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.

(The Atlantic Cities)   Why the poor don't work? It's because they are stupid, child-popping cripples who think they don't need to work anymore. And those who "say" they can't find jobs. Who says? The poor. (Headline translated into Trollish)   (theatlanticcities.com) divider line 246
    More: Interesting, rises and falls, House GOP  
•       •       •

8999 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2013 at 9:06 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-24 05:52:16 AM
I wonder if they asked how many people living below the poverty line actually had a job and still couldn't make ends meet?
 
2013-09-24 06:02:00 AM
If they ever rise up the'll be wondering why there are so many of them. All we ask for is bread and circuses.
 
2013-09-24 06:39:55 AM

real_headhoncho: I wonder if they asked how many people living below the poverty line actually had a job and still couldn't make ends meet?


that is probbaly because they had things like fridges and phones.
 
2013-09-24 06:48:57 AM
The problem conservatives have isn't with the people who truly need the safety net, it's with the assholes whose entire lives revolve around the first of the month and seeing how long they can make the meth last until calling anyone who will still talk to them to bum money to buy groceries for the kids or keep the electricity on at their trailer.

It is unfortunate that, when a conservative complains about this kind of system abuse, s/he is met with either a liberal sneering about how all conservatives want to kill grandma and starve poor people or with an liberal full of righteous indignation that people don't care enough about the plight of the meth-head in America.
 
2013-09-24 07:37:33 AM
Liberals want to expand social welfare programs because they are worried that there's someone out there who needs help to make ends meet but is not getting that help.

Conservatives want to cut back on social welfare programs because they are worried that there is someone out there who is getting help to make ends meet but doesn't need deserve that help.
 
2013-09-24 07:48:12 AM

Lucky LaRue: The problem conservatives have isn't with the people who truly need the safety net, it's with the assholes whose entire lives revolve around the first of the month and seeing how long they can make the meth last until calling anyone who will still talk to them to bum money to buy groceries for the kids or keep the electricity on at their trailer.


The problems the people who truly need the safety net have are the conservatives who are more concerned about somebody getting a free ride than the needy getting help.

Everybody has a problem with meth heads getting a free ride. The problem witht he conservative position is that they woudl rather screw over the person that needs help if they think meth heads are getting away with something.


Lucky LaRue: It is unfortunate that, when a conservative complains about this kind of system abuse, s/he is met with either a liberal sneering about how all conservatives want to kill grandma and starve poor people or with an liberal full of righteous indignation that people don't care enough about the plight of the meth-head in America


When a conservative complains about these things and has hard facts backing up claims orf real abuse that doesn't involve "obamaphones" or claims about how many poor have TV's or fridges, and isn't backing grants for rish farmers I will listen.

That hasn't happened yet.
 
2013-09-24 08:18:56 AM
In 2007, for instance, 6.4 percent of adults who lived under the poverty line and didn't work in the past year said it was because they couldn't find a job. As of 2012 2009, it had more than doubled,

cdn.theatlantic.com

Fixed that for them.

/has it gotten to the point where these articles assume you can't read a simple graph?
 
2013-09-24 08:28:08 AM

liam76: Lucky LaRue: The problem conservatives have isn't with the people who truly need the safety net, it's with the assholes whose entire lives revolve around the first of the month and seeing how long they can make the meth last until calling anyone who will still talk to them to bum money to buy groceries for the kids or keep the electricity on at their trailer.

The problems the people who truly need the safety net have are the conservatives who are more concerned about somebody getting a free ride than the needy getting help.

Everybody has a problem with meth heads getting a free ride. The problem witht he conservative position is that they woudl rather screw over the person that needs help if they think meth heads are getting away with something.



I think conservatives would argue, instead, that they would rather liberals quit pissing away money instead of fixing the problem.  You say everyone has a problem with the meth-heads getting a free ride?  Ok - Fix it, then.  Make drug screening a prerequisite for aid.
 
2013-09-24 08:36:29 AM

Lucky LaRue: I think conservatives would argue, instead, that they would rather liberals quit pissing away money instead of fixing the problem.  You say everyone has a problem with the meth-heads getting a free ride?  Ok - Fix it, then.  Make drug screening a prerequisite for aid.


Small government! Drug test 100% of welfare applicants to catch the .05% of those who violate the rules!  Because everyone knows smoking marijuana should disqualify you from getting food for your children!

It's like those people who claim that social security disability fraud is a huge problem because ZOMG the government pays 50 million dollars a year in fraudulent claims. Except when you do the math, you realize that's not even 1% of total recipients, which is actually a really low fraud rate.
 
2013-09-24 08:37:34 AM

liam76: When a conservative complains about these things and has hard facts backing up claims orf real abuse that doesn't involve "obamaphones" or claims about how many poor have TV's or fridges, and isn't backing grants for rish farmers I will listen.

That hasn't happened yet.


Wait.  You are suggesting that meth-heads abusing the system may or may not be factual?  You live in an isolated, over-privileged pocket of society, don't you?
 
2013-09-24 08:39:51 AM

Lucky LaRue: I think conservatives would argue, instead, that they would rather liberals quit pissing away money instead of fixing the problem.


What problem?

The problem where when there's no good jobs to be had people turn to cheap, destructive vices like methamphetamine use and production?

The problem where it's better 100 innocents suffer than one guilty one escape?

The problem where we're living the 1930's again?
 
2013-09-24 08:41:51 AM

Lucky LaRue: Make drug screening a prerequisite for aid.


Yeah, cause that has been cost effective so far.
 
2013-09-24 08:42:18 AM

Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: I think conservatives would argue, instead, that they would rather liberals quit pissing away money instead of fixing the problem.  You say everyone has a problem with the meth-heads getting a free ride?  Ok - Fix it, then.  Make drug screening a prerequisite for aid.

Small government! Drug test 100% of welfare applicants to catch the .05% of those who violate the rules!  Because everyone knows smoking marijuana should disqualify you from getting food for your children!

It's like those people who claim that social security disability fraud is a huge problem because ZOMG the government pays 50 million dollars a year in fraudulent claims. Except when you do the math, you realize that's not even 1% of total recipients, which is actually a really low fraud rate.


Actually, the the U.S. Department of Labor statistics website puts the number at 2.67%, which is still a really low rate (though nearly triple what you are trying to claim it to be).  That isn't even the point, though, is it?  We aren't talking about fraud - we are talking about fixing the system.  I did not argue that we should drug-test to prevent fraud, I argued that, if - as liam76 suggest - everybody has a problem with the meth-heads taking a free-ride, then we should do something about it like make drug screening mandatory.
 
2013-09-24 08:42:31 AM

Lucky LaRue: liam76: When a conservative complains about these things and has hard facts backing up claims orf real abuse that doesn't involve "obamaphones" or claims about how many poor have TV's or fridges, and isn't backing grants for rish farmers I will listen.

That hasn't happened yet.

Wait.  You are suggesting that meth-heads abusing the system may or may not be factual?  You live in an isolated, over-privileged pocket of society, don't you?


Here's some good facts on the actual rates, from this article:

It's not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they're low, while conservatives insist they're astronomically high. In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It's seemingly impossible to find statistics on "welfare" (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it's about the same. A bevy of inspector general reports found "improper payment" levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs -- but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either "eligibility and payment calculation errors" or "documentation errors"), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries. 
That's probably because fraud levels in SNAP appear to be as low as with the other "pure welfare" programs we just touched on: "Payment error" rates -- money sent in incorrect amounts and/or to the wrong people -- have declined from near 10 percent a decade ago to 3 to 4 percent today, most of it due, again, to government error, not active fraud. The majority of food-stamp fraud appears to be generated by supermarkets "trafficking" in the food stamps. Beneficiaries intentionally ripping off the taxpayers account for perhaps 1 percent of payments.
 
2013-09-24 08:44:10 AM

doglover: Lucky LaRue: I think conservatives would argue, instead, that they would rather liberals quit pissing away money instead of fixing the problem.

What problem?

The problem where when there's no good jobs to be had people turn to cheap, destructive vices like methamphetamine use and production?

The problem where it's better 100 innocents suffer than one guilty one escape?

The problem where we're living the 1930's again?


Which gets around to the second argument I claimed is always made whenever someone tries to put forward a conservative argument for controlling welfare spending.
 
2013-09-24 08:45:12 AM

Lucky LaRue: Actually, the the U.S. Department of Labor statistics website puts the number at 2.67%, which is still a really low rate (though nearly triple what you are trying to claim it to be).  That isn't even the point, though, is it?  We aren't talking about fraud - we are talking about fixing the system.  I did not argue that we should drug-test to prevent fraud, I argued that, if - as liam76 suggest - everybody has a problem with the meth-heads taking a free-ride, then we should do something about it like make drug screening mandatory.


Yes, everyone has a problem. But your solution is to essentially trample on every one of the vast majority of legitimate beneficiaries just to get at a very small percentage of those you don't want on welfare. You're bringing a rocket launcher to a pillow fight. Or, if you prefer a more classical reference, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
2013-09-24 08:46:18 AM

Lucky LaRue: I argued that, if - as liam76 suggest - everybody has a problem with the meth-heads taking a free-ride, then we should do something about it like make drug screening mandatory.


Or we can work big to small and start going after politicians and wall street. They're the big criminals. One corrupt senator or CEO would save the taxpayers enough to pay for Welfare twice over and still have money left over to pay down the debt.
 
2013-09-24 08:47:49 AM

Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: liam76: When a conservative complains about these things and has hard facts backing up claims orf real abuse that doesn't involve "obamaphones" or claims about how many poor have TV's or fridges, and isn't backing grants for rish farmers I will listen.

That hasn't happened yet.

Wait.  You are suggesting that meth-heads abusing the system may or may not be factual?  You live in an isolated, over-privileged pocket of society, don't you?

Here's some good facts on the actual rates, from this article:

It's not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they're low, while conservatives insist they're astronomically high. In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It's seemingly impossible to find statistics on "welfare" (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it's about the same. A bevy of inspector general reports found "improper payment" levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs -- but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either "eligibility and payment calculation errors" or "documentation errors"), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries. 
That's probably because fraud levels in SNAP appear to be as low as with the other "pure welfare" programs we just touched on: "Payment error" rates -- money sent in incorrect amounts and/or to the wrong people -- have declined from near 10 percent a decade ago to 3 to 4 percent today, most of it due, again, to government error, not active fraud. The majority of food-stamp fraud appears to be generated by supermarkets "trafficking" in the food stamps. Beneficiaries intentionally ripping off the taxpayers account for perhaps 1 percent of payments.


Right, but I am not trying to make this an argument about fraud.  I grew up in a really, really poor part of America, and I know *a lot* of people who are non-fraudulently supporting their meth addiction with government subsidies.  I think this is wrong, and think it should be stopped.  I suggest drug-screening as a way to stop it.  If you have a better way, then implement it, but don't just throw your hands in the air and say "Wat do?!"
 
2013-09-24 08:51:47 AM

Lucky LaRue: Which gets around to the second argument I claimed is always made whenever someone tries to put forward a conservative argument for controlling welfare spending.


Maybe, just maybe, the reason you always encounter it is because it's a valid concern? Maybe the conservative argument for Welfare reform is a sad, malnourished little lump of bad logic and strong emotions such as a petulant child might make? Have you considered that?
 
2013-09-24 08:53:47 AM

Lucky LaRue: I know *a lot* of people who are non-fraudulently supporting their meth addiction with government subsidies.


blog.angelatung.com
 
2013-09-24 08:54:12 AM

doglover: Lucky LaRue: I argued that, if - as liam76 suggest - everybody has a problem with the meth-heads taking a free-ride, then we should do something about it like make drug screening mandatory.

Or we can work big to small and start going after politicians and wall street. They're the big criminals. One corrupt senator or CEO would save the taxpayers enough to pay for Welfare twice over and still have money left over to pay down the debt.


Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?
 
2013-09-24 08:54:57 AM

Lucky LaRue: I think conservatives would argue, instead, that they would rather liberals quit pissing away money instead of fixing the problem. You say everyone has a problem with the meth-heads getting a free ride? Ok - Fix it, then. Make drug screening a prerequisite for aid


You may want to look into the cost effectiveness of the program you are pushing for before you cry about pissing away money.

ALso why call out food aid for drug screening? If we are going to do thia (and I don't thinkw e should) then it shoudl apply to all types of aid. Inclusing to businesse and farms.


They cost us far more than welfare.


Lucky LaRue: liam76: When a conservative complains about these things and has hard facts backing up claims orf real abuse that doesn't involve "obamaphones" or claims about how many poor have TV's or fridges, and isn't backing grants for rish farmers I will listen.

That hasn't happened yet.

Wait.  You are suggesting that meth-heads abusing the system may or may not be factual?  You live in an isolated, over-privileged pocket of society, don't you?


No. I am saying I doubt it is as big a problem as you pretend it to be.
 
2013-09-24 08:55:05 AM

Lucky LaRue: Right, but I am not trying to make this an argument about fraud.  I grew up in a really, really poor part of America, and I know *a lot* of people who are non-fraudulently supporting their meth addiction with government subsidies.  I think this is wrong, and think it should be stopped.  I suggest drug-screening as a way to stop it.  If you have a better way, then implement it, but don't just throw your hands in the air and say "Wat do?!"


I don't have a solution. I don't think there  is a solution. If you want to have a program that feeds people who do not have enough money to feed themselves, you will get a small percentage of people who use that to stay near poverty and do stupid things with their lives. And you will have the vast majority of people who receive the benefits use them for what they're supposed to be used.  I think it's going to always be a problem, and there isliterally nothing you can do to get around it, unless you stop giving any sort of benefits at all and let people starve in the streets or go totally homeless, where they'll just turn to crime to feed their drug habit.

As every business owner knows, it is  impossible to prevent all theft and fraud, so you simply account for that when making a budget. What you don't do is strip-search all of your customers as they're leaving the store. You learn to accept that sometimes people do bad things, and if you want to run an efficient and cost-saving program, you simply accept it as a cost of doing business. But you put in place sensible precautions to prevent fraud, and that's what most government programs do. For instance, it's actually  very hard to get SSI Disability:
www.ssa.gov

Drug testing can cost $50 per person (that was the figure when Florida passed the law). The costs of drug-testing 100% of SNAP or TANF applicants would make the programs  massively more expensive than they are now, and wipe out any savings made by cutting off the people who abuse the payments. As I said, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
2013-09-24 08:59:10 AM

Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?


Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!
 
2013-09-24 08:59:54 AM

Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%. That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud. That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what? $700 million


I don't follow your math here.

Also I tried to link before but it got dropped.

Even if we ignroe the consitutionality of drug testing fro welfare, assume the logic that if someone on welfare so much as takes 1 toke on weed they deserve no benefits is good, and ignore what happens to the kids of parents who are cut off from aid, the costs still aren't worth it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-t e sts-cost.html
 
2013-09-24 09:01:38 AM

Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?

Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!


This ignores the extra work of having govt track this and make sure that those peopl;e aren't getting aid.
 
2013-09-24 09:01:50 AM
Pre- Interview: Why you be talkin white?
Interview: De man be keepin me down.
 
2013-09-24 09:02:20 AM

liam76: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%. That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud. That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what? $700 million

I don't follow your math here.

Also I tried to link before but it got dropped.

Even if we ignroe the consitutionality of drug testing fro welfare, assume the logic that if someone on welfare so much as takes 1 toke on weed they deserve no benefits is good, and ignore what happens to the kids of parents who are cut off from aid, the costs still aren't worth it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-t e sts-cost.html


That article says $35 for recipient, not the $50 amount I was talking about. So  Lucky LaRue's drug testing program for SNAP recipients would now only increase costs by $9.45 billion instead. Whew!
 
2013-09-24 09:02:38 AM

Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?

Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!


So, if I spend $23.5 billion once, I can eliminate a $7 billion / year problem?  That doesn't sound like a bad trade-off, really.
 
2013-09-24 09:03:48 AM
media-social.s-msn.com
 
2013-09-24 09:04:01 AM

BunkyBrewman: In 2007, for instance, 6.4 percent of adults who lived under the poverty line and didn't work in the past year said it was because they couldn't find a job. As of 2012 2009, it had more than doubled,

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 850x645]

Fixed that for them.

/has it gotten to the point where these articles assume you can't read a simple graph?


WHY THE POOR DON"T WORK

 excuses         excusesexcuses        excusesexcuses   excusesexcusesexcuses   excusesexcuses
 
2013-09-24 09:04:49 AM

Lucky LaRue: Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?

Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!

So, if I spend $23.5 billion once, I can eliminate a $7 billion / year problem?  That doesn't sound like a bad trade-off, really.


Actually, you'd have to spend that every year.
 
2013-09-24 09:05:43 AM

Lucky LaRue: Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?

Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!

So, if I spend $23.5 billion once, I can eliminate a $7 billion / year problem?  That doesn't sound like a bad trade-off, really.


So the recepients have to pass a drug test 1 in their life, and if they pass they get aid forever?

And there are never any new people going on welfare?

And soem guy who used drugs then gets off them , goes on to start a "regular life" and gets a setback and needs aid, but your idea, is screw him he used meth 1?

This is a good plan for you?
 
2013-09-24 09:08:50 AM

doglover: Lucky LaRue: I know *a lot* of people who are non-fraudulently supporting their meth addiction with government subsidies.

[blog.angelatung.com image 330x282]


Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?  All these percentages being thrown around to argue that fraud is so inconsequential in the welfare system is only taking in to account people who have been found guilty of it, and doesn't take into account people who ride the system month after month without consequence.
 
2013-09-24 09:10:57 AM

Lucky LaRue: All these percentages being thrown around to argue that fraud is so inconsequential in the welfare system is only taking in to account people who have been found guilty of it


All these measurements of g= 9.8 m/s2 only take into account the times gravity was actually that strong. What about all the unmeasured gravity?
 
2013-09-24 09:11:01 AM

Lucky LaRue: Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?

Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!

So, if I spend $23.5 billion once, I can eliminate a $7 billion / year problem?  That doesn't sound like a bad trade-off, really.


Once? That's a yearly cost, not a single-time cost. Do you think that the number of people on SNAP is static, that no one enters and leaves the program? And if you're actually serious about rooting out fraud, wouldn't you want to do more than simply drug-test people at Day One and then never do it again? After all, if people knew that was the case, then they'd just sober up for a couple of weeks before applying, then bam! there's your abuse back again.

So the solution you just suggested is even worse than not drug-testing at all, because it simply gives the illusion of success, without actually addressing the problem you're trying to get rid of.
 
2013-09-24 09:11:03 AM

liam76: Lucky LaRue: Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?

Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!

So, if I spend $23.5 billion once, I can eliminate a $7 billion / year problem?  That doesn't sound like a bad trade-off, really.

So the recepients have to pass a drug test 1 in their life, and if they pass they get aid forever?

And there are never any new people going on welfare?

And soem guy who used drugs then gets off them , goes on to start a "regular life" and gets a setback and needs aid, but your idea, is screw him he used meth 1?

This is a good plan for you?


How about you take a second from shiatting all over the drug-testing suggestion and come up with some ideas of your own to stop welfare abuse?
 
2013-09-24 09:11:38 AM

doglover: Lucky LaRue: All these percentages being thrown around to argue that fraud is so inconsequential in the welfare system is only taking in to account people who have been found guilty of it

All these measurements of g= 9.8 m/s2 only take into account the times gravity was actually that strong. What about all the unmeasured gravity?


Now you are just being willfully stupid.
 
2013-09-24 09:12:59 AM

Lucky LaRue: doglover: Lucky LaRue: I know *a lot* of people who are non-fraudulently supporting their meth addiction with government subsidies.

[blog.angelatung.com image 330x282]

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?  All these percentages being thrown around to argue that fraud is so inconsequential in the welfare system is only taking in to account people who have been found guilty of it, and doesn't take into account people who ride the system month after month without consequence.


Actually  no, that's not true. Do you really think that the auditors of these programs are that stupid?
 
2013-09-24 09:13:09 AM
Hate the poor, hate the rich, life is just a sonovab*tch.

/oh, the turning away. Ask bono/waters.
 
2013-09-24 09:13:14 AM

Lucky LaRue: liam76: Lucky LaRue: Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?

Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!

So, if I spend $23.5 billion once, I can eliminate a $7 billion / year problem?  That doesn't sound like a bad trade-off, really.

So the recepients have to pass a drug test 1 in their life, and if they pass they get aid forever?

And there are never any new people going on welfare?

And soem guy who used drugs then gets off them , goes on to start a "regular life" and gets a setback and needs aid, but your idea, is screw him he used meth 1?

This is a good plan for you?

How about you take a second from shiatting all over the drug-testing suggestion and come up with some ideas of your own to stop welfare abuse?


Here's one that's proven: Provide jobs and education. Works every time.
 
2013-09-24 09:14:21 AM
And taking away their meal tickets won't fix any of those problems.

It's at least worth a try. Stand behind someone in line at the grocery with a Food Stamp EBT card and see where the money goes. I tend to see a lot of soda, frozen pizzas and other things that cost a lot, aren't nutritious and equaling the cost of several days worth of homemade food.

Or when the guys comes up to you and offers to buy some of the stuff in your cart with their EBT if you'll buy cigarettes with cash and trade-out.

Like so many government programs, well-intended, but rife with apathy and corrupt oversight, and subject to the abuses irresponsible human behavior produces.
 
2013-09-24 09:14:29 AM

Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: doglover: Lucky LaRue: I know *a lot* of people who are non-fraudulently supporting their meth addiction with government subsidies.

[blog.angelatung.com image 330x282]

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?  All these percentages being thrown around to argue that fraud is so inconsequential in the welfare system is only taking in to account people who have been found guilty of it, and doesn't take into account people who ride the system month after month without consequence.

Actually  no, that's not true. Do you really think that the auditors of these programs are that stupid?


The intellectual capacity of government auditors aside, yes, it is true.
 
2013-09-24 09:14:59 AM
More and more people from the middle class are falling into the working poor category.  There is socioeconomic mobility in this country, just in the wrong direction.   The chances of you or anyone picking them up by the bootstraps and making something of themselves is slim to none and slim just left town.  The American DreamTM is dead, frankly I don't think it ever existed, it was just a talking point trotted out to keep you and everyone else working for an impossibility.
 
2013-09-24 09:15:59 AM
Personally I think they should be allowed to accept the check cards that food stamps have been turned into in most states.  Who doesn't want to use free money to buy a tv etc instead of feed their crying starving children at home.

Wait...
 
2013-09-24 09:17:41 AM

doglover: Lucky LaRue: liam76: Lucky LaRue: Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Let's take the articles numbers at face value and say, without argument, that the prevalence of fraud is only around 1%.  That means we are spending about $7 billion a year just to cover fraud.  That is a whole hell of a lot more money than we can extract from the hides of corrupt senators and CEOs - hell, the JP Morgan fine for the London Whale was, what?  $700 million?

Well, using the $50 for drug tests, if we figure 1% of SNAP users (47 million of them) are fraudulent, and that's $7 billion, then the cost to the taxpayer to prevent this disaster is 23.5 billion. So you've just increased the cost to the taxpayer by 16 billion dollars. Congratulations! You stamped out all that fraud!

So, if I spend $23.5 billion once, I can eliminate a $7 billion / year problem?  That doesn't sound like a bad trade-off, really.

So the recepients have to pass a drug test 1 in their life, and if they pass they get aid forever?

And there are never any new people going on welfare?

And soem guy who used drugs then gets off them , goes on to start a "regular life" and gets a setback and needs aid, but your idea, is screw him he used meth 1?

This is a good plan for you?

How about you take a second from shiatting all over the drug-testing suggestion and come up with some ideas of your own to stop welfare abuse?

Here's one that's proven: Provide jobs and education. Works every time.


I actually don't have a problem with this suggestion.
 
2013-09-24 09:18:24 AM
There are entire industries built up around swindling billions of dollars out of the welfare/disability systems.

I remember back in the day being somewhat jealous of the people who didn't have to work for their leather furniture or the big screen TV they had delivered on my dime.
 
2013-09-24 09:19:35 AM
The National Statistical Abstract says that only 2% of people in poverty are working fulltime.

Thus, the idea of the "working poor" might be largely "overstated".  There may be a number of poor people, but not a very large number of "working" poor people.

Liberals don't like to admit it, but there are many people who easily could work, but don't.  Easier to depend on others.  If you start working, your welfare benefits might be reduced.
 
2013-09-24 09:20:47 AM
Demonize the poor thread! Again!
 
2013-09-24 09:20:57 AM
Most of the guys I know that are not working will take any job for cash but decline most any job that offers a paycheck.  They don't want to fark with their unemployment or their disability checks.

A couple summers ago, a guy that was on full disability roofed the house next door to mine by himself.

No, this does not cover everyone who does not work.  It only applies to the small demographic of "guys I know that do not have a formal job."
 
Displayed 50 of 246 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report