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.

(Politico)   "Where are people spending their food stamps?" Obama administration: That's none of your farking business   (politico.com) divider line 245
    More: Fail, food stamps, Obama administration, Chief Judge, payment processor, secrecy, aficionados, Argus Leader, appeals courts  
•       •       •

2435 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2014 at 3:54 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-01 06:52:02 PM
Food stamp money?

What are people spending food stamp money on?

Food.

Now, lemme see GE's tax records for the last 20 years?  Or is that secret?
 
2014-02-01 07:15:17 PM

bunner: Food stamp money?

What are people spending food stamp money on?

Food.

Now, lemme see GE's tax records for the last 20 years?  Or is that secret?


Or Mitt Romney's tax records for ten years...
 
2014-02-01 07:20:11 PM

2wolves: bunner: Food stamp money?

What are people spending food stamp money on?

Food.

Now, lemme see GE's tax records for the last 20 years?  Or is that secret?

Or Mitt Romney's tax records for ten years...



In Mitt's defense, the tradition of presidents releasing their tax returns was started by an America hating commie.
 
2014-02-01 07:32:37 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Remember when the GOP was the party of privacy for people? Good times, good times.


There's your problem right there.  The GOP doesn't look on the poor as people.
 
2014-02-01 07:46:59 PM
I'm just not getting why all the hatred over the US Government spending tax dollars to assist US residents.

What are they supposed to spend it on?
 
2014-02-01 08:02:37 PM

Turbo Cojones: I'm just not getting why all the hatred over the US Government spending tax dollars to assist US residents.

What are they supposed to spend it on?



Bombing brown people. Because freedoms.
 
2014-02-01 08:08:35 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: [i595.photobucket.com image 500x279]


Nailed in one.
 
2014-02-01 08:12:21 PM
I realize the GOP provide an abundance of reasons to ta against them, but could someone explain the GOP's connection to the FOIA request from a newspaper that is the actual issue? Or is this just blind defense of the Obama Administration?
 
2014-02-01 08:12:52 PM
Court says it's public.  Just stats not personal.  Could help root out fraud or unintended use.  Let's not throw out the baby with bath water.  I'd like to see soda pop off the allowable list.
 
2014-02-01 08:18:09 PM

stoli n coke: Turbo Cojones: I'm just not getting why all the hatred over the US Government spending tax dollars to assist US residents.

What are they supposed to spend it on?


Bombing brown people. Because freedoms.


Socialism isn't Karl Marx eating kittens in the towne square.  It's when the system of governance exists to serve the needs of the governed.


Capitalism is warty old trillionaires vomiting up Moet and Chandon on the serfs from the window of the Maybachs whilst trundling off to board the Gulstream to Costa Rica.  It's a regulated and robust builder of solid economies that offers the capital necessary to meet the above mention needs, such as food, housing, health care, roads and infrastructure utilized by capitalists and those who have the means of production, through an equitable tax base with plenty left over for them to have 16 bedroom homes they never use.


Communism isn't gulags full of dissidents eating rats while making shoes for the power elite.  It's making sure nobody slips through the cracks.


All three are -


1.  Useful.
2.  Work fine.
3.  Are not all encompassing methods of governance or ideologies that, by themselves, cover very ass with a blanket.


When we people try and use them that way, and they do, they fall over and fail because they have subverted the means and methods they offer while ignoring the necessity of the other two.


And that's why we're sucking wind, Charlie Brown.


Endless "huh UH!"  "yuh HUH!" about which way is the true way.  And the answer is "none of them and all of them, with some enhancements to each"


So, don't worry about politic cause politics is a joke.  Our government, our god and our access to everything on earth is printed in rainbow hued and dirty green intaglio on bits of rag paper and it is all owned by a small handful of people who will keep using it to buy the very ground we stand on as long as we accept it.


See ~ Jefferson.
 
2014-02-01 08:19:20 PM
Capitalism ISN'T warty old trillionaires..
 
2014-02-01 08:40:07 PM

Di Atribe: BravadoGT: Obama doesn't give a a damn what they spend the money on.   He just wants them to remember who sends it to them when it's time to vote.

What is Obama running for?


community organizer
 
2014-02-01 08:41:54 PM

NateAsbestos: Why the fark would they be smoking on a submarine!?


It was only banned a couple of years ago. Prior to that, it was slowly limited to a few specific spaces. Before that, they smoked like goddamn chimneys all over the farking boat, with ashtrays at every watchstation.
 
2014-02-01 08:45:16 PM

Empty Matchbook: xanadian: Lsherm: Dancin_In_Anson: Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense

Yeah I remember how stories about $600 toilet seats were spiked by the White House.

Ever see the West Wing episode when Christian Slater explained why a glass ashtray had to cost $400?  It actually made sense.

I'm not sure what the $600 toilet seats do, but I want one.

Imagine sitting in the head, making an entry to the captain's log, when suddenly the ship is under fire.  DO YOU WANT THAT THING TO SPLINTER AND GO INTO YOUR ASS!??  I think NOT

.....you know what? If they ACTUALLY wanted to make this the argument (as opposed to denying it in the face of reality), I'd actually get behind it. Is it a terribly LIKELY scenario? No, but ya know what? I'd ACCEPT it.


Well I don't know who "they" are, but someone must have floated that idea.  It's not like The West Wing was known for making up stories to protect the military industrial complex.
 
2014-02-01 08:52:20 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Interesting that small stores accounted for about 15% of all redemptions, but 85% of all trafficking.


How dare you insult the integrity of small business owners!  They are the gods of job creation!
 
2014-02-01 09:14:58 PM
I'm curious, I thought this would be an issue between the press and the individual states and counties that actually distribute the money, not the Feds.

From the Welfare Reform Act wiki:

In granting states wider latitude for designing their own programs, some states have decided to place additional requirements on recipients. Although the law placed a time limit for benefits supported by federal funds of no more than two consecutive years and no more than a collective total of five years over a lifetime, some states have enacted briefer limits. All states, however, allowed exceptions to avoid punishing children because their parents have gone over their respective time limits[citation needed]. Federal requirements have ensured some measure of uniformity across states, but the block grant approach has led individual states to distribute federal money in different ways. Certain states more actively encourage education; others use the money to help fund private enterprises helping job seekers.


/I'm also curious about the level of fraud when there was more Federal oversight of how the money was spent versus the level of fraud when Federal oversight was removed. . .
 
2014-02-01 09:22:31 PM

HighOnCraic: /I'm also curious about the level of fraud when there was more Federal oversight of how the money was spent versus the level of fraud when Federal oversight was removed. . .


Why? Don't you know there are trillions wasted in the military budget or something! Don't you dare try in investigate anything else.
 
2014-02-01 09:25:35 PM

HighOnCraic: I'm curious, I thought this would be an issue between the press and the individual states and counties that actually distribute the money, not the Feds.


Yeah, most states are already doing this sort of thing, why do the Feds need to step in? Isn't that redundant?
 
2014-02-01 09:34:51 PM

DrewCurtisJr: HighOnCraic: /I'm also curious about the level of fraud when there was more Federal oversight of how the money was spent versus the level of fraud when Federal oversight was removed. . .

Why? Don't you know there are trillions wasted in the military budget or something! Don't you dare try in investigate anything else.


you know there are numerous FOIA requests regarding military spending right? As a matter of fact, there are FOIA requests about virtually everything the government does. With the exception of information that reveals private personal info (e.g. social security numbers) and state secrets (e.g. NSA stuff generally), government agencies hand over the info. If you're genuinely upset about military spending issues, then draw up some FOIA requests and start blowing whistles, otherwise take a breath and think about ponies or something
 
2014-02-01 09:41:39 PM
Given a choice between putting a guillotine to some broad with four kids sneaking in a couple 24 Oz. beers tung up as tuna or buying a couple cheap steaks once a month as a treat, or reviving Golgotha to nail up some billionaires milking the feds for 1/3 of their budget in subsidies while paying no taxes - and only hiring people who live 6,000 miles away - I gotta tell ya, fertile Myrtle gets a bye run.  Then again, false dichotomies are fish titties useless.
 
2014-02-01 09:41:54 PM

Robin Hoodie: you know there are numerous FOIA requests regarding military spending right? As a matter of fact, there are FOIA requests about virtually everything the government does. With the exception of information that reveals private personal info (e.g. social security numbers) and state secrets (e.g. NSA stuff generally), government agencies hand over the info. If you're genuinely upset about military spending issues, then draw up some FOIA requests and start blowing whistles, otherwise take a breath and think about ponies or something


Talk to this guy:

Dusk-You-n-Me: I don't know, define "hurt". It costs money, time, and resources. How about we use those resources to investigate the $100 billion we lose in defense industry fraud every year. A lot more potential to save the government money.

 
2014-02-01 09:44:07 PM

DrewCurtisJr: HighOnCraic: /I'm also curious about the level of fraud when there was more Federal oversight of how the money was spent versus the level of fraud when Federal oversight was removed. . .

Why? Don't you know there are trillions wasted in the military budget or something! Don't you dare try in investigate anything else.


Do you think the amount of losses due to welfare fraud is anywhere comparable to the amount of money wasted by the military?
 
2014-02-01 09:47:11 PM
So, what have we learned?  If you're gonna grift the treasury, it's a good idea to be able to do it on a scope that allows for heavy lobbyist paychecks and kickbacks.  Cause as long as they can keep us outraged about the dimes, the Benjamins are gonna be very easy to sneak through the alley and into the getaway car.
 
2014-02-01 09:49:52 PM

Mrtraveler01: HighOnCraic: I'm curious, I thought this would be an issue between the press and the individual states and counties that actually distribute the money, not the Feds.

Yeah, most states are already doing this sort of thing, why do the Feds need to step in? Isn't that redundant?


As I recall, the whole point of using block grants was that the state and county governments that run Social Services are more efficient than the Federal government.  I'd be curious about whether that proved to be true.
 
2014-02-01 09:57:37 PM

HighOnCraic: Do you think the amount of losses due to welfare fraud is anywhere comparable to the amount of money wasted by the military?


What is your definition of "wasted".
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-01 10:10:20 PM

DrewCurtisJr: HighOnCraic: Do you think the amount of losses due to welfare fraud is anywhere comparable to the amount of money wasted by the military?

What is your definition of "wasted".


funneled money to corporate buddies.

[dickweed]
 
2014-02-01 10:26:37 PM

DrewCurtisJr: HighOnCraic: Do you think the amount of losses due to welfare fraud is anywhere comparable to the amount of money wasted by the military?

What is your definition of "wasted".


Lacking the motor skills to re-pack the bowl and/or being unable to remember where you left the lighter.

Oh wait, I meant, maintaining the capability to fight a two-front war.
And that's slowly changing, but maintaining that capability for a long time may have been a bad idea.

Ironically, many of the people who complain about how much we spend on food stamps also want us to keep the two-front war premise intact.

http://www.businessinsider.com/defense-cuts-will-hurt-teh-us-militar y- 2013-6
 
2014-02-01 10:31:47 PM
The fact that the staff at Business Insider also typos "the" is sort of refreshing in a world on monoliths flying flags of unimpeachable know it all ness.
 
2014-02-01 10:34:15 PM
We are supposed give poor people enough money to live because it's the right thing to do, not because of what they might do with it.
 
2014-02-01 10:53:49 PM

cman: I really cant see why someone would need that kind of information.

Yes, I understand its statistics and no personal information, but really, what would releasing this info change? Nothing at all.
Nothing at all.
Nothing at all.

 

Stupid sexy Flanders!
 
2014-02-01 11:02:02 PM

HighOnCraic: Ironically, many of the people who complain about how much we spend on food stamps also want us to keep the two-front war premise intact.


This angle was covered in one of the Boobiess in the thread.

Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?

 
2014-02-01 11:20:00 PM

DrewCurtisJr: HighOnCraic: Ironically, many of the people who complain about how much we spend on food stamps also want us to keep the two-front war premise intact.

This angle was covered in one of the Boobiess in the thread.

Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?


Oh.  I guess that makes it less true then.

/Were either of my definitions of wasted helpful to you?
 
2014-02-01 11:23:27 PM

BravadoGT: Obama doesn't give a a damn what they spend the money on.   He just wants them to remember who sends it to them when it's time to vote.



I know; I'm never voting for that guy again.
 
2014-02-01 11:37:36 PM
Clint Eastwood got it right when he said; "Barack Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people". Back then, I thought it was just a funny joke. Well, it's not funny anymore. When Boehner said; "Obamacare is a train wreck waiting to happen", I thought, that seems rather severe. The fact is, those 2 observations have been right on. What put Obama in the dog house was his statement; "If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan". Guess that makes him a liar, now doesn't it? There was a time when bald faced lies would ruin a high level politician (ex. Richard Nixon). Obama and his appointees in the DOJ, IRS, ICE, EPA , Homeland Security, and Dept of State, have falsified their activities to the American people. I and many others, have come to the conclusion that Obama is intent on destroying the fundamental roots of the U.S. Constitution. He and his staff despise the guidance and pathways, that were laid out by our founding fathers. Obama has failed in almost all of his endeavors, and has become the worst president in our lifetime.
 
2014-02-01 11:45:46 PM

rewind2846: Just another excuse by republican conservatrolls to find reasons to cut SNAP and other food assistance programs.
Unless the people who receive such assistance are buying beans, rice, oatmeal and gruel (not even the good name brand gruel, but the generic stuff) they deserve nothing, nada, nyet zilch, zippo, goose egg, zero.
In their minds you should suffer if you're poor, as punishment for being... poor. Which obviously is not enough punishment.


Last time I checked, Republicans weren't exactly begging for a reason to cut benefits.  But when relevant information is withheld, it looks pretty suspicious that the resulting data may be pretty damning.

Who knows, maybe the data will reveal trends that could help with resource allocation of food stamp dollars, or assist with outreach programs for poor families on how to stretch their budgets.  If it turns out that families are buying a lot of prepackaged products, maybe better information is needed on making these things at home and make them healthier and cheaper.

Wait that's too logical.....no it must be withheld to keep the Republicans at bay!
 
2014-02-01 11:47:27 PM

HighOnCraic: DrewCurtisJr: HighOnCraic: Ironically, many of the people who complain about how much we spend on food stamps also want us to keep the two-front war premise intact.

This angle was covered in one of the Boobiess in the thread.

Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?

Oh.  I guess that makes it less true then.

/Were either of my definitions of wasted helpful to you?


Never mind.

/I don't need to fight
//To prove I'm right
///I don't need to be forgiven
 
2014-02-01 11:50:34 PM
ScaryBottles:

Of course you aren't my dear, you're what we around here call a Fark Independenttm

[bull-chic.com image 850x850]


Is this a bad thing?  Some sort of mocking or derisive statement?  I look out for me and my family and vote accordingly.  I don't toe the party line and I don't defend a particular individual especially when his excuses and scandals raise doubt as to his ability to lead and fulfill the promises that I voted for.  I guess it's cute to slap convenient labels on people because we aren't here to play "Obama Cheerleader".  If it's a bad thing to maintain your own independent opinion outside of the partisan labels, then I guess I am a bad thing.
 
2014-02-01 11:51:38 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: There was a time when bald faced lies would ruin a high level politician



Yeah, those were the days.

img.timeinc.net
                    "Greed is good."

img.timeinc.net


          "The wealth will trickle down."

Etc... "ooh a libby libtard!", you say?

Nah.  It doesn't matter if a sock puppet, a stick of butter or bucket of extra crispy is in the oval office because they're all full of sh*t, because the process is full of sh*t and the notion that this country is run on anything except who moves the most money upchain is full of sh*t.

There are no good old days.  There is no "better" political party.  There's no cake.
 
2014-02-01 11:58:42 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Is this a bad thing? Some sort of mocking or derisive statement? I look out for me and my family and vote accordingly. I don't toe the party line and I don't defend a particular individual especially when his excuses and scandals raise doubt as to his ability to lead and fulfill the promises that I voted for. I guess it's cute to slap convenient labels on people because we aren't here to play "Obama Cheerleader". If it's a bad thing to maintain your own independent opinion outside of the partisan labels, then I guess I am a bad thing.


Fark Independent™ - A vocally right-wing member of the news aggregation Web site fark.com who is now so embarrassed by the Bush administration that he claims to be an "independent" while taking every opportunity to bash members of the "democrat party." The term is typically accompanied by a trademark symbol.
 
2014-02-01 11:59:25 PM

BravadoGT: Obama doesn't give a a damn what they spend the money on.   He just wants them to remember who sends it to them when it's time to vote.


And no food stamps go to beer-swilling Fox-watching flag-waving Real Americans who vote Republican because guns, Jesus, Feelthy Queers and Scary Mooselimbs.
 
2014-02-02 12:03:04 AM

SCUBA_Archer: ScaryBottles:

Of course you aren't my dear, you're what we around here call a Fark Independenttm

[bull-chic.com image 850x850]

Is this a bad thing?  Some sort of mocking or derisive statement?  I look out for me and my family and vote accordingly.  I don't toe the party line and I don't defend a particular individual especially when his excuses and scandals raise doubt as to his ability to lead and fulfill the promises that I voted for.  I guess it's cute to slap convenient labels on people because we aren't here to play "Obama Cheerleader".  If it's a bad thing to maintain your own independent opinion outside of the partisan labels, then I guess I am a bad thing.


Technically, a Fark IndependentTMis someone who spends most of their time shiatting on the Democrats and glossing over anything bad that's remotely connected to the GOP while claiming to be completely non-partisan.  It's completely different from simply being an independent.  I think it goes back to earlier days, when people openly supported Bush, but eventually stopped openly identifying themselves as Republicans.


I'm pretty sure that's the millionth time that has been explained on fark.  Do I win a prize?
 
2014-02-02 12:03:20 AM

Without Fail: SCUBA_Archer: Is this a bad thing? Some sort of mocking or derisive statement? I look out for me and my family and vote accordingly. I don't toe the party line and I don't defend a particular individual especially when his excuses and scandals raise doubt as to his ability to lead and fulfill the promises that I voted for. I guess it's cute to slap convenient labels on people because we aren't here to play "Obama Cheerleader". If it's a bad thing to maintain your own independent opinion outside of the partisan labels, then I guess I am a bad thing.

Fark Independent™ - A vocally right-wing member of the news aggregation Web site fark.com who is now so embarrassed by the Bush administration that he claims to be an "independent" while taking every opportunity to bash members of the "democrat party." The term is typically accompanied by a trademark symbol.


I'll happily bash the Republican Party too.  I'm as embarrassed by the Bush administration as I am by the Obama administration.  Pathetic that we can't elect leaders to stand up to their promises and actually lead,  Guess it's time for a new definition.
 
2014-02-02 12:03:27 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: BravadoGT: Obama doesn't give a a damn what they spend the money on.   He just wants them to remember who sends it to them when it's time to vote.

And no food stamps go to beer-swilling Fox-watching flag-waving Real Americans who vote Republican because guns, Jesus, Feelthy Queers and Scary Mooselimbs.


If the only poor people who were allowed to eat were people with an ideology that plays well with our own, this country would be a marble orchard full of malnutrition victims.
 
2014-02-02 12:04:58 AM

SCUBA_Archer: I'm as embarrassed by the Bush administration as I am by the Obama administration.


Spoken like a true Fark Independent™.
 
2014-02-02 12:06:25 AM

HighOnCraic: I'm pretty sure that's the millionth time that has been explained on fark.  Do I win a prize?


www.chicagonow.com
 
2014-02-02 12:08:10 AM

DrewCurtisJr: Or maybe they might use the information to help expose crooked retailers? Isn't that what the government would want?


If you're naive enough to believe that this publication has such altruistic motives above and beyond their profit margin... have I got a bridge for you. If that were this newspaper's real goal, then why not get the information and hand it to the relevant authorities... without publishing it?

It's not their readers who can do anything about fraud, waste and abuse in the system... but they sure can buy some farking newspapers.

As little as I do trust in this life, when given the choice between putting what little trust there is left with either the government or with a private corporation... not a difficult choice. Let the people whose responsibility it is to run the program deal with it.
 
2014-02-02 12:12:21 AM

bunner: HighOnCraic: I'm pretty sure that's the millionth time that has been explained on fark.  Do I win a prize?

[www.chicagonow.com image 347x346]


Cool!  My favorites snacks!

/Wait, you didn't buy those with food stamps, did you?
 
2014-02-02 12:18:24 AM

HighOnCraic: bunner: HighOnCraic: I'm pretty sure that's the millionth time that has been explained on fark.  Do I win a prize?

[www.chicagonow.com image 347x346]

Cool!  My favorites snacks!

/Wait, you didn't buy those with food stamps, did you?


I got them off of some woman who used to work for a corporate conglomerate at 70G a year until she got downsized.  She sells cookies off a cart, now.  Bootstraps!
 
2014-02-02 12:20:20 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Wait that's too logical.....no it must be withheld to keep the Republicans at bay!


Yeah, and after all the info is printed there will be a rainbow, and happy little ponies will dance merrily around while unicorns will fart pixie dust onto all the good little boys and girls, and everyone will get all the wishes they ever wanted. And then we can all have ice cream.

As I explained to another poster if their real goal was to simply get the information for, you know, the public good and all, then why not simply do so and hand it to the people who can actually use it... without printing any of it?

Not gonna happen. Too much profit in getting their neanderthal readers pissed at the poors.
 
2014-02-02 12:37:19 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?

[images.sodahead.com image 350x203]

Don't understand why it's bad to demand a full accountability of ALL tax dollars.  Only Derpocrats carrying water for Obama are afraid to reveal what people might be spending their government assistance on.  I want to know that people are buying bread and milk, and rocket motors and plutonium triggers.  Tell me everything.


Other than the party insult and projected fear, I definitely see the point.

Honestly, tax money is public money.  If I get the gander to see where my taxes are going, why not provide that information?  It's our money; don't we have a right to see where it's being spent?

I don't mean from a party POV, I'm talking strictly logical.

Hmmm...but, then again, we have to consider the amount of money we'd be constantly spending to have someone maintain that database, troubleshoot the software, update the servers, help desk, audits, qa...

I guess I can also see there's no cost-benefit in it and I'll just trust the measures that are already in place to ensure it's spent only on food.  Not sure how else it could be spent legitimately otherwise and there's no tracking that.

More study needed (which costs money...so I'm just opening up another beer.)
 
Displayed 50 of 245 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