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.

(Boston Herald)   People use EBT to buy guns, porn, booze. Paging Dr. N.S. Sherlock   (bostonherald.com) divider line 221
    More: Obvious, EBT, nail salon  
•       •       •

8651 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2013 at 8:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-04 05:41:07 PM  

firefly212: Is this what we're going to use to demonize the millions of veterans, active-duty service members, and elderly people who need help paying for food, or are we just going to use it to rationalize cutting off food aid to the millions of kids who grow up not knowing where their next meal will come from?

I don't doubt there's some abuse, but I'm not down with farking over the most needy citizens or letting thugs dictate policy. Prosecute the hell out of people who misuse them, but adding more fraud-protection such that families on the brink are told to wait weeks or months for emergency food aid is not acceptable.


Ladies and Gentlemen, Camp B.
 
2013-03-04 05:56:54 PM  

TNel: You really believe that majority of people are scaming food stamps?


No. But I believe there are scammers, and that mindlessly denying it (no "data", just anecdotes...) does nothing to stop them.
 
2013-03-04 06:00:20 PM  

jayphat: ... government assistance threads usually boil down to either side claiming the other side is in one of two camps.

Camp A. Believes that every single person using government assistance is a fat lazy slob who sits on their ass at home on their pristine leather furniture, watching 800 channels of cable while talking on the latest high end cell phone just before they climb into their 2013 Cadillac Escalade.

Camp B. Wants every single person receiving government assistance to go without even the smallest amount of help, but also to sell off every worldly possession they have, including but not limited to the clothes on their back and the hair on top of their head.


But there are several posts in this very thread (not to mention elsewhere) attesting to the fact that the 'Camp A' people are correct, at least partially. Are these people lying? Or will you claim 'anecdotes are not data', and thus, are completely worthless?
 
2013-03-04 06:01:15 PM  

clane: clane:
and yall keep voting Democrat...
[i105.photobucket.com image 544x199]

I know I'm feeding the troll, but I can't resist.
rustypouch:
There are about 47 million people in the US on some sort of food stamps. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

So if the SNAP program is cut off, we now have 47 million people going hungry. What happens to them? Are they just going to go away and quietly starve? Or will they start stealing rather than dying in a ditch?

clane:
47 MILLION!! just think about that.Do you think this program is being abused?  This system does not work at all, it is used by the Democrats to buy votes.  It's original intentions were good but now it is a crime the way it is run.
[images.sodahead.com image 350x261]


While I would concede that the republican position of starving the poor to death will not earn them votes, I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that food stamps correlate with democratic votes, some of the states most dependant on food stamps (AL, MS, KY) are staunchly Republican. 47 is a huge number, to be sure, and I think we've got a serious problem with food insecurity as laid out in the http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf USDA report, do you have any mathematical or analytical basis for claiming that the growth in food insecurity, rather than being a function of a deep recession and disproportionately low income growth at the bottom, is instead a function of abuse? I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I haven't seen the math from your side of the argument, so I'm genuinely curious what metrics you're using that lead you to the conclusion you've arrived at.
 
2013-03-04 06:01:41 PM  

fredklein: jayphat: ... government assistance threads usually boil down to either side claiming the other side is in one of two camps.

Camp A. Believes that every single person using government assistance is a fat lazy slob who sits on their ass at home on their pristine leather furniture, watching 800 channels of cable while talking on the latest high end cell phone just before they climb into their 2013 Cadillac Escalade.

Camp B. Wants every single person receiving government assistance to go without even the smallest amount of help, but also to sell off every worldly possession they have, including but not limited to the clothes on their back and the hair on top of their head.


But there are several posts in this very thread (not to mention elsewhere) attesting to the fact that the 'Camp A' people are correct, at least partially. Are these people lying? Or will you claim 'anecdotes are not data', and thus, are completely worthless?


Is there a reason you cut off the rest of what I posted originally? Because that would answer your question.
 
2013-03-04 06:04:40 PM  

fredklein: No. But I believe there are scammers, and that mindlessly denying it (no "data", just anecdotes...) does nothing to stop them.


Who is denying it?
 
2013-03-04 06:08:36 PM  

jayphat: firefly212: Is this what we're going to use to demonize the millions of veterans, active-duty service members, and elderly people who need help paying for food, or are we just going to use it to rationalize cutting off food aid to the millions of kids who grow up not knowing where their next meal will come from?

I don't doubt there's some abuse, but I'm not down with farking over the most needy citizens or letting thugs dictate policy. Prosecute the hell out of people who misuse them, but adding more fraud-protection such that families on the brink are told to wait weeks or months for emergency food aid is not acceptable.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Camp B.


I think I'm Camp C... I don't think most of them are lazy (most recipents of food aid are children, but the second largest group is the employed poor, then seniors), I'm perfectly ok with people collecting aid from the government... I mean, they pay taxes in the good times, why should they not be able to expect those tax dollars go towards anything that benefits them. I think when there are abuses, people should be prosecuted very fully, but I've experienced parts of the system in periods when I couldn't walk b/c of my MS... some of the anti-fraud measures are so tedious and time consuming that the only people with the ability to complete them are the fraudsters. Even my grandmom (several years back) was denied disability after a double hip, double knee replacement. I'm fine with prosecuting fraud, but I hate knowing that right now there are kids that don't have food because their parents don't have adequate documentation of just how financially farked they are.
 
2013-03-04 06:15:53 PM  

fredklein: jayphat: ... government assistance threads usually boil down to either side claiming the other side is in one of two camps.

Camp A. Believes that every single person using government assistance is a fat lazy slob who sits on their ass at home on their pristine leather furniture, watching 800 channels of cable while talking on the latest high end cell phone just before they climb into their 2013 Cadillac Escalade.

Camp B. Wants every single person receiving government assistance to go without even the smallest amount of help, but also to sell off every worldly possession they have, including but not limited to the clothes on their back and the hair on top of their head.


But there are several posts in this very thread (not to mention elsewhere) attesting to the fact that the 'Camp A' people are correct, at least partially. Are these people lying? Or will you claim 'anecdotes are not data', and thus, are completely worthless?


Partially correct in the same way you can be partially pregnant or partially dead?

The reality is that there are certainly some fraudsters with lavish lifestyles who are still collecting foodstamps and other forms of government aid, but the reality is also that they are a small minority of the massive number of Americans working hard, struggling to get by, struggling with health issues or issues that come with aging, kids who had an unfortunate draw of parents, and other people most eminently deserving of our aid and compassion as a society. Using the criminals to justify starving the children is neither a conservative value nor a christian value, and it sure as hell isn't my values. I'm tired of this faux-christianity on the march, these ostensibly Christian people who chide the gays for their lack of morality while also  cheering for the execution of the imprisoned, the starving of children, and cutting off of medical aid to the needy. Digressing back to the topic though, we can deal with those who are lazy, we can means test so millionaires aren't getting food stamps, we can prosecute those abusing the system. That said,  pretending that people are even partially right when they improperly stereotype and characterize the recipients of food stamps and welfare as lazy, slovenly, or otherwise undeserving of our aid is just plain wrong.
 
2013-03-04 06:17:52 PM  

firefly212: jayphat: firefly212: Is this what we're going to use to demonize the millions of veterans, active-duty service members, and elderly people who need help paying for food, or are we just going to use it to rationalize cutting off food aid to the millions of kids who grow up not knowing where their next meal will come from?

I don't doubt there's some abuse, but I'm not down with farking over the most needy citizens or letting thugs dictate policy. Prosecute the hell out of people who misuse them, but adding more fraud-protection such that families on the brink are told to wait weeks or months for emergency food aid is not acceptable.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Camp B.

I think I'm Camp C... I don't think most of them are lazy (most recipents of food aid are children, but the second largest group is the employed poor, then seniors), I'm perfectly ok with people collecting aid from the government... I mean, they pay taxes in the good times, why should they not be able to expect those tax dollars go towards anything that benefits them. I think when there are abuses, people should be prosecuted very fully, but I've experienced parts of the system in periods when I couldn't walk b/c of my MS... some of the anti-fraud measures are so tedious and time consuming that the only people with the ability to complete them are the fraudsters. Even my grandmom (several years back) was denied disability after a double hip, double knee replacement. I'm fine with prosecuting fraud, but I hate knowing that right now there are kids that don't have food because their parents don't have adequate documentation of just how financially farked they are.


Really hard to infer that from your first statement of "they are going to use this to starve everyone"
 
2013-03-04 06:33:41 PM  

jayphat: firefly212: jayphat: firefly212: Is this what we're going to use to demonize the millions of veterans, active-duty service members, and elderly people who need help paying for food, or are we just going to use it to rationalize cutting off food aid to the millions of kids who grow up not knowing where their next meal will come from?

I don't doubt there's some abuse, but I'm not down with farking over the most needy citizens or letting thugs dictate policy. Prosecute the hell out of people who misuse them, but adding more fraud-protection such that families on the brink are told to wait weeks or months for emergency food aid is not acceptable.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Camp B.

I think I'm Camp C... I don't think most of them are lazy (most recipents of food aid are children, but the second largest group is the employed poor, then seniors), I'm perfectly ok with people collecting aid from the government... I mean, they pay taxes in the good times, why should they not be able to expect those tax dollars go towards anything that benefits them. I think when there are abuses, people should be prosecuted very fully, but I've experienced parts of the system in periods when I couldn't walk b/c of my MS... some of the anti-fraud measures are so tedious and time consuming that the only people with the ability to complete them are the fraudsters. Even my grandmom (several years back) was denied disability after a double hip, double knee replacement. I'm fine with prosecuting fraud, but I hate knowing that right now there are kids that don't have food because their parents don't have adequate documentation of just how financially farked they are.

Really hard to infer that from your first statement of "they are going to use this to starve everyone"


I think that with lots of social programs and disability, faux-conservatives try to use the 1% of fraud to justify cutting off 100% of a program. It's a terrible mindset, and certainly not one I ascribe to.
 
2013-03-04 06:33:57 PM  

firefly212: Is this what we're going to use to demonize the millions of veterans, active-duty service members, and elderly people who need help paying for food, or are we just going to use it to rationalize cutting off food aid to the millions of kids who grow up not knowing where their next meal will come from?

I don't doubt there's some abuse, but I'm not down with farking over the most needy citizens or letting thugs dictate policy. Prosecute the hell out of people who misuse them, but adding more fraud-protection such that families on the brink are told to wait weeks or months for emergency food aid is not acceptable.


No, because this thread is not about food aid.  It's about cash aid.  And it's not about making cash aid harder to get, it's about making the cash aid you have harder to abuse.

The confusion over EBT, SNAP, and cash aid tells me who's never used all of them.
 
2013-03-04 06:36:14 PM  

firefly212: jayphat: firefly212: jayphat: firefly212: Is this what we're going to use to demonize the millions of veterans, active-duty service members, and elderly people who need help paying for food, or are we just going to use it to rationalize cutting off food aid to the millions of kids who grow up not knowing where their next meal will come from?

I don't doubt there's some abuse, but I'm not down with farking over the most needy citizens or letting thugs dictate policy. Prosecute the hell out of people who misuse them, but adding more fraud-protection such that families on the brink are told to wait weeks or months for emergency food aid is not acceptable.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Camp B.

I think I'm Camp C... I don't think most of them are lazy (most recipents of food aid are children, but the second largest group is the employed poor, then seniors), I'm perfectly ok with people collecting aid from the government... I mean, they pay taxes in the good times, why should they not be able to expect those tax dollars go towards anything that benefits them. I think when there are abuses, people should be prosecuted very fully, but I've experienced parts of the system in periods when I couldn't walk b/c of my MS... some of the anti-fraud measures are so tedious and time consuming that the only people with the ability to complete them are the fraudsters. Even my grandmom (several years back) was denied disability after a double hip, double knee replacement. I'm fine with prosecuting fraud, but I hate knowing that right now there are kids that don't have food because their parents don't have adequate documentation of just how financially farked they are.

Really hard to infer that from your first statement of "they are going to use this to starve everyone"

I think that with lots of social programs and disability, faux-conservatives try to use the 1% of fraud to justify cutting off 100% of a program. It's a terrible mindset, and certainly not one I ascribe to.


Again, that's the Camp B mentality, which a vast majority of people don't subscribe to. The whole point of why I typed this up in the first place.
 
2013-03-04 06:45:17 PM  

firefly212: I think that with lots of social programs and disability, faux-conservatives try to use the 1% of fraud to justify cutting off 100% of a program. It's a terrible mindset, and certainly not one I ascribe to.


This isn't just a "faux-conservative" thing. Everybody seems to do it depending on the issue. Replace "1% of fraud" with "0.01% of firearms misused" and suddenly everybody in this thread will flip sides.

In other words, "this is why we can't have nice things."
 
2013-03-04 06:51:01 PM  

jayphat: Is there a reason you cut off the rest of what I posted originally? Because that would answer your question.


You mean the part about "sane people who want to see some minor reforms made to the system"?? A "minor reform" won't fix major problems.
 
2013-03-04 06:51:36 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: fredklein: No. But I believe there are scammers, and that mindlessly denying it (no "data", just anecdotes...) does nothing to stop them.

Who is denying it?


Anyone who dismisses the issue with "Anecdotes are not data".
 
2013-03-04 07:05:12 PM  

firefly212: Partially correct in the same way you can be partially pregnant or partially dead?
Partially correct as in, not "every single person" using government assistance is a fat lazy slob who sits on their ass at home on their pristine leather furniture, watching 800 channels of cable while talking on the latest high end cell phone just before they climb into their 2013 Cadillac Escalade, but rather that only some are.

The reality is that there are certainly some fraudsters with lavish lifestyles who are still collecting foodstamps and other forms of government aid/i>

Exactly. Now you understand.

I'm tired of this faux-christianity on the march, these ostensibly Christian people who chide the gays for their lack of morality while also cheering for the execution of the imprisoned, the starving of children, and cutting off of medical aid to the needy.

Well, I'm not sure where you're going wit this, 'cuz I'm not Christian.

I do, however, believe in the Death penalty. And Natural Selection (aka survival of the fittest). But that's another story.
www.corporate-aliens.com

Digressing back to the topic though, we can deal with those who are lazy, we can means test so millionaires aren't getting food stamps, we can prosecute those abusing the system.

Sounds good. Why don't we??

 
2013-03-04 07:40:37 PM  
By all means though middle class folks, keep on blaming all your problems on poor people, it's exactly what the people with real wealth and power want you to think. They rob you blind and use their resources to convince you that they are the 'job creators' and the only hope you have left, then they convince you that those damn poor folks are the problem. Meanwhile they are busy pocketing the proceeds of your labor to pay for their third mansion, supercars, and plastic surgery for their trophy wives/husbands.
 
2013-03-04 10:53:26 PM  
The people that manage these cards need to do away with the cash option.  I dont much care if it makes it harder for the recipients.  Our tax money shouldnt be going to porn, booze and guns.  If the recipients dont like the hardship of free money, without a cash option they can always get off their asses and go get a job like the rest of us.
 
2013-03-04 11:21:48 PM  
I'm about to the point where I can't take the stupidity of EBT-outrage threads anymore. Protip: EBT cards are used for more than just food stamps.
 
2013-03-04 11:46:46 PM  

m053486: Also the hottest, newest smartphones.

Nothing cheers my day more than an EBT wielding, demanding, obnoxious mother-of-five using her freshly "did" nails to pry said EBT card from her cash-fat wallet because she's "tired of all my girlfriends telling me I need a new phone, ya heard me?"

Oh, and said women come in all sorts of colors coloreds.

 
2013-03-05 09:06:22 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Cybernetic: BarkingUnicorn: x-caliber: My FSA can handle this quite easily.  Leave it to Massachusetts government to go with the lowest bidder for software development for this work (or at least have not completed a requirements document for the software development).

What we're talking about wasn't a requirement at the time the software was developed.  The cash benefits on an EBT card can be spent on anything.  It's possible to restrict where cash benefits can be spent, but many purchases simply cannot be checked against a database of prohibited items.  Ever seen a UPC scanner used to ring up a manicure?

It should be fairly straightforward to group businesses into two classes: allowed to accept EBT payments, and not allowed to accept EBT payments.

Grocery stores, pharmacies, and stores that sell necessities: allowed.
Liquor stores, hair/nail salons, strip clubs, adult bookstores: not allowed.

...and so on.

This is something that can be done, it just isn't being done.

The new law is demanding item-level blocking.  The benefits manager acknowledges that location-level blocking is possible, but says he can't comply with this law.  Even if he could, cash can still be withdrawn at some ATM and spent on anything, anywhere.

I wonder if States can prohibit cash withdrawals on their own.  The ability to get cash benefits in cash may be a federal requirement.

BTW, it's not just States that are pushing this micromanagement.  A new federal law requires them to prohibit use of cash benefits for purchases of liquor, cigarettes, adult entertainment, gambling and guns by 2014 or lose federal money.  That law passed on the strength of a House Ways & Means Committee report that merely cited anecdotes from news media without a single estimate of how often abuse happens or the dollars involved.


Item-level blocking already exists for FSA debit cards. When I buy stuff at Walgreens, items that are eligible for FSA payment are marked on the receipt with an 'F'. And since eligibility for FSA reimbursement is controlled by federal law, I can't see this being much different, except for the breadth of the back-end database that would be required.

As for cash withdrawals, I'm sure the technology exists to block them, but I have no idea what the legal requirements are.
 
Displayed 21 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report