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 63
    More: Fail, food stamps, Obama administration, Chief Judge, payment processor, secrecy, aficionados, Argus Leader, appeals courts  
•       •       •

2437 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2014 at 3:54 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-01 03:58:20 PM  
10 votes:
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 12:59:43 PM  
10 votes:
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 01:30:00 PM  
8 votes:
i595.photobucket.com
2014-02-01 04:40:10 PM  
7 votes:

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 01:42:53 PM  
7 votes:
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 06:08:30 PM  
5 votes:

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 03:59:52 PM  
5 votes:
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 01:37:59 PM  
5 votes:

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 06:52:02 PM  
4 votes:
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 05:06:36 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:43:09 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:15:48 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:07:40 PM  
3 votes:
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 03:24:10 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:34:57 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:00:27 PM  
3 votes:
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!
2014-02-03 12:27:15 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-01 07:15:17 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:08:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:58:01 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:28:53 PM  
2 votes:
Remember when the GOP was the party of privacy for people? Good times, good times.
2014-02-01 04:02:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:59:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:54:54 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:45:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:22:35 PM  
2 votes:
You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.
2014-02-02 07:14:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:50:27 AM  
1 votes:

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!
2014-02-01 09:14:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:41:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:19:20 PM  
1 votes:
Capitalism ISN'T warty old trillionaires..
2014-02-01 08:18:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:12:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:46:59 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:19:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:11:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:06:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:01:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:55:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:34:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:18:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:12:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:05:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:00:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:51:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:50:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:42:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:41:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:41:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:32:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:25:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:25:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:22:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:14:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:10:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:09:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:18:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:05:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:52:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:32:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:12:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:06:35 PM  
1 votes:
DICTATOR
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report