:47:26 AM
So, fetuses > azaleas > poor people > immigrants > gays...

Is this the proper order for republicans?
 
2011-06-19 10:50:04 AM

smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food


Yeah i believe ya.

Fark wouldn't let you say it if it wasn't true.
 
2011-06-19 10:50:09 AM

smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.


When was this, 1996? I thought they all went to the Bridge/EBT cards in the past decade.
 
2011-06-19 10:53:12 AM
All of these comments, and nobody really touched on the problem with the story:

It's false.

The overall budget for WIC and Food Stamps alone is going UP, by a good amount (about $7 billion - compare that to the $832 million not-really-a-"cut" in another program that gets to make up the money from other funding sources and accounts, which they forgot to mention). What happened is that the amount Obama asked for in a Fiscal Year 2012 request was reduced a bit from his overly-large increase.

This is pretty normal in this sort of coverage, though - the government is spending a lot more on something, but not as much as some Congresscritter wants, so they whine to some dim reporter about "those evil Republican/Democrat cuts" while leaving out the actual increase in spending. This happens enough that you can pretty much depend on adding "from this fiscal year's huge budget increase request" to any headline like it.

This is part of the reason why the budget goes up so much each year. A budget item for (example) $100 billion gets boosted to $120 billion, the committee cuts that to $110 billion (which was the original funding target, so they asked for the extra money so they'd get the "real" budget once it got cut), and someone whines about "Republicans cutting $10 billion from poor people."
 
2011-06-19 10:54:26 AM

smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.


Bullshiat! You were too frightened speak at all. Poor people are scary. If the encounter happened at all, you were desperately trying to get away unnoticed.
 
2011-06-19 10:55:39 AM

bonsainick: plans call for the fall 2011 removal of up to 10,000 undocumented azaleas d

Good!
They can send them back to Mexico where they came from so they stop taking jobs American azaleas don't want.


it's certainly the undocumented part that caused the budget axe to fall. although if it only takes funding for two gardener positions to document them that doesn't sound like a lot of money.
 
2011-06-19 10:56:10 AM

Braindeath: If we're not going to pay for the children of poor people than we're going to have to pass a law sterilizing them or enforcing use of birth control.


We should anyway. Overpopulation, illegal immigrants and all that such.
 
2011-06-19 11:01:12 AM

altinos: When was this, 1996? I thought they all went to the Bridge/EBT cards in the past decade.


Three months ago. They assured me I could use their plastic. To make matters worse, they were renting a house down the street and never payed rent for the six months they lived there. The bank repoed the house and kicked them out. I was glad to see them gone.
 
2011-06-19 11:04:44 AM
The irony is, the National Arboretum is located in northeast DC, not far from some pretty dubious neighborhoods. The azaleas the House Republicans want to save by starving widows and orphans are most likely going to be viewed by those same widows and orphans.
 
2011-06-19 11:09:28 AM

Mouser: The irony is, the National Arboretum is located in northeast DC, not far from some pretty dubious neighborhoods. The azaleas the House Republicans want to save by starving widows and orphans are most likely going to be viewed by those same widows and orphans.


If you've ever actually been to those neighborhoods, I would hardly call their occupants starving.

/Obesity - the #1 marker of poverty in America
 
2011-06-19 11:23:29 AM

girljen: ///broke the cycle, now...lower middle class


That phrase has always amused me. To to paraphrase George Carlin, some people think changing the name of the condition will somehow magically change the condition. Well sorry cousin it doesn't work that way. You're like the rest of us, you can afford a few shiney gadgets and make the bills but are more or less stuck where you are. That's not "lower middle class" that's "the working poor." The sooner people quit trying to bullshiat themselves into believing they're something their not the sooner enough people will get really pissed of and help do something about the conditions that help to keep them there.

/Heard that shiat so much growing up and I'm farking sick of it
 
2011-06-19 11:26:56 AM

VeryRarely: As children, my brother and I were recipients of the old Gov't cheese and bread in those generic brown boxes.

(So now am I supposed to miss out on some nice azaleas I'll never see just to ensure Shaniqua can get some Similac for her forth baby because that particular baby's daddy isn't paying child support because he doesn't work?! Well that's a bummer.)


I love how you admit your family received government assistance when you were growing up, then turn around and deride others who are doing the very same thing. Nobody said "well that's a bummer" when your family needed a hand. I'm sure your family was in true need while Shaniqua is just gaming the system, right?
 
2011-06-19 11:33:27 AM

smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.


Yeah, not all poor people are created equal either. But use your anecdotal experiences to write 'em all off, that's fine.

Some people know how to game the system. Others don't or psychologically can't even try to.

Cutting funding from WIC in particular, especially now, is f--king cold.
 
2011-06-19 11:37:39 AM

egao-gakari: Battlestar Girlactica:

^This, and I'll raise you a

/hot


Oh fark that shiat, nothing beats the original mangu.
niko-niko.net
 
2011-06-19 11:41:47 AM

Mouser: The irony is, the National Arboretum is located in northeast DC, not far from some pretty dubious neighborhoods. The azaleas the House Republicans want to save by starving widows and orphans are most likely going to be viewed by those same widows and orphans.


3/10

It started out well, but you didn't stick the landing.
"You said widows and orphans twice."
 
2011-06-19 11:46:18 AM

smitty04: altinos: When was this, 1996? I thought they all went to the Bridge/EBT cards in the past decade.

Three months ago. They assured me I could use their plastic. To make matters worse, they were renting a house down the street and never payed rent for the six months they lived there. The bank repoed the house and kicked them out. I was glad to see them gone.


Banks don't repo when renters don't pay. Only when owners/landlords don't pay. But good job on blaming the poor people for the repo.
 
2011-06-19 11:46:53 AM
Overzealous staffer. Liberal plants.
 
2011-06-19 12:03:22 PM

VeryRarely: smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.

They gotta get them a flat screen! Duh! At least a 42". You don't expect little Jimmy to watch Blu-ray movies on a standard def TV, do you? Sheesh! And Xbox on an SDTV? Forget about it!


Or you know, pay rent or something.
 
2011-06-19 12:07:47 PM
To be fair, this is all the GOP knows how to do, and azaleas do GREAT when you feed them bullshiat.
 
2011-06-19 12:09:04 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: smitty04: altinos: When was this, 1996? I thought they all went to the Bridge/EBT cards in the past decade.

Three months ago. They assured me I could use their plastic. To make matters worse, they were renting a house down the street and never payed rent for the six months they lived there. The bank repoed the house and kicked them out. I was glad to see them gone.

Banks don't repo when renters don't pay. Only when owners/landlords don't pay. But good job on blaming the poor people for the repo.


The ex-owner was one of those people that thought he could buy a house with no money down, rent it out, and make a fortune. He found that it is nearly impossible to evict people with kids and the renters know that.
 
2011-06-19 12:11:40 PM
Welfare turns straight people gay and gay people Mexican!

Everybody goes down a notch!
 
M-G
2011-06-19 12:13:03 PM
I'm pretty much automatically against what comes out of GOP-land these days, but I didn't see anything in TFA that indicated that money was being allocated for the plants, so it's a pretty poor thing to get outraged about.

More disturbing to me is that language can be inserted into bills and there's no way to find out who did it.
 
2011-06-19 12:17:38 PM

smitty04: More_Like_A_Stain: smitty04: altinos: When was this, 1996? I thought they all went to the Bridge/EBT cards in the past decade.

Three months ago. They assured me I could use their plastic. To make matters worse, they were renting a house down the street and never payed rent for the six months they lived there. The bank repoed the house and kicked them out. I was glad to see them gone.

Banks don't repo when renters don't pay. Only when owners/landlords don't pay. But good job on blaming the poor people for the repo.

The ex-owner was one of those people that thought he could buy a house with no money down, rent it out, and make a fortune. He found that it is nearly impossible to evict people with kids and the renters know that.


What kind of idiot expects poor people to pay for their mistakes when they make stupid decisions? And if the poor people had any inclination at all that they were living on borrowed time, such as collection agency letters addressed to the landlord at the rental address, what makes them any less honorable for not paying rent when they knew they were going to be out on the street anyway? Better to save money to pay for the next shiathole.
 
2011-06-19 12:24:19 PM
smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.

I call BS
I suppose she was a big, fat "Poor" woman driving a Cadillac and eating prawns from a crystal bowl, too.
The Welfare Queen lie was exposed about 25 years ago.
 
2011-06-19 12:30:06 PM
The government should offer a voluntary sterilization program for both males and females. Maybe some people will recognize the fact that they can maintain a reckless lifestyle easier without the risk of bearing crotchfruit. In the long run it will save money--kinda like sterilizing feral cats and turning them loose--you will reap the immediate benefit of the individual not breeding, as well as what would have been their subsequent generations.

Eventually, phase out welfare that is given based on the number of children spawned...or at least limit it to a maximum of two children.
 
2011-06-19 12:32:14 PM
Azaleas are so pretty to smell and look at! I don't like looking at poor people. They dress and smell funny.

www.pickenschamber.net
Azaleas

si.wsj.net
Poor peolple

See what I mean?
 
2011-06-19 12:33:39 PM
Just the poor? I'd kill each and every one of you for that.

images.nonexiste.net
 
2011-06-19 12:35:17 PM

offmymeds: Azaleas are so pretty to smell and look at! I don't like looking at poor people. They dress and smell funny.


Azaleas


Poor peolple

See what I mean?


Say! That one in the front row, with the fur coat, looks kind of sexy.
 
2011-06-19 12:35:58 PM
What kind of idiot expects poor people to pay for their mistakes when they make stupid decisions? And if the poor people had any inclination at all that they were living on borrowed time, such as collection agency letters addressed to the landlord at the rental address, what makes them any less honorable for not paying rent when they knew they were going to be out on the street anyway? Better to save money to pay for the next shiathole.

I'll never understand this attitude. Being poor is the punishment for stupid mistakes. Usually made while a person is very young.
If everyone was held to this standard, we could have been spared this:
image.guardian.co.uk
And we'd all be better off for it.

OK...
So maybe you have a point. We just need to hold everyone equally accountable.
No matter how much money Grampa made, when you get yourself in trouble, you must pay and pay. Forever.
And when you think you've paid enough, we'll send letters to your employer reminding him of your mistakes from years ago, you know...just because you're a terrible risk.
Then we can quintuple any interest you might pay and supervise every aspect of your life. Including your bodily fluids.
This will go for The Donald's worthless spawn as well as this entire generation of Bushes. Crackheads, stalkers, kneewalking drunks and all.
 
2011-06-19 12:39:55 PM

dstrick44: smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.

I call BS
I suppose she was a big, fat "Poor" woman driving a Cadillac and eating prawns from a crystal bowl, too.
The Welfare Queen lie was exposed about 25 years ago.


When I lived in Hamtramck in the late 1990s occasionally I would walk over to Sam's Market a Commor and Fleming (it's still there according to Google maps) and once in a while someone would be standing outside the store with a booklet of food stamps offering to sell them for $.50 or $.75 on the dollar. I wouldn't say they looked like the stereotypical welfare queen, but people did try to sell foodstamps for cash. It's not like the cashier checked ID or anything. I never did it though.
 
2011-06-19 12:43:46 PM
Note to HuffPo FA writer: Be careful what you link to.........

Bill Highlights:
The agencies and programs in this bill will receive a total of $125.5 billion in both discretionary and mandatory funding, a reduction of more than $7 billion from the President's request. Discretionary funding is reduced by $2.7 billion from last year's level - a cut of over $5 billion from the President's request. However, mandatory (automatic) funding in the bill increases by $3 billion over last year to a total of $108 billion, and equals more than 86% of the total funding in the bill.
Department of Agriculture:
Food and Nutrition Programs: Mandatory food and nutrition programs within the Department of Agriculture - including SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) and child nutrition - are funded at nearly $90 billion, $2 billion less than the President's request. This funding will allow all individuals and families who meet the programs' criteria for aid to receive all the benefits available to them, and includes $3 billion in reserve funds in case of unanticipated increases in participation or food price increases.
 
2011-06-19 12:48:48 PM

Jim_Callahan: ... and, in the broader sense, the government is really more about things that advance society as a whole, which includes things like science, the arts, and so on. It's not really designed to feed you on a regular basis. Honestly, speaking just for myself, I would rather see the government money that goes toward feeding me (agricultural subsidies mostly, in my case) go away than see the "useless" things like the NSF, arts funding, and NASA get slashed again. The government is supposed to be for shiat we collaborate on, learn to feed and clothe yourself.


I may not necessarily disagree with this, but you make a damn compelling argument.

Ow My Balls: It's not the kids' faults they were born. They had no choice in the matter. Having the most advanced society in the history of mankind should compel us to take care of them, not only for their sake, but to also break the cycle. And yes, I approve of at least encouraging people to only breed if they're going to be good parents...


And this is why I can't - in my heart of hearts - totally agree with Jim_Callahan. I want what he says to be true, but what Ow My Balls says is absolutely correct.
 
2011-06-19 12:50:33 PM

CornerPocket: are funded at nearly $90 billion, $2 billion less than the President's request.


So, if I request a 10% pay increase and only get a 3% increase, is that a 7% reduction or a 3% increase.
 
2011-06-19 12:55:46 PM

smitty04: CornerPocket: are funded at nearly $90 billion, $2 billion less than the President's request.

So, if I request a 10% pay increase and only get a 3% increase, is that a 7% reduction or a 3% increase.


Well, if you're in Washington, it's a 7% reduction. If you occupy any dimensional plane that resembles reality, it's the 3% increase.
 
2011-06-19 12:57:41 PM
altinos 2011-06-19 12:39:55 PM
dstrick44: smitty04: Some "poor people" recently tried to sell me $300.00 of food stamps for $150.00,. I asked how they could do that to their kids and they said the local churches provide them with plenty of food.

I call BS
I suppose she was a big, fat "Poor" woman driving a Cadillac and eating prawns from a crystal bowl, too.
The Welfare Queen lie was exposed about 25 years ago.

When I lived in Hamtramck in the late 1990s occasionally I would walk over to Sam's Market a Commor and Fleming (it's still there according to Google maps) and once in a while someone would be standing outside the store with a booklet of food stamps offering to sell them for $.50 or $.75 on the dollar. I wouldn't say they looked like the stereotypical welfare queen, but people did try to sell foodstamps for cash. It's not like the cashier checked ID or anything. I never did it though.


Fraud happens. But Fraud on the monumental scale perpetrated by guys like this:
4.bp.blogspot.com
Generally go un-punished, or punished by house arrest or 6 months in a federal country club.
penny-ante crimes by folks who look like this:
3.bp.blogspot.com
Generally come with a lifetime penalty that's damn near impossible to overcome.
Given the choice, I'd rather go after the monumental crime with a vengeance.
Remember, the first example defrauded the taxpayers out of billions, got himself fired from a company he founded and floated gently into the Gov's mansion on his golden parachute.
The inequity and hypocrisy is what drives me nuts.
 
2011-06-19 01:44:44 PM
So $90 billion for food stamps, and 0 (zero) dollars for azaleas somehow becomes "republicans care more about azaleas". There's a point where ultra-spin becomes outright lies.

If the Huffington Post was a fark poster, it would have been on my ignore list years ago.
 
2011-06-19 01:54:28 PM
I think the greater atrocity in all of this is the continued allowance of anonymity with regard to the drafting of legislation. That no one can/will identify who inserted the measure is bullshiat. Someone should have to own each and every measure so voters can hold them accountable for their actions in the next election. (not that I think this issue would be a particularly big issue, but it's total crap that these thing "magically" appear and yet are allowed to persist).
 
2011-06-19 01:55:12 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: So $90 billion for food stamps. There's a point where ultra-spin becomes outright lies.


Speaking of outright lies, federal food stamp spending is in the low $70 billion range, not $90 billion. Guess you better put yourself on ignore since you hate reading lies so much.
 
2011-06-19 02:18:26 PM

The Why Not Guy: Speaking of outright lies, federal food stamp spending is in the low $70 billion range, not $90 billion. Guess you better put yourself on ignore since you hate reading lies so much.



It's $90 billion for mandatory food and nutrition programs including SNAP (formerly food stamps). Well, technically there is no program called "food stamps" anymore. So I guess you got me there. Chuckle.
 
2011-06-19 02:34:41 PM
The Why Not Guy:
Speaking of outright lies, federal food stamp spending is in the low $70 billion range, not $90 billion. Guess you better put yourself on ignore since you hate reading lies so much.

The 2010 budget for the Food Stamp program was$69.5 billion+.

The 2011 estimated budget for the Food Stamp Program alone is $79.6 billion, but is already looking like an underestimate, and will probably have to be extended by a few billion. This is in addition to some other supplemental programs which are directly tied to the Food Stamp program, which push the total food stamp related budget to well over $110 billion.

The 2012 requested budget was $85 billion, PLUS they gave the program access to a number of other funding sources (slush funds in the USDA) pushing it to over $90 billion for the base program, plus the "other" programs. And, again, if the economy doesn't improve quickly, they're going to have to extend that, too. Total? We'll be lucky if it comes in under $120 billion total...
 
2011-06-19 02:37:40 PM
It's interesting to see how people who oppose welfare for children phrase their opposition. Statements usually come in forms like this:

"Why should I help a woman who has babies she can't afford?"

and very rarely in forms like this:

"Why should I help to feed a baby whose mother can't afford to feed it herself?"

Both of the statements are functionally equivalent when applied to welfare given to mothers to feed babies, but one is much more attractive than the other. One statement results in leaving an adult woman to face the consequences of her own choices. The other results in starving a baby. It's not hard to see why one would prefer the first to the second, or why the first would be more convincing.
 
2011-06-19 02:40:51 PM
Where I live there is an active unemployed economy dealing in food stamps, WIC vouchers, pain pills and anti anxiety drugs like Xanax. Food stamps/vouchers are typically 50 cents or less on the dollar (depending on the time of month), pain pills are $1 per milligram and AA drug prices depend on their shape/strength (Blue footballs cost $10 and pink bars are $5). Illegal migrants are squatting in the repossessed houses and stripping others to sell the copper and scrap. Mexican markets and grocery stores cash food stamp cards and WIC vouchers with no questions. It is an interesting sociological evolution I suspect can be found in most urban areas of the US.
 
2011-06-19 03:02:42 PM
grimnir:
It's interesting to see how people who oppose welfare for children phrase their opposition.

What's REALLY funny is how some really dishonest people phrase "multibillion dollar increases in funding" as "opposing."

Whenever you see a "children went hungry" story, it's almost always "well, we gave them food stamps and a place to live, and supplemental money, and fed the kids while they were at school, and free breakfast, but for some reason, their parents didn't feed them when we don't watch them carefully." I've never seen a skinny parent in these stories, either - it's always some spherical slob who hasn't missed a meal in their life.

Actual people in the USA who are too poor to eat, who are making at least a minimal effort to get food, and who don't get support from the government or private charities like churches or food banks so they CAN eat enough? Too low to measure.

This is why they had to redefine the problem as "food insecurity." Which doesn't mean "children don't get enough food," but don't have "dependable access to adequate food," as defined by someone who makes their money managing the program. So when some poor family has to feed the kids rice and beans for a couple of days to make it to pay day because Dad blew the budget on a case of beer, they're part of that "hunger" number - most of it, in real terms.
 
2011-06-19 03:14:56 PM
Well azaleas are pretty and they smell nice. Poor people, not so much.
 
2011-06-19 03:34:48 PM
Parents sell foodstamps at 50 cents on the dollar. School will be out and free summer meals are in from June 29th to September 2nd. That's right; any child 18 years of age and under can enjoy a free healthy and great tasting breakfast and lunch at hundreds of schools, pools, parks, New York City Housing Authority complexes and other locations around the city. No registration, documentation, or ID is required. In fact, children don't have to live in New York City or be enrolled in public school to enjoy a delicious free breakfast or lunch. Who thought during these tough times that saving money can be so economically and nutritiously rewarding. Breakfast is served 8:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. and lunch from 11:00 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.
 
2011-06-19 03:53:23 PM
Well yeah, it's OK to spend tax money on azaleas.....
 
2011-06-19 04:23:48 PM

smitty04: Parents sell foodstamps at 50 cents on the dollar.


Really? Where do they still use food stamps?
 
2011-06-19 04:25:50 PM

The Why Not Guy: VeryRarely: As children, my brother and I were recipients of the old Gov't cheese and bread in those generic brown boxes.

(So now am I supposed to miss out on some nice azaleas I'll never see just to ensure Shaniqua can get some Similac for her forth baby because that particular baby's daddy isn't paying child support because he doesn't work?! Well that's a bummer.)

I love how you admit your family received government assistance when you were growing up, then turn around and deride others who are doing the very same thing. Nobody said "well that's a bummer" when your family needed a hand. I'm sure your family was in true need while Shaniqua is just gaming the system, right?


Well, they did say , "That's a bummer" when my dad passed away because he was killed by a drunk driver and my mom had to take care of two kids by herself. But I apologize to you for half of my feeble attempt at humor being over-analyzed.
 
2011-06-19 04:36:56 PM

The Why Not Guy: smitty04: Parents sell foodstamps at 50 cents on the dollar.

Really? Where do they still use food stamps?

This
 
2011-06-19 04:37:17 PM
retarded comparison is retarded
 
2011-06-19 04:52:21 PM

VeryRarely: Well, they did say , "That's a bummer" when my dad passed away because he was killed by a drunk driver and my mom had to take care of two kids by herself. But I apologize to you for half of my feeble attempt at humor being over-analyzed.


Maybe Shaniqua's baby-daddy was killed, too.

I'm sorry your mom had to raise you and your brother on her own. I'm also glad there were programs in place to help her out, and I'm glad they're still around to help others who really need them. I only hope your mom didn't hear people making the kind of "humorous" comments just made about Shaniqua.
 
2011-06-19 05:08:19 PM
The Why Not Guy:
Really? Where do they still use food stamps?

All over - they just substituted those cards for the physical stamps. Which means that, instead of selling some pieces of paper, they hang around outside of grocery stores and sell "shopping lists" for half the price of whatever they buy. So someone else gets $100 worth of groceries and such, and the card holder gets $50 cash. It just made it one step less convenient for the scammers.

I've even seen people walk through the store with them and hand over cash at the checkout line while collecting their stuff.

If you haven't seen this, you either live in a really nice neighborhood, or you're not very observant at all. Probably the latter - a lot of "good" people ignore poor folks unless they're cause some inconvenience, or if they're arguing on their behalf from a safe distance.
 
2011-06-19 05:14:52 PM

cirby: Probably the latter - a lot of "good" people ignore poor folks unless they're cause some inconvenience, or if they're arguing on their behalf from a safe distance.


In 2009, the average price for a new car in America was just over $28,000. I paid significantly less than that for my house. I'm confident that I know - at least as well as you do - what life is like for poor folks. I live and work with them every day, and to a lot of people who post here on Fark I'm probably one of them.

Now tell me again where they use food stamps.
 
2011-06-19 06:11:38 PM

The Why Not Guy: Now tell me again where they use food stamps.

Ok! It is now called SNAP this year to give it a more positive conation but 99.9% of the people call the government nutrition program "food stamps". It is like calling left wing extremists progressives. When in public, speak their language.
 
2011-06-19 06:33:56 PM
The Why Not Guy:
Now tell me again where they use food stamps.

So, according to your new tack, "THOSE EEEEVIL REPUBLICANS ELIMINATED FOOD STAMPS!"

But thanks for admitting that your problem is that you're not very observant. If you haven't seen this sort of thing happening, it's because you're not looking.

Of course, it's really even worse than suggested in this thread: some of the fraud is even more dramatic, such as the store owner in Illinois who just got sentenced to two years in prison for $1.5 million in food stamp fraud (he'd pay cash to people for the balance on their cards, then they'd walk out of his store without any groceries).
 
2011-06-19 06:41:10 PM
So there's a government program that is designed to help out everyone BUT men?

Nice.
 
2011-06-19 06:41:26 PM
The food stamp program more than doubled to $65 billion annually over the last five years and abuse and fraud now account for $2 billion of that, the USDA reports. The causes range from simple computer glitches to outright lying by applicants.

Nationally, $3.53 of every $100 in assistance goes to someone who shouldn't get it, either because he or she earns too much or is no longer eligible. That is a record low rate, though the rapid expansion of the program significantly increased the effect of those losses on the program.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/06/food-stamp-abuse-soars-regi on#ixzz1PlRzLAYN
 
2011-06-19 06:50:39 PM
13 people indicted in food stamp fraud case
BY RON SYLVESTER
The Wichita Eagle
Last November, an undercover police officer paid $303.60 for a pack of gum and some cookies at the Alnoor Grocery store.
Store owner Shama Qadeer pulled cash out of her blouse and handed $180 to the customer, according to a federal indictment filed Tuesday in Wichita.
That was one of about 2,600 transactions at two Wichita grocery stores designed to steal federal food stamp benefits, U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom said Tuesday. More than $580,000 in benefits was stolen, he said.
Qadeer, 37, and her husband, Muhammad Qadeer Akram, 46, now face charges of conspiracy to defraud the government, food stamp fraud and wire fraud.
 
2011-06-19 07:14:55 PM
I have an idea. Instead of having vouchers, stamps, cash, and instead of paying people to determine who is eligible for free/reduced food or not, why not just take all welfare food money and use it to stockpile large bags of no-frills staple items (rice, beans, powdered milk and orange juice, etc.) that anyone can take for "free" ? If you want a tastier meal, clean yourself up and get a job to pay for it. If you're not equipped to deal with it, we'll make sure your kids have enough sustenance to break your cycle, and to boot, we'll save a boat load of money that would've otherwise gone to pay for people to determine who gets what.

Just a thought.
 
2011-06-19 07:19:49 PM

Ow My Balls: I have an idea. Instead of having vouchers, stamps, cash, and instead of paying people to determine who is eligible for free/reduced food or not, why not just take all welfare food money and use it to stockpile large bags of no-frills staple items (rice, beans, powdered milk and orange juice, etc.) that anyone can take for "free" ? If you want a tastier meal, clean yourself up and get a job to pay for it. If you're not equipped to deal with it, we'll make sure your kids have enough sustenance to break your cycle, and to boot, we'll save a boat load of money that would've otherwise gone to pay for people to determine who gets what.

Just a thought.


It worked that way in the 1960's and churches handled the distribution. Liberals said it robbed people of their dignity.
 
2011-06-19 07:34:29 PM

smitty04: Liberals said it robbed people of their dignity.


I'm a good two or three standard deviations left-of-center on a lot of political issues, and this wouldn't bug me. And I'm an atheist! It's Free. farking. Food. You can kneel to people's psychotic ideas of invisible beings and get your sustenance for the day.
 
2011-06-19 07:37:33 PM

smitty04: The food stamp program more than doubled to $65 billion annually over the last five years and abuse and fraud now account for $2 billion of that, the USDA reports. The causes range from simple computer glitches to outright lying by applicants.

Nationally, $3.53 of every $100 in assistance goes to someone who shouldn't get it, either because he or she earns too much or is no longer eligible. That is a record low rate, though the rapid expansion of the program significantly increased the effect of those losses on the program.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/06/food-stamp-abuse-soars-regi on#ixzz1PlRzLAYN


This is what I care about:

"Nationally, $3.53 of every $100 in assistance goes to someone who shouldn't get it, either because he or she earns too much or is no longer eligible. That is a record low rate"

and

"Food stamps are a miracle of public policy," said Alexandra Ashbrook, director of D.C. Hunger Solutions. "They are the number one reason why we don't see higher rates of food insecurity in this country. They're why we don't see abject hunger."

There will always be fraud. I think it's more important to go after people who are singularly defrauding Americans out of billions of dollars than to go after groups of poor people who collectively commit $2 billion in fraud over the last 5 years.

I hope nobody asks me to cite examples of individuals committing massive fraud and getting away with it. You'd have to be living in exile to not hear about it.

/ramble on
 
2011-06-19 07:44:34 PM

Ow My Balls: If you want a tastier meal, clean yourself up and get a job to pay for it.


Damn those dirty, lazy poor people for not getting those nonexistant jobs!
 
2011-06-19 08:49:56 PM
adjective:
This is what I care about:
"Nationally, $3.53 of every $100 in assistance goes to someone who shouldn't get it, either because he or she earns too much or is no longer eligible. That is a record low rate"


...as far as they know, anyway - this number comes only from the people they catch committing direct fraud. This is in addition to fraud carried out by people who ARE eligible for food stamps. The "official" estimate of that is one percent. This is so small as to be a sad joke.

There will always be fraud. I think it's more important to go after people who are singularly defrauding Americans out of billions of dollars than to go after groups of poor people who collectively commit $2 billion in fraud over the last 5 years.

That $3.53/$100 adds up to about $4 billion per year all by itself, out of the $110 billion+ program - and when you look into the situation more closely, you start finding people who admit (due to the huge expansion since 2007) it's a drop in the bucket, since expenditures have gone up, but enforcement efforts have not - in fact, they've reduced fraud investigation. There are 40 investigators to monitor merchant and payee fraud. Yes, forty. Total. For the whole country. Nearly 200,000 stores are eligible to accept food stamps, so they have one investigator for about every five THOUSAND stores...

The lowball fraud estimate (by anyone with a brain) should start at 10% and go waaaay up from there. In any other government "giveaway" program, most estimates assume about 10% of the money will suffer "leakage," and that's for the ones that have some sort of actual enforcement...
 
2011-06-19 11:11:04 PM
The Why Not Guy:
My reason for bringing up the fact that "food stamps" don't exist anymore is in response to the claim that parents are selling "food stamps" for pennies on the dollar.

Yes, they are. They sell their food stamp cards for about half of what they're worth. This has been brought up more than a few times in the thread, and you can't seem to understand the concept. Everyone else calls them "food stamps," except you can't seem to understand how language works. It's like "dialing a phone number," even though phones don't have dials any more. Or "ringtones," even though most of them don't sound like bells. They may be plastic cards, but they're still "Food Stamps."

Never mind the 3.53 percent fraud rate cited in your very own post. You know better, right?

Yes, I do. As I pointed out upthread, that 3.53% represents only the stores they catch engaging in organized Food Stamp fraud. They also pretend that food stamp recipient fraud is another 1%. Both of these numbers are (once again) ONLY the people they catch. With their forty investigators FOR THE WHOLE FREAKING PROGRAM.

Aren't there already enough lying Conservatives on Fark without you adding to their ranks?

Funny how "lies" (to you) seems to be you not being able to read entire posts or remember what they actually said.
 
2011-06-19 11:21:15 PM

cirby:
Funny how "lies" (to you) seems to be you not being able to read entire posts or remember what they actually said.


Ok, then show me where I said what you attributed to me. In case you've forgotten, you said my new tack was "THOSE EEEEVIL REPUBLICANS ELIMINATED FOOD STAMPS!"

Show me, and I'll donate $50 in your name (or anonymously if you prefer) to the charity of your choice.
 
2011-06-19 11:24:08 PM

cirby: As I pointed out upthread, that 3.53% represents only the stores they catch engaging in organized Food Stamp fraud.


No, it doesn't. It represents an estimate for the whole program extrapolated from the results of their investigations.
 
2011-06-20 12:06:50 AM

Peaceboy: FSM bless you for posting that. It's now the first thing I think of when I hear "azaleas". One of the best lines in a very quotable movie. Maybe even the best line, if not for "I can't fark a gorilla!"


I think Caddyshack takes the cake for most quotable movie ever, at least it does, for me...

I'm surprised nobody else picked up on the quote.. Too obscure, even for Fark? Unpossible!
 
2011-06-20 12:22:28 AM
If we didn't have poor people, who would plant the azaleas??
 
2011-06-20 01:39:42 AM
When you consider the amount of people using WIC, I believe that it's designed to encourage those who COULD support their children by working to do so. Stop having the government feed your kids if you can get up off your ass and work for their food.

Too many people expect way too much from their jobs, they expect to go to an employer and immediately get a desk job that pays $100,000 a year, with full benefits on the first day of employment, with only a high school diploma, or with no experience. They spend days, weeks or months looking for that "perfect" job, all the while draining the public coffers to support their dependents because they don't have the humility to accept anything less. After all if the government will feed, house and clothe me and my children, why settle for anything less.

Here's a clue: That's why you're still unemployed. You're asking for the moon, you're surprised that the companies you are applying for are not offering you what you want, that they're offering you less or want you to do something a little more labor intensive, or want you to be there for some specified time before they decide to allow you to pay for your benefits tax free.

You'd be surprised at how many more people will actually get a job once the financial incentives to not work dry up.
 
2011-06-20 02:02:44 AM

gregoropolis: so what? we can't have nice things because idiot woman have kids they can't take care of?


Or a construction worker's wife met the recession...

But yeah, it's the idiots who have kids they can't take care of. And clearly we should punish the children as well. Since, you know, poor people never grew up to contribute ANYTHING to society.

/I approve of the juxtaposition in the article, even if it's not good journalism.
//Seriously, Congress. STOP FARKING CUTTING FUNDING. I don't care if their parents are idiots, DO NOT FARK WITH CHILDREN.
///Even poor ones.
 
2011-06-20 08:23:53 AM
Ok, so, yeah, don't ask your aunt to look up azaleas in Google Images, because she might misspell it "AZLEA".

/that was not a fun day.
 
2011-06-20 04:40:09 PM
The Why Not Guy:
I neither said nor implied nor believe any such thing. Stop lying.

So, in addition to your lack of comprehension in general, you don't have a sense of humor, either.

...and you sure are quick to pull that "stop lying" card when you keep getting caught being wrong, or when people make fun of you.

PsiChick:
Seriously, Congress. STOP FARKING CUTTING FUNDING.

Seriously, people - a big increase IS NOT CUTTING.
 
2011-06-20 09:43:16 PM

cirby:
PsiChick:
Seriously, Congress. STOP FARKING CUTTING FUNDING.

Seriously, people - a big increase IS NOT CUTTING.


I meant the cut to WIC. Look in TFA.They cut funding in a big way.
 
2011-06-21 10:29:10 PM

cirby: So, in addition to your lack of comprehension in general, you don't have a sense of humor, either.


You're right. I don't have much of a sense of humor about people falsely attributing statements or beliefs to me that I don't hold. I also don't believe your "it was just a joke, don't you have a sense of humor?" defense for saying I blasted Republicans for cutting food stamps. I said no such thing, or anything even remotely close, so it makes even less sense as a joke than it does as a serious claim. And if you don't want me to pull the "stop lying" card, there's a simple way to prevent it. Stop lying.

Or you can back up your claim and show where I said any such thing. *snicker* oh wait, no, you can't.
 
Displayed 141 of 141 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report