Do you have adblock enabled?
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 244
    More: Fail, food stamps, Obama administration, Chief Judge, payment processor, secrecy, aficionados, Argus Leader, appeals courts  
•       •       •

2445 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2014 at 3:54 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



244 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-01 12:06:35 PM  
DICTATOR
 
2014-02-01 12:22:35 PM  
You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-01 12:28:50 PM  
Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.
 
2014-02-01 12:29:24 PM  

Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.


What's with those people? It's like they eat every day or something.
 
2014-02-01 12:30:37 PM  

Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.


this. I really don't think there's a good reason that kind of info should not be disclosed but at the same time I suspect that a lot of the people interested in getting the info just want to turn it into an excuse for further cuts to SNAP.
 
2014-02-01 12:59:43 PM  
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?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.
 
2014-02-01 01:06:30 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-01 01:12:24 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-01 01:13:59 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

this. I really don't think there's a good reason that kind of info should not be disclosed but at the same time I suspect that a lot of the people interested in getting the info just want to turn it into an excuse for further cuts to SNAP.


Yeah, they want the story of the fattie who spent all their food stamp money on lobster and caviar.  It's not a sincere attempt to oversee the program at all.
 
2014-02-01 01:30:00 PM  
i595.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-01 01:32:21 PM  
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.
 
2014-02-01 01:37:59 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.


Lockheed Martin?
 
2014-02-01 01:42:53 PM  
Congressmen are paid with tax money. I demand to know exactly where and how they're spending the money I give them. Also, no member of Congress or their dependents can pay for an abortion. That Federal tax money.
 
2014-02-01 01:45:27 PM  

BravadoGT: He just wants them to remember who sends it to them when it's time to vote.

Pretty

sure SNAP existed before Obama took office.
 
2014-02-01 01:47:00 PM  

propasaurus: Congressmen are paid with tax money. I demand to know exactly where and how they're spending the money I give them. Also, no member of Congress or their dependents can pay for an abortion. That Federal tax money.


Well the Congressmen are earning a pay check. I know, I find if funny too.

It's not like they are trying to find out how the postman is spending his paycheck.
 
2014-02-01 01:52:11 PM  

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
 
2014-02-01 01:56:37 PM  
FTFA:  "Between 2007 and 2011, spending 'more than doubled . . . from about $30 billion to $72 billion,'"

While I agree that *all* government spending should be subject to scrutiny....how much is $72bn compared to the rest of the yearly budget, and why are we making so much hay over it?  Oh yes.  Votes.

/the increase may have something to do with unemployment also doubling or more from 2007 up to its peak
 
2014-02-01 02:00:27 PM  
When discussing food stamps, there are two ways you can go:

1. Criticize the poor for buying food that is too fancy.
2. Criticize the poor for buying food that is not fancy enough.

Solution:  The poor get no food at all!
 
2014-02-01 02:02:06 PM  

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?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.


Who is conservative? The newspaper that filed the FOIA request for the information? That is some insightful analysis you are brining to the issue. You should have put that post in a pleading and filed an amicus brief.
 
2014-02-01 02:05:12 PM  
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.
 
2014-02-01 02:08:43 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.


Are a more informed public and transparency in government not ends in themselves? Clearly the newspaper seeking the information see some value.
 
2014-02-01 02:18:40 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.


I think it is information that should be mined. There is a great deal of debate over things like "food deserts". Using SNAP benefits as a locus for where poor people buy food could help to win the argument for one side or the other.
 
2014-02-01 02:34:57 PM  
The judge also noted that USDA has found trading of food stamps for cash to be a significant problem, with about 10% of retailers reportedly engaging in such fraud.

Important to distinguish between the % of stores trafficking and the % of total benefits trafficked.

2006-2008 (PDF)
% of stores trafficking: 8.2%
% of total benefits trafficked: 1%

2009-2011 (PDF)
% of stores trafficking: 10.5%
% of total benefits trafficked: 1.3%

Increase seems to be consistent with the increase in SNAP use during those years.

Interesting that small stores accounted for about 15% of all redemptions, but 85% of all trafficking.

Also,

Last year, USDA compliance analysts and investigators took action to:

Review over 15,000 stores;
Conduct investigations on more than 5,000 stores nationwide;
Impose sanctions, through fines or temporary disqualifications, on 692 stores found violating program rules; and
Permanently disqualify 1,387 stores for trafficking in SNAP benefits (i.e. exchanging SNAP benefits for cash) or falsifying an application.

Link

So the government does actively seek out fraudsters and take action. It follows that more funding would catch more fraud, though I doubt there's any political will for that. Also important to note that 40% of SNAP recipients live in a household with earnings. Meaning they work, but still require assistance. Historically low wages will do that.
 
2014-02-01 03:24:10 PM  
So the program works, polices itself, and is not a significant part of the over all Federal budget.

And yet, the Republicans want to oversight it, so they all can have some poors to point at and make fun of for the next election.

I swear, these f-for-brains 1%'ers don't quite realize its their own white poor people using most of the food stamps. Not that bogus racist 80s "Welfare Queen" from Chicago they all love to still straw man the crap out of.
 
2014-02-01 03:54:54 PM  
The food stamp program is part of the Farm Bill because in the distant past, food consumption and farmers were connected. The program was initially a farm subsidy that transferred "surplus" farm production to the hungry. The government essentially said, "Don't let it rot in the fields, we'll buy it it and give it to the poor." The impulse, I suspect, was guided more for farm support than sympathy for the needy. None the less, it benefited both at little cost to the taxpayer.
Of course, the connection between farm and table is gone and the real motive--supporting huge agribusinesses and factory farms is now openly pursued by the GOP.
After all, why waste money on the poor when we can just pay the conservative "farmers" directly through massive subsidies.

And we already know what they are spending their federal largesse on: campaign contributions  to "small government" hypocrites.
 
2014-02-01 03:55:22 PM  

Nabb1: 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.

Are a more informed public and transparency in government not ends in themselves? Clearly the newspaper seeking the information see some value.


Yet, corporations are people, my friend. Why isn't the government people?
 
2014-02-01 03:58:20 PM  
Liberals worry that somewhere people are enduring suffering they don't deserve. Conservatives worry that somewhere people are enjoying comfort they didn't earn.
 
2014-02-01 03:59:16 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 here I thought you were a free-market capitalist. Now you want to restrict people's freedom?
 
2014-02-01 03:59:52 PM  
The only reason they want these numbers is so they can try and shame people, or hunt through it to find their random cases of 'GUY BOUGHT LOBSTER SYSTEM IS BROKEN BURN IT DOWN'.

Assholes.
 
2014-02-01 04:02:27 PM  

vpb: places that sell fillet minion


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2014-02-01 04:02:41 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.


What is Obama running for?
 
2014-02-01 04:04:44 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

this. I really don't think there's a good reason that kind of info should not be disclosed but at the same time I suspect that a lot of the people interested in getting the info just want to turn it into an excuse for further cuts to SNAP.


Really? This doesn't strike you as a costly and needless invasion of privacy?
 
2014-02-01 04:06:28 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.


If it makes you feel any better, I promise not to vote for Obama during his next re-election campaign.
 
2014-02-01 04:07:40 PM  
How is it that the right wingers have convinced the country at large that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to the poor?
Of course at the same time it is in full effect for the swindlers on Wall Street and the corporate terrorists in West Virginia.
 
2014-02-01 04:07:45 PM  

ScaryBottles: Voiceofreason01: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

this. I really don't think there's a good reason that kind of info should not be disclosed but at the same time I suspect that a lot of the people interested in getting the info just want to turn it into an excuse for further cuts to SNAP.

Really? This doesn't strike you as a costly and needless invasion of privacy?


Not if it makes life harder for the poors
 
2014-02-01 04:08:36 PM  
Cigarettes, booze, and strip clubs.  Next question.
 
2014-02-01 04:08:39 PM  

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.


It's also largely because the contractors can't make up the costs of research, design, and production through volume of sale.  There are only so many subs, ships, and airplanes to use equipment specifically designed for them meaning that that equipment tends to be fairly expensive since it tends to not easily be repurposed to civilian products or is simply not allowed to be resold to the public.  Fortunately, there's a significant movement to buy COTS when possible, or at least was, but that runs in to it's on problems as well.
 
2014-02-01 04:09:11 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BravadoGT: He just wants them to remember who sends it to them when it's time to vote.

Pretty sure SNAP existed before Obama took office.


It's like those Obamaphones. Barry's time machine strikes again!
 
2014-02-01 04:10:15 PM  
Never understood the ashtray thing. Youre worried about an attack submarine's helmsman dealing with broken glass... but not about the open flame four inches in front of his face that is necessitating an ashtray.
 
2014-02-01 04:10:48 PM  
They've all got refrigerators. Rich people have refrigerators. Ergo, the poors are rich and no longer need assistance. Checkmate.
 
2014-02-01 04:13:01 PM  
Ha! An image search for 'food stamps' comes up with THIS as one of the early choices:

cdn.frontpagemag.com

Obama time machine again I guess...He created food stamps...
 
2014-02-01 04:14:46 PM  

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.


Why the fark would they be smoking on a submarine!?
 
2014-02-01 04:15:48 PM  
Ok, this is going to sound crazy, but why do we care what poor people spend the money on anyway? Whether they spend it on cornflakes, TP or school supplies it still goes back into the economy. Let's bring food stamps, WIC, welfare and unemployment into one benefit program and just send people the money. You could probably slash administrative costs & stimulate the economy at the same time. And you wouldn't have a bunch of busybodies trying to manipulate the free market by inspecting poor people's grocery receipts.

/deregulate welfare
 
2014-02-01 04:16:48 PM  
I find myself disagreeing with the District Court argument that the doubling of the programs spending or the percentage of fraud are compelling reasons to disclose where the money is spent. Either it's public information on its face because it's public money in a public program whose data can be tracked by a provider other than the retailers to reasonably ensure reliability or fark it, no government data is accessible wrt public programs using public funds.

Now, if we could just get this done with gun data and the CDC, we'd be getting somewhere.
 
2014-02-01 04:17:00 PM  

Etchy333: When discussing food stamps, there are two ways you can go:

1. Criticize the poor for buying food that is too fancy.
2. Criticize the poor for buying food that is not fancy enough.

Solution:  The poor get no food at all!


SO MUCH THIS!
 
2014-02-01 04:17:25 PM  

thehobbes: Never understood the ashtray thing. Youre worried about an attack submarine's helmsman dealing with broken glass... but not about the open flame four inches in front of his face that is necessitating an ashtray.


...yeah that.
 
2014-02-01 04:18:31 PM  

NateAsbestos: 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.

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


Dry ship, have to have vices or people start killing each other.
 
2014-02-01 04:18:48 PM  

Sheila_McSly: Ok, this is going to sound crazy, but why do we care what poor people spend the money on anyway? Whether they spend it on cornflakes, TP or school supplies it still goes back into the economy. Let's bring food stamps, WIC, welfare and unemployment into one benefit program and just send people the money. You could probably slash administrative costs & stimulate the economy at the same time. And you wouldn't have a bunch of busybodies trying to manipulate the free market by inspecting poor people's grocery receipts.

/deregulate welfare


But if we do THAT, then government money might go to things Conservatives disapprove of!

/Please ignore that people against wars still have to pay for them,
 
2014-02-01 04:19:15 PM  
images.sodahead.com

images.sodahead.com


www.conservative-daily.com
 
2014-02-01 04:19:25 PM  

NateAsbestos: 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.

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


Believe it or not, smoking on subs was only banned in 2011.
 
2014-02-01 04:22:19 PM  

vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.



I'm already experimenting with the perfect animal to feed the poor:
imageserver.zatzonline.com
Don't ask me, I just did a GIS for a picture of a lobster cow. There are some amazingly odd people out there.
 
2014-02-01 04:22:30 PM  
I'm pretty sure if people made better use of their food stamps and welfare the economy would fix itself in a matter of months. As usual it's the poors bringing us all down.
 
2014-02-01 04:24:02 PM  

Sheila_McSly: Ok, this is going to sound crazy, but why do we care what poor people spend the money on anyway? Whether they spend it on cornflakes, TP or school supplies it still goes back into the economy.


Because if they have money for an xbox then they really don't need the money.
 
2014-02-01 04:25:02 PM  
I sign about half of mine over to ACORN, and with the rest I invest in a steady supply of counterfeit voter IDs and Plan B emergency contraception.
 
2014-02-01 04:25:13 PM  
People it does not matter what food the spent their food stamps on, people got to eat.   Sorry richy rich your just gonna have to deal with it if  poor guy splurges on a steak once in a while.
 
2014-02-01 04:26:50 PM  
Cart full of name brand instant meals is like 99.9% food stamps...

Lucky charms, hot pockets,red baron pizza...these guys are eatting like kings
 
2014-02-01 04:28:53 PM  
Remember when the GOP was the party of privacy for people? Good times, good times.
 
2014-02-01 04:29:58 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.


Screw him! I'm not voting for Obama again.
 
2014-02-01 04:30:45 PM  

tbhouston: Cart full of name brand instant meals is like 99.9% food stamps...

Lucky charms, hot pockets,red baron pizza...these guys are eatting like kings



Rodney, or Martin Luther?
 
2014-02-01 04:31:05 PM  
I'd like it if the data was released to the public.  However, I'm guessing that instead of having a discussion at how to reduce the potential fraud, it will just be used as evidence to defund the program.
 
2014-02-01 04:31:08 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: So the government does actively seek out fraudsters and take action.


Does it hurt to have other entities also investigate the problem?
 
2014-02-01 04:31:34 PM  

whither_apophis: 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.

Screw him! I'm not voting for Obama again.


Why not???

I voted for him 4 times already...and I'm Canadian, eh!

/God bless ACORN
 
2014-02-01 04:32:21 PM  

vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.


They're welcome to spend their food stamps on lobster. Then they go hungry for the last 10 days of the month.
That habit gets squashed pretty quick.

DrewCurtisJr: Sheila_McSly: Ok, this is going to sound crazy, but why do we care what poor people spend the money on anyway? Whether they spend it on cornflakes, TP or school supplies it still goes back into the economy.

Because if they have money for an xbox then they really don't need the money.


You mean the $25 XBox they bought at a flea market? Yeah, they're rolling in dough.
 
2014-02-01 04:32:56 PM  

Sheila_McSly: Ok, this is going to sound crazy, but why do we care what poor people spend the money on anyway? Whether they spend it on cornflakes, TP or school supplies it still goes back into the economy. Let's bring food stamps, WIC, welfare and unemployment into one benefit program and just send people the money. You could probably slash administrative costs & stimulate the economy at the same time. And you wouldn't have a bunch of busybodies trying to manipulate the free market by inspecting poor people's grocery receipts.

/deregulate welfare


It's so funny how the party of self-reliance & keeping the government out of our lives is so intent on judging the lives of others.

And by funny, of course, I mean hugely hypocritical. We've got much bigger fish to fry.

Ooooh salmon....
 
2014-02-01 04:36:39 PM  
so they just want to know which stores are most of them shopping at?

I'm guessing the big ones are going to be Wal Mart,Kroger, Safeway,Publix,Bi-Lo,Target etc,

what are they really thinking they will find?
 
2014-02-01 04:36:56 PM  

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?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.


That's fiscal conservatism in a nutshell: Penny-wise, pound-foolish.
 
2014-02-01 04:39:59 PM  

vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.


4.bp.blogspot.com

1.bp.blogspot.com

www.venturaweekly.com

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-01 04:40:10 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Does it hurt to have other entities also investigate the problem?


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 04:41:13 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: So the government does actively seek out fraudsters and take action. It follows that more funding would catch more fraud, though I doubt there's any political will for that. Also important to note that 40% of SNAP recipients live in a household with earnings. Meaning they work, but still require assistance. Historically low wages will do that.


And of course presumably some fraction of the "fraud" is people trading in feeding their families properly to get money to pay the rent that month, or to have enough gas to get to work that week, which while not the what the program is for, is hardly a serious issue to spend massive amounts of resources to stamp out.
 
2014-02-01 04:41:41 PM  

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


Um, no.  No, I don't.

Recently, they've given the whole "privacy" thing lots of lip service...but, I don't remember them having ever really genuinely been for it.
 
2014-02-01 04:42:51 PM  

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


The party of McCarthy, Nixon, GWB? No, I don't remember that.
 
2014-02-01 04:43:09 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

[www.venturaweekly.com image 490x267]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]


None of those can accept food stamps.

You knew that, right?
 
2014-02-01 04:44:25 PM  

eraser8: rzrwiresunrise: vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

[www.venturaweekly.com image 490x267]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

None of those can accept food stamps.

You knew that, right?


You know that Dats Da Joke, right?
 
2014-02-01 04:44:53 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: So the government does actively seek out fraudsters and take action. It follows that more funding would catch more fraud, though I doubt there's any political will for that. Also important to note that 40% of SNAP recipients live in a household with earnings. Meaning they work, but still require assistance. Historically low wages will do that.


But at what point to you go from catching more Medicare fraud through false claims to catching welfare recipients on drugs or voter fraud with voter IDs?  I'm all for finding and mitigating fraud, but there's a point where your do more harm than good.
 
2014-02-01 04:45:01 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.


24.media.tumblr.com

You derps seriously need to dial it back. I'm running out of crying gifs.
 
2014-02-01 04:45:34 PM  

magusdevil: eraser8: rzrwiresunrise: vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

[www.venturaweekly.com image 490x267]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

None of those can accept food stamps.

You knew that, right?

You know that Dats Da Joke, right?


I know about Poe's Law.
 
2014-02-01 04:45:40 PM  

xria: And of course presumably some fraction of the "fraud" is people trading in feeding their families properly to get money to pay the rent that month, or to have enough gas to get to work that week, which while not the what the program is for, is hardly a serious issue to spend massive amounts of resources to stamp out.


Yep. Or trading stamps for cash, usually at 75-95 cents on the dollar, to pay for items like diapers, which aren't covered under SNAP. Clearly these people are the cause of all our problems.
 
2014-02-01 04:45:54 PM  

El Pachuco: vpb: places that sell fillet minion

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 102x102]


bulk2.destructoid.com

Nerd disclaimer: Kobun is Japanese for "minion".
 
2014-02-01 04:46:04 PM  

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.


Because a particular entity may feel they are in a better position to investigate fraud in this area.
 
2014-02-01 04:46:26 PM  

ScaryBottles: 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.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 480x326]

You derps seriously need to dial it back. I'm running out of crying gifs.


Seriously, if it wasn't for the delicious soups I make out of Republican tears, I'd need food stamps.
 
2014-02-01 04:48:09 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

[www.venturaweekly.com image 490x267]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]


most of the states that allow food stamps to be used in fast food restaurants are red states with GOP legislatures and governors.
 
2014-02-01 04:48:44 PM  

I Like Bread: They're welcome to spend their food stamps on lobster. Then they go hungry for the last 10 days of the month.
That habit gets squashed pretty quick.


You think everyone on foodstamps has nothing else but snap benefits to spend on food?
 
2014-02-01 04:49:16 PM  

Summoner101: But at what point to you go from catching more Medicare fraud through false claims to catching welfare recipients on drugs or voter fraud with voter IDs?  I'm all for finding and mitigating fraud, but there's a point where your do more harm than good.


Absolutely there is. I think a 1% fraud rate is pretty good for such a large program. Of course the goal is 0%, but that's just not feasible.

Many of the same people who are obsessed with the statistical noise that is voter fraud also like to proclaim there is nothing that can be done to address the statistical national embarrassment that is gun violence. Imagine that.
 
2014-02-01 04:50:37 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Because a particular entity may feel they are in a better position to investigate fraud in this area.


Okay? Great.
 
2014-02-01 04:50:58 PM  

eraser8: rzrwiresunrise: vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

[www.venturaweekly.com image 490x267]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

None of those can accept food stamps.

You knew that, right?


How will we know if they're not accepting if we don't get access to all the DATA??!? HUUUHHH??!? Them poor folk er thieves n liars dintcha know?? Ain't no way fer them folk to be comin outta them places fat like a hog on his birthday less'n they had the means teh pay fer it!!!!

Psst, and Obummer's jus' th' one teh help em OUT!!

Whut about them FONES!!!! They get them free fones don't they??!? Whut if they're usin them stamps teh buy them fones and then tradin em fer CASH???!?!???

Think about it.
 
2014-02-01 04:51:08 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: I Like Bread: They're welcome to spend their food stamps on lobster. Then they go hungry for the last 10 days of the month.
That habit gets squashed pretty quick.

You think everyone on foodstamps has nothing else but snap benefits to spend on food?


And if they're spending ANY of their own money on food, they shouldn't be allowed to have food stamps.
 
2014-02-01 04:53:20 PM  

magusdevil: DrewCurtisJr: I Like Bread: They're welcome to spend their food stamps on lobster. Then they go hungry for the last 10 days of the month.
That habit gets squashed pretty quick.

You think everyone on foodstamps has nothing else but snap benefits to spend on food?

And if they're spending ANY of their own money on food, they shouldn't be allowed to have food stamps.


lol it's supposed to be a supplemental. no way is it enough to feed a family the entire month by itself.
 
2014-02-01 04:53:48 PM  

Hobodeluxe: so they just want to know which stores are most of them shopping at?

I'm guessing the big ones are going to be Wal Mart,Kroger, Safeway,Publix,Bi-Lo,Target etc,

what are they really thinking they will find?


why was the administration trying to hide this info?  Dept of Ag attorneys must be bored. waste of time/effort
 
2014-02-01 04:56:41 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: eraser8: rzrwiresunrise: vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

[www.venturaweekly.com image 490x267]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

None of those can accept food stamps.

You knew that, right?

How will we know if they're not accepting if we don't get access to all the DATA??!? HUUUHHH??!? Them poor folk er thieves n liars dintcha know?? Ain't no way fer them folk to be comin outta them places fat like a hog on his birthday less'n they had the means teh pay fer it!!!!

Psst, and Obummer's jus' th' one teh help em OUT!!

Whut about them FONES!!!! They get them free fones don't they??!? Whut if they're usin them stamps teh buy them fones and then tradin em fer CASH???!?!???

Think about it.


Okay.  Poe's Law confirmed.

Also, super interesting/relevant book for issues like this?   Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era

Well, to be perfectly honest, the book isn't SUPER interesting/relevant...but, it IS moderately interesting/relevant.  So, still worth the read.
 
2014-02-01 04:57:06 PM  

Robin Hoodie: Hobodeluxe: so they just want to know which stores are most of them shopping at?

I'm guessing the big ones are going to be Wal Mart,Kroger, Safeway,Publix,Bi-Lo,Target etc,

what are they really thinking they will find?

why was the administration trying to hide this info?  Dept of Ag attorneys must be bored. waste of time/effort


maybe they don't want to waste the money tracking this stuff and then making it available to the GOP so they can prowl through people's garbage to make sure they aren't eating pizza instead of ramen?
 
2014-02-01 04:58:01 PM  
My guess is that people on food stamps spend a lot of them in corner markets which horrors of horrors also sell alcohol and cigarettes, never mind that grocery stores do that as well and that they can't buy that with food stamps.  Now people on food stamps do this solely because they lack quick transportation to better and cheaper markets since the major chains just don't put a grocery in poor neighborhoods. The locations tell you what, that poor people are screwed or that some make poor choices because they could take a bus that may run when they are working or a long walk when they are on their second job to a cheaper store?  I don't doubt that, and have watch as, some food stamp recipients spend their money in a less that optimal way, but the program is aimed at feeding children and the supposed "lobster buys" have all been shown to be fraud by someone other than the recipient who has been caught and prosecuted.  Compared to the billions we spend on business welfare I am unimpressed by the whining over a program that feeds children and their mothers.
 
2014-02-01 05:00:40 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Sheila_McSly: Ok, this is going to sound crazy, but why do we care what poor people spend the money on anyway? Whether they spend it on cornflakes, TP or school supplies it still goes back into the economy.

Because if they have money for an xbox then they really don't need the money.


And we already have fraud agencies that identify those who really don't need the money, and they are better at finding it out than most previous administrations.

So again, why do we care?
 
2014-02-01 05:02:44 PM  
I think we should do this with everyone who gets paid by the taxpayers.
it's our money right? we should be able to decide what they can and can't buy with it
maybe I don't want some congressman's whore daughter buying birth control
we need to know this stuff people.
 
2014-02-01 05:02:55 PM  

Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.


Um, it looks like the information desired was just how much income each individual business/chain gets from food stamps.

So... they do know.  And frankly it's not even entirely clear why they wanted to keep it secret, since that's pretty harmless information.
 
2014-02-01 05:04:50 PM  

interstellar_tedium: I don't doubt that, and have watch as, some food stamp recipients spend their money in a less that optimal way, but the program is aimed at feeding children and the supposed "lobster buys" have all been shown to be fraud by someone other than the recipient who has been caught and prosecuted.


How do you know about every single lobster purchased with ebt benefits as in most cases it actually isn't fraud to buy lobster with food stamps?
 
2014-02-01 05:04:51 PM  

eraser8: rzrwiresunrise: eraser8: rzrwiresunrise: vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

[www.venturaweekly.com image 490x267]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

None of those can accept food stamps.

You knew that, right?

How will we know if they're not accepting if we don't get access to all the DATA??!? HUUUHHH??!? Them poor folk er thieves n liars dintcha know?? Ain't no way fer them folk to be comin outta them places fat like a hog on his birthday less'n they had the means teh pay fer it!!!!

Psst, and Obummer's jus' th' one teh help em OUT!!

Whut about them FONES!!!! They get them free fones don't they??!? Whut if they're usin them stamps teh buy them fones and then tradin em fer CASH???!?!???

Think about it.

Okay.  Poe's Law confirmed.

Also, super interesting/relevant book for issues like this?   Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era

Well, to be perfectly honest, the book isn't SUPER interesting/relevant...but, it IS moderately interesting/relevant.  So, still worth the read.


Saw the movie:

upload.wikimedia.org

... but I'll check out the book. Thanks!
 
2014-02-01 05:05:27 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

this. I really don't think there's a good reason that kind of info should not be disclosed but at the same time I suspect that a lot of the people interested in getting the info just want to turn it into an excuse for further cuts to SNAP.


Democrats are concerned about bad things happening to people who don't deserve it.

Republicans are concerned about good things happening to people who don't deserve it.
 
2014-02-01 05:05:59 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Robin Hoodie: Hobodeluxe: so they just want to know which stores are most of them shopping at?

I'm guessing the big ones are going to be Wal Mart,Kroger, Safeway,Publix,Bi-Lo,Target etc,

what are they really thinking they will find?

why was the administration trying to hide this info?  Dept of Ag attorneys must be bored. waste of time/effort

maybe they don't want to waste the money tracking this stuff and then making it available to the GOP so they can prowl through people's garbage to make sure they aren't eating pizza instead of ramen?


they already track it and audit it, and since this is a fairly enormous government agency, they're probably already subject to lots of FOIA requests. This just sounds like the DoA leadership and attorneys trying to stretch the law for no particular purpose. Just let the stupid South Dakota newspaper have the info they requested and move on
 
2014-02-01 05:06:36 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

this. I really don't think there's a good reason that kind of info should not be disclosed but at the same time I suspect that a lot of the people interested in getting the info just want to turn it into an excuse for further cuts to SNAP.


I think the Democrats could win huge at the polls with one commercial series, entitled "My Mistake". Find a Republican who says "We shouldn't punish the rich for the poor's mistakes" (I know you'll be able to find someone who's said this or approximately this), then bring on those who've been in car accidents that have left them quadriplegics, cancer patients, those who've been laid off from high-profile jobs where the CEOs took golden parachutes, and others whose financial woes were no fault of their own, and have them keep repeating how "they made the mistake of" something that they didn't have any control over. At the end, the voiceover: "These are the people Republicans think deserve to starve because of their "mistakes". Who's punishing who?"
 
2014-02-01 05:07:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: And we already have fraud agencies that identify those who really don't need the money, and they are better at finding it out than most previous administrations.

So again, why do we care?


Why do you care that someone wants information? If it is to possibly investigate fraud so what?
 
2014-02-01 05:08:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So again, why do we care?


Because we have a right to know how our money is being spent.

For example, If I buy a Big Mac, then I have a right to know exactly what a McDonald's manager buys with his or her paycheck.

Because that paycheck is my money, in some symbolic astral sense that does not correspond to any actual economic reality.
 
2014-02-01 05:09:38 PM  
I spend a lot of mine on potatoes and corn...down at the liquor store.
 
2014-02-01 05:10:58 PM  
Will obama be put on the $300 bill?
 
2014-02-01 05:12:54 PM  
No one in this thread has given one reason why this information should not be made public outside of making fun of Republicans.    Just making note of that, carry on.
 
2014-02-01 05:16:15 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I think we should do this with everyone who gets paid by the taxpayers.
it's our money right? we should be able to decide what they can and can't buy with it
maybe I don't want some congressman's whore daughter buying birth control
we need to know this stuff people.


You aren't paying money for people to buy things, you are paying them to do a job. You pay teachers to teach your kids, and you do have a right to have input on how they teach your kids.
 
2014-02-01 05:17:25 PM  
Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.
 
2014-02-01 05:18:01 PM  
Well... it kinda isn't.
 
2014-02-01 05:18:04 PM  

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Will obama be put on the $300 bill?


You're one of those guys who thinks they are far more clever than they actually are aren't you.
 
2014-02-01 05:18:16 PM  

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Will obama be put on the $300 bill?


I loved how insane the derpers got when Total Recall (2012) featured legal tender with President Obama's portrait.

www.slashgear.com

Not joking.  Seriously, Google it.  It's...frightening.
 
2014-02-01 05:18:57 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: cameroncrazy1984: And we already have fraud agencies that identify those who really don't need the money, and they are better at finding it out than most previous administrations.

So again, why do we care?

Why do you care that someone wants information? If it is to possibly investigate fraud so what?


They're already investigating, so why do I care that someone who is investigating fraud is already getting that information?
 
2014-02-01 05:19:13 PM  

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


Has Obama has otherwise shown a punctilious concern for privacy until now?

By the way, I forgot to say hello to the NSA today ... Hello, you rat bastard domestic spying assholes!
 
2014-02-01 05:19:15 PM  

Fart_Machine: Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.


This is the best suggestion, it gets rid of 90% of the problems people have with the program and creates a better likelihood hat children will actually get the food instead of the EBT card being sold for 50 cents on the dollar.
 
2014-02-01 05:22:41 PM  

edmo: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

What's with those people? It's like they eat every day or something.


99.7% of "poor" people in America eat.
 
2014-02-01 05:23:54 PM  

Brostorm: No one in this thread has given one reason why this information should not be made public outside of making fun of Republicans.    Just making note of that, carry on.


FOIA is probably one of best laws in our country, but any particular use of it is an affront to the integrity of _____ and is generally just an attempt by --------- to embarrass ________.
 
2014-02-01 05:26:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: They're already investigating, so why do I care that someone who is investigating fraud is already getting that information?


Who do you mean by "they're"? And why do you care?
 
2014-02-01 05:28:47 PM  
This is like saying It's not a violation of HIPPA for health insurance companies to give our your medical information because they aren't the doctors treating you.
 
2014-02-01 05:29:10 PM  

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


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.
 
2014-02-01 05:30:40 PM  

Generation_D:   Not that bogus racist 80s "Welfare Queen" from Chicago they all love to still straw man the crap out of.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/20/255819681/the-truth-be h ind-the-lies-of-the-original-welfare-queen

the more you know
 
2014-02-01 05:34:03 PM  

hasty ambush: [images.sodahead.com image 350x233]

[images.sodahead.com image 350x216]


[www.conservative-daily.com image 480x385]


Number of bin Ladens killed:  1   GOP:  0
Wars ended by Obama:  2  GOP: 0
Wars started by Obama:  0  GOP: Oh please, oh please, oh please
 
2014-02-01 05:35:16 PM  

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.


Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.
 
2014-02-01 05:40:19 PM  

Warlordtrooper: This is like saying It's not a violation of HIPPA for health insurance companies to give our your medical information because they aren't the doctors treating you.


not even close. this was a FOIA request for meta data compiled by the DoA. to use your analogy, which is kind of tenuous because the exception in this case is nothing like HIPPA, this would be like health insurance companies disclosing how much money they paid to a particular hospital.
 
2014-02-01 05:42:50 PM  

The Life Of Brian: whither_apophis: 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.

Screw him! I'm not voting for Obama again.

Why not???

I voted for him 4 times already...and I'm Canadian, eh!

/God bless ACORN


OK, I'll vote for Obama once more, Hillary three times ... and once for Jerry Brown for laughs.
 
2014-02-01 05:43:52 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: cameroncrazy1984: They're already investigating, so why do I care that someone who is investigating fraud is already getting that information?

Who do you mean by "they're"? And why do you care?


"They're" meaning the government. And I don't care? Why do you want the information if it's only useful for the people who are targeting fraud?
 
2014-02-01 05:45:32 PM  
rzrwiresunrise:

Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.

Zero accountability as usual.  Don't hold Obama to his promises, pass the blame.  It's always the other guy's fault right?

"Most transparent administration EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

/Not a Republican either, sorry.
 
2014-02-01 05:52:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: "They're" meaning the government. And I don't care? Why do you want the information if it's only useful for the people who are targeting fraud?


Because, believe it or not, sometimes the media or watchdog groups have uncovered fraud or corruption in government or government programs that the government anti-fraud efforts had not.
 
2014-02-01 05:52:56 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: rzrwiresunrise:

Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.

Zero accountability as usual.  Don't hold Obama to his promises, pass the blame.  It's always the other guy's fault right?

"Most transparent administration EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

/Not a Republican either, sorry.


No need to apologize; neither am I.

But it's funny how the accountability patrol screams and stomps their feet in threads like these, but either *crickets*  or 'MURICA in threads about military spending.

And in case you didn't notice... this is what I said on the first page. So carry on, cuz I know you ain't talking to me...
 
2014-02-01 05:55:22 PM  

Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.


Which they'll put in their Obama Fridges.
 
2014-02-01 05:55:38 PM  
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.
 
2014-02-01 05:59:02 PM  

edmo: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

What's with those people? It's like they eat every day or something.


slurmed.com
What is it with you poors? Every other day it's food, food, food!
 
2014-02-01 06:00:46 PM  

Etchy333: When discussing food stamps, there are two ways you can go:

1. Criticize the poor for buying food that is too fancy.
2. Criticize the poor for buying food that is not fancy enough.

Solution:  The poor get no food at all!


This is just... sick.
Buy good food without preservatives and crap from somewhere like whole foods, and the c-tards hate it.
Buy crap food but more of it from WalMart, and the c-tards hate it.

Y'know, I'm beginning to thing you're right. NO FOOD! EVARRRRR!!!!
 
2014-02-01 06:01:50 PM  

eraser8: DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Will obama be put on the $300 bill?

I loved how insane the derpers got when Total Recall (2012) featured legal tender with President Obama's portrait.

[www.slashgear.com image 600x400]

Not joking.  Seriously, Google it.  It's...frightening.


I called this back in 2008 when I said that the right wing isn't upset that Obama will be spending Federal money, but that he'll become such a beloved and Historic President that one day his face will be printed ON the money!
 
2014-02-01 06:04:32 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-01 06:06:06 PM  

JAYoung: How is it that the right wingers have convinced the country at large that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to the poor?
Of course at the same time it is in full effect for the swindlers on Wall Street and the corporate terrorists in West Virginia.


Because they are guilty of being... poor. That's a capital offense in the conservatards' world or capitalism uber alles. There's no greater crime, which is why so many of them are "embarrassed millionaires".
 
2014-02-01 06:08:30 PM  

rewind2846: Etchy333: When discussing food stamps, there are two ways you can go:

1. Criticize the poor for buying food that is too fancy.
2. Criticize the poor for buying food that is not fancy enough.

Solution:  The poor get no food at all!

This is just... sick.
Buy good food without preservatives and crap from somewhere like whole foods, and the c-tards hate it.
Buy crap food but more of it from WalMart, and the c-tards hate it.

Y'know, I'm beginning to thing you're right. NO FOOD! EVARRRRR!!!!


Someone wrote an article (wish I could relocate it) where the author had been on food stamps and was buying some regular stuff, and someone behind him was going off about all the stuff being bought. Like he has to take verbal abuse from total strangers and be submissive to them just because he's on assistence.

So, he decided to buy only healthy things like fresh produce and rice. No one's going to give him crap if he's at least trying to eat healthy, right? When he used his EBT card, there was yet another nosy jerkface behind him making smartmouth comments like "I wish I had someone to buy all of those fruits and vegetables for me".

And he came to the conclusion that was obvious: these people aren't throwing a fit about SNAP. They're biatching just because they're DICKS, and they think anyone on SNAP or WIC is beneath them enough that they can treat these recipients like sh*t.
 
2014-02-01 06:09:49 PM  

Brostorm: Fart_Machine: Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.

This is the best suggestion, it gets rid of 90% of the problems people have with the program and creates a better likelihood hat children will actually get the food instead of the EBT card being sold for 50 cents on the dollar.


But it adds a lot more bureaucracy to grocery stores and their checkout clerks. I used to work as one and I remember the painstaking details we had to take to make sure that anything that was bought with WIC was on the approved list (which was very small and only consisted of generic items), and were only dispensed as checks meaning that we had to take time to run each check.

If they found a way to make it more efficient, I'd be on board. Otherwise it'll just result in longer lines in the store because a lot more people use EBT than you would think.
 
2014-02-01 06:11:13 PM  

rewind2846: JAYoung: How is it that the right wingers have convinced the country at large that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to the poor?
Of course at the same time it is in full effect for the swindlers on Wall Street and the corporate terrorists in West Virginia.

Because they are guilty of being... poor. That's a capital offense in the conservatards' world or capitalism uber alles. There's no greater crime, which is why so many of them are "embarrassed millionaires".


There are Megachurches who push the "Prosperity Gospel" that the more money you have, the more godly you are. So it goes without saying that in using such diseased logic, the Poor are poor because they're Satanic.
 
2014-02-01 06:12:06 PM  

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?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.





In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached $927 billion per yearI federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.

according to the President's own spending plans, by 2014, welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion per year.

79 Assistance Programs

12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.

Total Cost of the War on Poverty

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.

Welfare Spending: The Fastest Growing Component of Government Spending

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending
. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent over the period. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent over the same period.

Means-tested spending on cash, food, and housing increased more rapidly (196 percent) than Social Security (174 percent). The growth in means-tested medical spending (448 percent) exceeded the growth in Medicare (376 percent).[2] The growth in means-tested aid greatly exceeded the growth in government spending on education (143 percent) and defense (126 percent).
 
2014-02-01 06:14:34 PM  

hasty ambush: 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?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached $927 billion per yearI federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.

according to the President's own spending plans, by 2014, welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion per year.

79 Assistance Programs

12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.

Total Cost of the War on Poverty

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.

Welfare Spending: The Fastest Growing Component of Government Spending

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent over the period. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent ov ...


In case anyone wanted a citation...
 
2014-02-01 06:15:37 PM  

elchip: Voiceofreason01: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

this. I really don't think there's a good reason that kind of info should not be disclosed but at the same time I suspect that a lot of the people interested in getting the info just want to turn it into an excuse for further cuts to SNAP.

Democrats are concerned about bad things happening to people who don't deserve it.

Republicans are concerned about good things happening to people who don't deserve it are brown.


FTFY
 
2014-02-01 06:16:09 PM  

rewind2846: Just another excuse by republican conservatrolls to find reasons to cut SNAP and other food assistance programs.


Why is it OK for the government to monitor and investigate program fraud but when a newspaper does it you assume it is for a sinister motive?
 
2014-02-01 06:17:28 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: In case anyone wanted a citation...


Heritage is known for their unbiased economic analysis. Everyone remembers when the Bush tax cuts gave us a surplus.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-01 06:17:56 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: rzrwiresunrise:

Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.

Zero accountability as usual.  Don't hold Obama to his promises, pass the blame.  It's always the other guy's fault right?

"Most transparent administration EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

/Not a Republican either, sorry.


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

bull-chic.com
 
2014-02-01 06:18:05 PM  
What's their end game with this? A provision that food stamps only pay for gruel, rainwater, and pine cones?

Let's try that, and see the Deep South flip blue.

I don't think they get that so-called Real Americans use more welfare and food stamps than anyone.
 
2014-02-01 06:19:28 PM  

Brostorm: No one in this thread has given one reason why this information should not be made public outside of making fun of Republicans.    Just making note of that, carry on.


Well, let's take a look.  The kefluffle seems to be over a request for details on how much the USDA pays individual companies (food stores) through the food stamp program.  It is NOT about WHAT people are buying, just where they shop.

It appears that the USDA is saying that a provision in federal law that protects retailers' application information from disclosure also bars disclosure of how much the feds pay out to specific businesses.  So there are laws on the books saying some information is not to be disclosed, and the USDA is saying that includes information on how much is paid to individual businesses.

Why would there be restrictions on revealing who gets paid what?  I'm no expert, but just offhand it would flag certain businesses as "food stamp stores" and that's a pejorative.  There are probably other reasons as well; maybe someone here can elaborate.  In a connected article, an attorney defending the USDA said that, among other reasons, they don't want to publicize which places have a greater problem with fraud, or how the USDA tracks fraud, and help enable those seeking to defraud the program.

However, please note that both the USDA, and almost certainly these regulations, predate the Obama administration.  Also note that it was the USDA who is fighting this FOIA request, not the White House.  To claim that this is an Obama thing is a base partisan attack.

Why would that be?  Well, the GOP has been making efforts for a very long time to try to reduce, eliminate or otherwise weaken just about every social program that exists, and this is an opportunity to get some data and then yell loudly that the food stamp program is rife with fraud (and thus should be shut down immediately).  In fact, a form of that argument was part of this dissenting judge's decision, at least the fraud part.
 
2014-02-01 06:21:12 PM  

ScaryBottles: SCUBA_Archer: rzrwiresunrise:

Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.

Zero accountability as usual.  Don't hold Obama to his promises, pass the blame.  It's always the other guy's fault right?

"Most transparent administration EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

/Not a Republican either, sorry.

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

[bull-chic.com image 850x850]



Leave him alone. He's probably "more of a Libertarian."
 
2014-02-01 06:23:15 PM  

hasty ambush: 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?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.


In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached $927 billion per yearI federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.

according to the President's own spending plans, by 2014, welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion per year.

79 Assistance Programs

12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.

Total Cost of the War on Poverty

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.

Welfare Spending: The Fastest Growing Component of Government Spending

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent over the period. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent ov ...


Oh, and btw:

nationalpriorities.org

nationalpriorities.org

Both charts found here...
 
2014-02-01 06:28:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Brostorm: Fart_Machine: Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.

This is the best suggestion, it gets rid of 90% of the problems people have with the program and creates a better likelihood hat children will actually get the food instead of the EBT card being sold for 50 cents on the dollar.

But it adds a lot more bureaucracy to grocery stores and their checkout clerks. I used to work as one and I remember the painstaking details we had to take to make sure that anything that was bought with WIC was on the approved list (which was very small and only consisted of generic items), and were only dispensed as checks meaning that we had to take time to run each check.

If they found a way to make it more efficient, I'd be on board. Otherwise it'll just result in longer lines in the store because a lot more people use EBT than you would think.


There are computer programs that every major supermarket has that does it automatically.
 
2014-02-01 06:38:05 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: rewind2846: Just another excuse by republican conservatrolls to find reasons to cut SNAP and other food assistance programs.

Why is it OK for the government to monitor and investigate program fraud but when a newspaper does it you assume it is for a sinister motive?


If I'm the one giving out the money, it's up to me to keep track of where it goes, and to make sure it goes where intended. Same with the federal government. It's what they are SUPPOSED to do.

The newspaper on the other hand is gathering information for a story, a story that will be written to prove a point in accordance with the reporter's purpose and the paper's editorial guidelines. Having dealt with a hometown newspaper that is as conservative as if it were a print version of FNC (the San Diego Union Tribune) for over 20 years, I see no real purpose behind the gathering of such information except to rile up those who believe that those who are poor are in that state because "it's their own damn fault and why should my tax muneez go to help those assholes" and on and on and on... toss in a black or brown face, simmer until tender, serve with a side of hate and ignorance.

tl,dr; red meat for the conservatrolls.
 
2014-02-01 06:50:17 PM  

Brostorm: Mrtraveler01: Brostorm: Fart_Machine: Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.

This is the best suggestion, it gets rid of 90% of the problems people have with the program and creates a better likelihood hat children will actually get the food instead of the EBT card being sold for 50 cents on the dollar.

But it adds a lot more bureaucracy to grocery stores and their checkout clerks. I used to work as one and I remember the painstaking details we had to take to make sure that anything that was bought with WIC was on the approved list (which was very small and only consisted of generic items), and were only dispensed as checks meaning that we had to take time to run each check.

If they found a way to make it more efficient, I'd be on board. Otherwise it'll just result in longer lines in the store because a lot more people use EBT than you would think.

There are computer programs that every major supermarket has that does it automatically.


I think MO must be in the stone age then because we didn't have the ability to do these automatically.
 
2014-02-01 06:51:25 PM  

rewind2846: If I'm the one giving out the money, it's up to me to keep track of where it goes, and to make sure it goes where intended. Same with the federal government. It's what they are SUPPOSED to do.


Yes it is what they are SUPPOSED to do, doesn't mean they always do a good job at it. Are you trying to tell me you've never seen a case of the media finding the government not doing something they were supposed to do properly?

rewind2846: I see no real purpose behind the gathering of such information except to rile up those who believe that those who are poor are in that state because "it's their own damn fault and why should my tax muneez go to help those assholes" and on and on and on... toss in a black or brown face, simmer until tender, serve with a side of hate and ignorance.


Or maybe they might use the information to help expose crooked retailers? Isn't that what the government would want?
 
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 08:41:54 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.)
 
2014-02-02 12:51:15 AM  

WhoGAS: 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


ASCII is amazingly non intensive as data goes.  You put the whole year on a couple of Dell blades and a small Glyph array.  There's enough people sitting on their asses in the bureaucracy who could be doing actual work for the same money to cover the management costs.
 
2014-02-02 01:31:40 AM  

rewind2846: 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?


You understand they are suing to get the information, right?  Are you really that dense?
 
2014-02-02 01:42:42 AM  

SCUBA_Archer: I'll happily bash the Republican Party too.


img.gawkerassets.com
 
2014-02-02 01:56:22 AM  
So, now the right wingers want to add the Farm Lobby to the people who are pissed off at them? Cool!
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
 
2014-02-02 02:03:48 AM  

vpb: Well, we already know that it's at the places that sell fillet minion and lobster.


Are these tasty?

www.toysrus.com
 
2014-02-02 02:09:12 AM  

El Pachuco: vpb: places that sell fillet minion

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 102x102]


Damn, beat me by 10 hours.
 
2014-02-02 02:27:39 AM  

DogBlack: I'd like to see soda pop off the allowable list.


THIS.  Soda and candy should be ineligible.  I don't remotely mind people being about to buy "lobster" (note that this doesn't actually happen LOL) with food stamps(or as they call in in IL - Link cards), but I would prefer it was limited to items which can at least be technically qualified as food.  It should have SOME nutritional value.

I don't want anyone to starve or even go slightly hungry.  If I had my way, people would have more money to spend in FS.  This would allow people not only to buy everything they need, but to buy healthier - often more expensive - food.  I'd also like basic multivitamins (up to certain standards) to be included as well.

But I think the junk (at least the worst of it) needs to be cut off.  Not primarily for financial savings reasons, but for health.  It makes no sense for taxpayers to subsidize the ruination of poor people's health and then we get to pay for their (now much more costly thanks to junk food/soda) medical care.

People on food stamps would probably still buy soda here and there, but far less of it.  Let them buy bottled water, fruit juice, tea, etc.

No way in hell this would ever pass - companies like Soda and Candy companies have far too much money to throw at politicians to make sure they keep their subsidies.
 
2014-02-02 02:28:43 AM  
Fark why no edit function?  I wanted to add

/former food stamp user
/haven't had a soda in over 2 years
 
2014-02-02 02:40:20 AM  

bk3k: I don't remotely mind people being about to buy "lobster" (note that this doesn't actually happen LOL) with food stamps


I'm sure it does up in Maine, but during boon years you can get a lobster for less than $2 a pound, which makes it about equivalent to lunch meat in cost once shelled.  And I'd rather have the lobster if I was on SNAP.

bk3k: I'd also like basic multivitamins (up to certain standards) to be included as well.


Multivitamins are a scam, which is why there should be rigorous review of what is eligible for SNAP assistance.  You're just trading money that goes to soda companies for money that would go to bullshiat vitamin vendors.

This also shows why it's a good farking idea to make the purchasing statistics public, so you can head off bullshiat at the pass.
 
2014-02-02 02:44:22 AM  

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.


This will totally ensure that his third term will be a landslide.
 
2014-02-02 02:50:27 AM  

BMulligan: Liberals worry that somewhere people are enduring suffering they don't deserve. Conservatives worry that somewhere people someone not white, male, straight, and Christian are enjoying comfort they didn't earn.


Using food stamps to buy lobster? What a useless parasite!

Destroy the economy by running shady lending deals? Those fearless job creators deserve a $5 million bonus!
 
2014-02-02 02:54:11 AM  
If I make an FOIA request to find out how much the government spends on FOIA requests, does the entire government explode?

And is that a good thing or a bad thing?
 
2014-02-02 02:57:37 AM  

Lsherm: rewind2846: 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?

You understand they are suing to get the information, right?  Are you really that dense?


You're the one who seems to be dense. Why are they suing to get the information? So they can publish it. That is why those that have the information do not want to give it to them. The only reason they want the information is so they can use it to write pieces on how "wasteful" these programs are, and to give those who wish to destroy them ammunition to do so.

There are no altruists here, and frankly once the people who need and qualify for the assistance under the current rules don't have to answer to anyone about what they choose to buy. Those that want these people to account for every farking grain of rice or sip of water have only one motive - to punish people for being poor just because they accept food paid for with taxes. Being poor is a sin in this society, and being poor while accepting help from others in the form of repurposed tax money is even worse. Stories like the ones this rag and others seek to write with the information they're suing for only deepens that hatred and perpetuates the stereotypes associated with it.

Consider what FoxNoiseChannel did with the oft-used statistic/meme here on FARK about the poor and refrigerators. This is what happens when information is in the wrong hands.
 
2014-02-02 03:02:41 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: If I make an FOIA request to find out how much the government spends on FOIA requests, does the entire government explode?

And is that a good thing or a bad thing?


files.sharenator.com
 
2014-02-02 03:44:16 AM  

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.


http://www.kohler.com/numi/ 

I'll see that and raise you a 6,000 toilet.
 
2014-02-02 05:36:14 AM  

Lsherm: Multivitamins are a scam, which is why there should be rigorous review of what is eligible for SNAP assistance. You're just trading money that goes to soda companies for money that would go to bullshiat vitamin vendors.


I am more than a little skeptical about that.  There is plenty of research to the contrary of that - such as AREDS (which is just one off the top of my head).  That was a government funded study BTW - so they don't actually have an agenda nor need to make newspaper headlines.  Those USELESS vitamins where proven to have an affect to the tune of a 25% reduction in Macular Degeneration.

There is a ridiculous amount of vitamin research over so many decades out there that these guys are saying we should throw out in favor of their studies - studies that followed a very particular type of person.

Plus your own link clearly states that the studies where of people who ate a good balanced diet - which I can't help but notice does not describe the majority of Americans let alone poor Americans.  Yes the majority of the benefit of vitamins is to those who do not intake a sufficient and balanced quantity from their diet.  Stuff like antioxidants though should be pretty apparent in how they can be beneficial(even to an armchair chemist) and of course are quite well proven.  I stand by saying that providing a multivitamin to all people will have a net-benefit to the health of the populace and a net-savings to our overall health care spending.

Proper nutrition - through whatever means - plays an important role in the prevention of many preventable diseases.  Also I might add that multivitamins are mostly very, very cheap... buying them retail.  But a program like that would do better with a standardized formulation mailed out by the government to all who sign up for it - to make it all the more cheaper by eliminating the need for retail markup etc let alone brand name premiums.  See this is what happens when you read something and instantly believe it without applying a healthy dose suspicion and critical thinking.

 Your statement "You're just trading money that goes to soda companies for money that would go to bullshiat vitamin vendors. " is all the more laughable even if I accepted your premise about multivitamins being completely useless.  The soda people buy is in far greater quantities and so cost FAR more than if we provided them vitamins instead.  Think about the amount of soda an average person drinks in 2 months and compare that cost to a 60 day supply of vitamins (Retail cost about the same as a single 12pk of Pepsi - and in the stores these things are buy 1 get 1 free about every other week).  Do the math.

Plus that soda is extremely unhealthy - especially in those quantities.  Might as well hand the money over to Philip Morris.  You can't seriously make that claim about Vitamin manufacturers.  So I repeat myself at how laughable that statement really is.
 
2014-02-02 08:46:43 AM  

rewind2846: 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?


Because it is a newspaper and it is it's purpose to publish stories to the public instead of keeping information secret.

rewind2846: 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.


Right, media coverage has never forced the government to address an issue that they would have otherwise have ignored.

rewind2846: Let the people whose responsibility it is to run the program deal with it.


No, the people have a right to know what it going on whether you like it or not.
 
2014-02-02 09:02:01 AM  

Generation_D: So the program works, polices itself, and is not a significant part of the over all Federal budget.

And yet, the Republicans want to oversight it, so they all can have some poors to point at and make fun of for the next election.

I swear, these f-for-brains 1%'ers don't quite realize its their own white poor people using most of the food stamps. Not that bogus racist 80s "Welfare Queen" from Chicago they all love to still straw man the crap out of.


You're behind on the talking points.  Now it's the "Welfare Hipster" who uses the government dime to buy steak and lobster while waiting for his shoegaze band to take off.
 
2014-02-02 09:19:27 AM  

rewind2846: Lsherm: rewind2846: 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?

You understand they are suing to get the information, right?  Are you really that dense?

You're the one who seems to be dense. Why are they suing to get the information? So they can publish it. That is why those that have the information do not want to give it to them. The only reason they want the information is so they can use it to write pieces on how "wasteful" these programs are, and to give those who wish to destroy them ammunition to do so.

There are no altruists here, and frankly once the people who need and qualify for the assistance under the current rules don't have to answer to anyone about what they choose to buy. Those that want these people to account for every farking grain of rice or sip of water have only one motive - to punish people for being poor just because they accept food paid for with taxes. Being poor is a sin in this society, and being poor while accepting help from others in the form of repurposed tax money is even worse. Stories like the ones this rag and others seek to write with the information they're suing for only deepens that hatred and perpetuates the stereotypes associated with it.

Consider what FoxNoiseChannel did with the oft-used statistic/meme here on FARK about the poor and refrigerators. This is what happens when information is in the wrong hands.


Maybe the newspapers should only run information approved by a government agency. Maybe a Ministry of Information or something. That way, government officials who know what is best for people can decide what the public should know, lest they form ideas of their own.
 
2014-02-02 09:27:07 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

Um, it looks like the information desired was just how much income each individual business/chain gets from food stamps.

So... they do know.  And frankly it's not even entirely clear why they wanted to keep it secret, since that's pretty harmless information.


The info they are asking for is Dollars paid out to individual businesses. From the businesses prospective they don't want to have "Walmart made $xx million dollars from food stamps", put on their heads.
 
2014-02-02 11:09:01 AM  

Nabb1: 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.

Are a more informed public and transparency in government not ends in themselves? Clearly the newspaper seeking the information see some value.


What they likely see is money in conservative outrage.  Whether you're a part of it or an outside observer, you do have to admit that there's gold in dem dere derpers.
 
2014-02-02 11:22:25 AM  

friday13: Nabb1: 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.

Are a more informed public and transparency in government not ends in themselves? Clearly the newspaper seeking the information see some value.

What they likely see is money in conservative outrage.  Whether you're a part of it or an outside observer, you do have to admit that there's gold in dem dere derpers.


Okay, but that's not really much of a legal basis to deny a FOIA request.
 
2014-02-02 12:40:53 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Hobodeluxe: I think we should do this with everyone who gets paid by the taxpayers.
it's our money right? we should be able to decide what they can and can't buy with it
maybe I don't want some congressman's whore daughter buying birth control
we need to know this stuff people.

You aren't paying money for people to buy things, you are paying them to do a job. You pay teachers to teach your kids, and you do have a right to have input on how they teach your kids.


You are paying taxes (maybe), not for them to do a job so you have no point or input as far as gov jobs go.

/see, others can play your asinine semantic games.
 
2014-02-02 12:59:13 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: /see, others can play your asinine semantic games.


Just because you are unable to understand something does not mean it is semantic games. Why don't you try to take a stab at it again?
 
2014-02-02 01:19:42 PM  
autozone
 
2014-02-02 02:09:37 PM  
DrewCurtisJr:
rewind2846: 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.

Right, media coverage has never forced the government to address an issue that they would have otherwise have ignored.


There's waste, fraud and abuse in any system, public or private. As long as humans run that system, it will always be so. But the question is this - of what value is the knowledge that Jane Doublewide uses her EBT to buy corn chips at the 7-11 rather than corn on the cob at whole foods? It's not the information or the dissemination thereof I question... it's the motive behind such actions.

Watergate was a story because we expect our elections to be as fair as humanly possible. Iran-Contra was a story because selling arms to our enemies and cocaine and crap to fund wars is not what we expect our federal officials to do. Bridgegate (NJ) is a story because we should not expect our politicians to run state government like a bad episode of the Sopranos. All good things to know.

So what will be gained with Jane's info?


rewind2846: Let the people whose responsibility it is to run the program deal with it.

No, the people have a right to know what it going on whether you like it or not.


Rights come with responsibilities, and those responsibilities must be weighed against those rights when making decisions. Just because one can do a thing does not mean that thing should be done. If the genuine purpose of using this knowledge is to change policy to make the system better, then I am all for it. However, knowing human nature, the media business, and conservative leaning outlets like the one making this information request I would wager this is not the case.

As stated before, it is their motives I question, and not the the idea of citizens knowing what their government is doing. In this case the information requested is about the shopping habits of the people most vulnerable in this whole scenario... those receiving public assistance, a scenario in which governments and the rest of the citizenry should have the least amount of input. "The government" is not the entity "doing", but those receiving assistance.

If we as a nation choose to give these people assistance, fine. Leave them alone to use it as they will, and do not harass, belittle or denigrate them for that use, which I believe is the motive behind this whole fiasco. Fuel for the fire.
 
2014-02-02 02:16:28 PM  
My buddy at water treatment says he can still read the writing on vitamins.

I eat really healthy so I stopped buying vitamins.
 
2014-02-02 02:20:12 PM  

Lsherm: 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.


I was referring to whoever was tasked with answering the accusation.
 
2014-02-02 02:46:09 PM  

rewind2846: There's waste, fraud and abuse in any system, public or private. As long as humans run that system, it will always be so.


Yes, and you do what you reasonably can to keep it at a minimum.


rewind2846: So what will be gained with Jane's info?


They may uncover fraud, they may not.

rewind2846: Rights come with responsibilities, and those responsibilities must be weighed against those rights when making decisions. Just because one can do a thing does not mean that thing should be done. If the genuine purpose of using this knowledge is to change policy to make the system better, then I am all for it. However, knowing human nature, the media business, and conservative leaning outlets like the one making this information request I would wager this is not the case.


You and the government may not like the way this information may be potentially used, even if it is used in a way the accurately reflects the facts. That doesn't matter and it is the foundation of freedom of the press.

rewind2846: If we as a nation choose to give these people assistance, fine. Leave them alone to use it as they will, and do not harass, belittle or denigrate them for that use, which I believe is the motive behind this whole fiasco. Fuel for the fire.


We as a nation choose to give people assistance under certain conditions. Just like if the government gives a town $100k for counter-terrorism initiatives and the town uses it to build a swimming pool. I'm not trying to scrap all counter-terrorism funding, but I want to stop abuse.
 
2014-02-02 04:13:27 PM  
DrewCurtisJr:

We as a nation choose to give people assistance under certain conditions. Just like if the government gives a town $100k for counter-terrorism initiatives and the town uses it to build a swimming pool. I'm not trying to scrap all counter-terrorism funding, but I want to stop abuse.

It's called a MOAT!  Worked great when the Sardinians tried to overrun the Gauls.
 
2014-02-02 04:39:44 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: rewind2846: So what will be gained with Jane's info?

They may uncover fraud, they may not.


So let me get this... the $300 or less a month Jane may get for food is so important that we need to examine, investigate and inform the general public of the ground breaking, earth shattering revelation that she buys Doritos instead of generic corn chips? Of that she bought them at Joe's liquor down the street instead of the supermarket?

Seriously?

And of course stories about the real fraudsters, corporations that get sweetheart deals for millions of our tax dollars, might go on page... 2... of section D, the business section?

DrewCurtisJr: We as a nation choose to give people assistance under certain conditions.


When dealing with something as basic as food assistance, the only conditions should be income and need. If your income is low enough, you qualify. If your need is great enough, you qualify. After that, hands off.
 
2014-02-02 05:21:01 PM  

bunner: WhoGAS: 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

ASCII is amazingly non intensive as data goes.  You put the whole year on a couple of Dell blades and a small Glyph array.  There's enough people sitting on their asses in the bureaucracy who could be doing actual work for the same money to cover the management costs.


That's great for gathering the data, no trouble there, but who's going to build the site for public consumption or whatever method of dissemination to the public they choose?  Who will organize that department to oversee the data being shared is in a readable format?  The UX designers who will (should) be called in to oversee the creation of any web media (if that's the route they choose), poject managers, etc.

You think someone in the government's going to volunteer and go, "Hey, my kid runs a site.  We can just tag along on his"?

Maybe.  I doubt it, but maybe you're right.

Either way, there are so many checks and balances on the way the stamps are spent, I'm leaning toward there not being a good ROI on the idea.  Not excluding it altogether; just with the information I have right now.

The ones who use food stamps to buy drugs, cash, etc. don't care about any silly laws or data collection so I don't see how we could get any results except "Food Stamp Recipient #2,003: Milk, Eggs, Bread, etc.".  Maybe I'm naive because it's been a long time since I've been on food stamps.

What would you expect to see from a report like that?
 
2014-02-02 05:41:03 PM  
More likely scenario:

Most of the money is spent in convenience stores and other junk food dispensing outlets, not grocery stores that sells produce and fruit, Obama doesn't want to deal with it because junk food makers would raise a shiatstorm if someone points it out.
 
2014-02-02 05:47:54 PM  

rewind2846: So let me get this... the $300 or less a month Jane may get for food is so important that we need to examine, investigate and inform the general public of the ground breaking, earth shattering revelation that she buys Doritos instead of generic corn chips? Of that she bought them at Joe's liquor down the street instead of the supermarket?


I guess it depends on how many Jane's there are.  Multiply by 30 million and you're talking real money.
 
2014-02-02 06:01:35 PM  

rewind2846: So let me get this... the $300 or less a month Jane may get for food is so important that we need to examine, investigate and inform the general public of the ground breaking, earth shattering revelation that she buys Doritos instead of generic corn chips? Of that she bought them at Joe's liquor down the street instead of the supermarket?

Seriously?


Or if Jane, and many, many others are engaging in something like this.

Or this

Or this


And can't we have a discussion about whether corn-chips of any kind should be eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits? Do you know what the N in SNAP stands for, it's not for Nachos it is nutrition.


rewind2846: When dealing with something as basic as food assistance, the only conditions should be income and need. If your income is low enough, you qualify. If your need is great enough, you qualify. After that, hands off.


If the government can be concerned about fraud so can everyone else.
 
2014-02-02 06:14:46 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: rewind2846: So let me get this... the $300 or less a month Jane may get for food is so important that we need to examine, investigate and inform the general public of the ground breaking, earth shattering revelation that she buys Doritos instead of generic corn chips? Of that she bought them at Joe's liquor down the street instead of the supermarket?

Seriously?

Or if Jane, and many, many others are engaging in something like this.

Or this

Or this


And can't we have a discussion about whether corn-chips of any kind should be eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits? Do you know what the N in SNAP stands for, it's not for Nachos it is nutrition.


rewind2846: When dealing with something as basic as food assistance, the only conditions should be income and need. If your income is low enough, you qualify. If your need is great enough, you qualify. After that, hands off.

If the government can be concerned about fraud so can everyone else.


My solution: use the money we spend paying farmers not to grow food or to subsidize food to buy said food and just give it to teh poorz. No more food deserts, no more junk food for meals, no more subsidizing obesity.

It's not even about saving money by this point, I just want to spite the cottage industry around EBT that sells people crap.
 
2014-02-02 06:35:49 PM  

super_grass: DrewCurtisJr: rewind2846: So let me get this... the $300 or less a month Jane may get for food is so important that we need to examine, investigate and inform the general public of the ground breaking, earth shattering revelation that she buys Doritos instead of generic corn chips? Of that she bought them at Joe's liquor down the street instead of the supermarket?

Seriously?

Or if Jane, and many, many others are engaging in something like this.

Or this

Or this


And can't we have a discussion about whether corn-chips of any kind should be eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits? Do you know what the N in SNAP stands for, it's not for Nachos it is nutrition.


rewind2846: When dealing with something as basic as food assistance, the only conditions should be income and need. If your income is low enough, you qualify. If your need is great enough, you qualify. After that, hands off.

If the government can be concerned about fraud so can everyone else.

My solution: use the money we spend paying farmers not to grow food or to subsidize food to buy said food and just give it to teh poorz. No more food deserts, no more junk food for meals, no more subsidizing obesity.

It's not even about saving money by this point, I just want to spite the cottage industry around EBT that sells people crap.


Yeah, we should force people on SNAP to only be able to buy rice, corn and beans with it. That will show them!
 
2014-02-02 07:14:33 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: If the government can be concerned about fraud so can everyone else.


Fraud = not being financially qualified under current guidelines for assistance.
Example: Bill Gates using an EBT card.

Fraud /= buying corn chips vs whole corn.
Example: Qualified poor person using EBT at the 7-11

to buy lunch instead of buying the ingredients at Food 4 Less.

super_grass: It's not even about saving money by this point, I just want to spite the cottage industry around EBT that sells people crap.


Why does what other people choose to purchase bother you so much? Is it because TAX MUNEEZ?


DrewCurtisJr: Or if Jane, and many, many others are engaging in something like this.

Or this

Or this



The problem with those like yourself is that you somehow have already come to the conclusion that Jane is already doing this simply because she is on public assistance, and therefore needs to be investigated... when out of the millions on the programs the fraud you linked to is perpetrated by organized criminals and others who don't need the assistance in the first place.

This is precisely what I and others in this and other threads have been posting about. When newspapers and websites report on criminal activity like the ones you posted, they are doing their job, so long as they do not editorialize in such a way as to paint all public assistance recipients with the same brush. Reporting on criminal activity is fine, shaming those who use public assistance is not. Period.
 
2014-02-02 08:14:21 PM  

rewind2846: Fraud /= buying corn chips vs whole corn.


I didn't say it was fraud did I. But maybe it would be smart policy to not allow empty calories like corn-chips to be purchased with fund for a nutritional program.

 

rewind2846: This is precisely what I and others in this and other threads have been posting about. When newspapers and websites report on criminal activity like the ones you posted, they are doing their job, so long as they do not editorialize in such a way as to paint all public assistance recipients with the same brush. Reporting on criminal activity is fine, shaming those who use public assistance is not. Period.


No your objections come from the fact that you have claimed you know what the motives are for people requesting this information, and you do not. Because YOU are unable to think of any other reason why someone would need this information other than to "shame" people on the SNAP program it must mean nobody else may know something you don't or be able to think of something that you cannot

For instance:

rewind2846: The only reason they want the information is so they can use it to write pieces on how "wasteful" these programs are, and to give those who wish to destroy them ammunition to do so.


It is not up to you to decide what is the proper use of information obtained by the press because you claim you know their motives.
 
2014-02-02 08:51:15 PM  

rewind2846: super_grass: It's not even about saving money by this point, I just want to spite the cottage industry around EBT that sells people crap.

Why does what other people choose to purchase bother you so much? Is it because TAX MUNEEZ?


Because people keep conflating food stamps with access to food.

A diet fueled by food stamps is making South Texans obese but leaving them hungry
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/11/09/too-much-of-too -l ittle/

And because I don't want to pay for more diabeetus meds and bypass surgeries. I'm concerned, very concerned.
 
2014-02-02 09:01:06 PM  
Please allow me to use this graphic to explain how America works, from the bottom up.


 i10.photobucket.com 

                    "I HAVE THE MONEY!  I GET TO SAY!"
 
2014-02-02 09:06:10 PM  
DrewCurtisJr:
Or if Jane, and many, many others are engaging in something like this.

Or this

Or this


Verifying that fraud isn't occurring with a government spending program is racist!  Republicans might demand that this sort of behavior stop once they find out about it.
 
2014-02-03 12:27:15 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: But maybe it would be smart policy to not allow empty calories like corn-chips to be purchased with fund for a nutritional program.


When you are poor enough to qualify for public assistance, the luxury of "eating healthy" is just one thing you cannot afford. Lean meat costs more than fatty, starch and sugar costs more than whole grains, and so on. Storage (dry? refrigerated? how long does it last?), prep and shopping time, and energy used in all three must also be taken into account. All those things cost money, and if your electricity has been turned off there is no refrigeration or cooking. If there is no money for gas or a car there is no shopping in many places. Then there's the actual amount of food that can be purchased with a given (set) amount of money, and whether that amount will actually fill you up until the next meal, if there is one. You get what you can, you eat what you can.

But I'm not telling you anything you (hopefully) do not already know. Those of us who can sit at home on our computers and type on FARK are a fortunate few, and usually don't need to empty the penny jar to buy our next meal. I have been to that place, coming within days of applying for EBT during one of the times I was between jobs, losing 21 pounds in the process. One meal a day, living on oatmeal and peanut butter on day old bread for weeks at a time, not being able to sleep because my stomach was knotted up in emptiness.

This is not something I would wish on anyone, and was fortunate that four days before I applied I was hired as a temp by a company with a free kitchen (bagels every morning, catered lunch on fridays) and all the coffee you could drink. Some of the other employees knew what I was going through and left me some extra so I could take it home and not go hungry over the weekends until I got paid.

Point is that no one, NO ONE should EVER have to be ashamed of being poor, least of all by some asshole profit seeking "newspaper" looking to make a buck off their skinny backs by conjuring up stereotypes and pointing fingers to make their already smug readers feel even more smug about not being one of "those people".

LEAVE THEM ALONE to buy what they want, and mind your own goddamn business. If they don't qualify for assistance, don't give it to them. If they qualify, then give it to them and STFU.
 
2014-02-03 01:15:21 AM  

rewind2846: DrewCurtisJr: But maybe it would be smart policy to not allow empty calories like corn-chips to be purchased with fund for a nutritional program.

When you are poor enough to qualify for public assistance, the luxury of "eating healthy" is just one thing you cannot afford. Lean meat costs more than fatty, starch and sugar costs more than whole grains, and so on. Storage (dry? refrigerated? how long does it last?), prep and shopping time, and energy used in all three must also be taken into account. All those things cost money, and if your electricity has been turned off there is no refrigeration or cooking. If there is no money for gas or a car there is no shopping in many places. Then there's the actual amount of food that can be purchased with a given (set) amount of money, and whether that amount will actually fill you up until the next meal, if there is one. You get what you can, you eat what you can.

But I'm not telling you anything you (hopefully) do not already know. Those of us who can sit at home on our computers and type on FARK are a fortunate few, and usually don't need to empty the penny jar to buy our next meal. I have been to that place, coming within days of applying for EBT during one of the times I was between jobs, losing 21 pounds in the process. One meal a day, living on oatmeal and peanut butter on day old bread for weeks at a time, not being able to sleep because my stomach was knotted up in emptiness.

This is not something I would wish on anyone, and was fortunate that four days before I applied I was hired as a temp by a company with a free kitchen (bagels every morning, catered lunch on fridays) and all the coffee you could drink. Some of the other employees knew what I was going through and left me some extra so I could take it home and not go hungry over the weekends until I got paid.

Point is that no one, NO ONE should EVER have to be ashamed of being poor, least of all by some asshole profit seeking "newspaper" looking to make a buck ...


As someone who stretched every penny to make sure you didn't have to resort to government benefits, doesn't it bother you to know that some of the taxes you are paying out (and could be using to buy more food) could be going to those that are abusing the system or committing outright fraud?  No one is looking to use this information to crucify the single mother who rewarded her kids with a bag of Doritos instead of a head of broccoli one night.  But we would like to know if there's a systemic use to buy certain categories of unhealthy food, or funnelling SNAP funds to shady endeavors.  Naturally though, seeking out this simple information is racist and demeaning to those who have to wait for their government cheese so we can't do it.  We need to spare the poors feelings.
 
2014-02-03 01:28:25 AM  
GOP: A few people on food stamps bought lobster and wine so let all the poor children starve.
 
Displayed 244 of 244 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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