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  
•       •       •

15746 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 41 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report