Are we are creating a major dependency class?

[badger6]

^^ here you go:

On the face of it, the case does seem too flagrant and over-the-top to be true — and now we know why. According to the Menominee County Sheriff's Department, local and state investigators have discovered that the reason the cardholder bought such large quantities of lobster, steak, and soda was not to "dine like a king," as some have characterized it, but to resell them for profit. And that is illegal.

The accused, one Louis Cuff, has been charged with welfare fraud and faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/ss/Lobster-Steak-Food-Stamp-Receipt.htm

All the while its created 6 pages of one guy being up-in-arms over ALL people abusing welfare, when, in fact, it is an isolated instance of a criminal activity.

News story:
http://www.kmov.com/news/national/Michigan-man-buys-steak-and-lobster-with-food-stamps-resells-for-profit-123583709.html

 

I wouldn't call it isolated. Here what (just for you Buddha)----->"they" do is to take someone to the store and buy what that person wants. The going rate around here is 50%-60% of the receipt total.

[Phishfan]

I couldn't agree more.

Except you have completely disagreed about free (under Obama care) birth control.

[Brian Fein]

Not isolated?

Find another receipt.

I'll wait.  Come up with one more and I'll be convinced it is a rampant problem.

[Spider-Dan]

No contradiction at all. You can only verify what they let you verify.

Listen, this isn't complicated: either income can be verified, or it cannot be verified.  If, as you claim, it cannot be verified, then you have no foundation for claiming that people are receiving benefits incommensurate with their income (because you don't know what their income is).

You can't have it both ways.

Who's living at the residence and how do you propose that the issuing agencies are enforcing the "household" income limit ? Do they do stake outs on all of the houses of people on assistance ? I'm fairly certain that they don't have the money, people, or resources for that.

The 1996 welfare reforms created a huge bureaucracy dedicated to exactly that: finding people who are abusing the system and removing them from the rolls.  Your Reagan-era objections were addressed many, many years ago.

Correct, I cannot verify their income. When you see people buy a buggy load of bullshit that would break my budget and pay with an EBT card. Then notice that they have plenty of "bling" or $150 Nikes, or wearing more expensive clothes than I buy. Then get into an upscale automobile that I can't afford. Kind of easy to put 2 and 2 together.

Do you live in a run-down ghetto?  Are you watching a 15" B&W TV?  The fact that you regularly post to a internet website (at all times of the day) implies that you have both a computer and internet access.  So we can reasonably conclude that you choose to spend your money on certain things, when you could spend them on fancy shoes instead (if you wanted to).

You have already conceded that owning a car and driving a car are two very different things.  A poor person choosing to spend more of their money on shoes (and less on whatever things you personally like to spend money on) does not make them less poor.  And you have absolutely no way to know what kind of lifestyle these people live at home.

The implication is that the poor area of town does have more people on assistance. Otherwise it wouldn't be a poor area. Do you dispute that ?

What needs explaining ? If there are more people on government assistance in poor areas. These people shouldn't have expensive vehicles. What did you think that I meant by my statement ?

Once again, we run into consistency issues.  Does living in a poor area mean you are on government assistance, or not?  I had a nice car when I was living in a poor area, and I wasn't on government assistance.  Furthermore, many of my neighbors were not poor people; they were old people who bought their homes when they were new (before that area became run-down) and simply didn't want to sell their home that they had lived in for many years.  Why should these old people have to defend owning a nice car?

Well I'll give you some credit, you have it kind of correct. But you put your usual dramatic vocabulary twist on it to make someone else's idea seem much worse than it is. I would say no one on assistance should be eating better (steaks, lobster, prime rib) than most working Americans.

...but then you also say that they shouldn't be eating worse (i.e. cheap food).  So basically, in order to satisfy you, they must be eating exactly well enough (but not enough to be fat!).

I look forward to the comprehensive list you will surely provide of exactly which foods are allowed, and exactly what prices must be paid for them.  Will people who perform jobs with high degrees of physical labor (and therefore, burn more calories) be alloted a greater food credit than those who push pencils for a living?  Will fat people be given a smaller allowance than skinny people?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^ here you go:

On the face of it, the case does seem too flagrant and over-the-top to be true — and now we know why. According to the Menominee County Sheriff's Department, local and state investigators have discovered that the reason the cardholder bought such large quantities of lobster, steak, and soda was not to "dine like a king," as some have characterized it, but to resell them for profit. And that is illegal.

The accused, one Louis Cuff, has been charged with welfare fraud and faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/ss/Lobster-Steak-Food-Stamp-Receipt.htm

All the while its created 6 pages of one guy being up-in-arms over ALL people abusing welfare, when, in fact, it is an isolated instance of a criminal activity.

News story:
http://www.kmov.com/news/national/Michigan-man-buys-steak-and-lobster-with-food-stamps-resells-for-profit-123583709.html

Thanks.  Based on that fact, if I steal from the US Goverment I am going to do it by inflating defense contracts and falsifying what I claim to ship.  That rarely results in jail time.  Stealing via foodstamps sounds a lot more risky.  

[badger6]

Except you have completely disagreed about free (under Obama care) birth control.

Oh, sorry for the miscommunication on my part. I agree that birth control is a key to fixing some of this problem. I expressed my view on obamacare free birth control in the other thread, ha ha.

[Buddhagirl]

I couldn't agree more. In addition to people not taking care of themselves and their children, overpopulation will be a problem eventually...

***RACE CARD ALERT***
***RACE CARD ALERT***

You, "thinking the use of "THOSE" people throughout this entire thread should really be interpreted to read: "THOSE BROWN" people." is a huge assumption on your part !!! Hypocrite much ?

[CF DolFan]

CF, I think that poor white people have a hell of a lot more in common with poor minorities than they do with rich people (of any race or party).  That being said, the GOP's strategy for the last 40 years has been to turn poor white voters against other poor (usually minority) voters.

Says you.  It depends on what is most important or how it was presented. I'd say we all pretty much want the same things but have different ways of wanting it done.

If I ask a poor white Republican (stereotypical redneck) he will say that Democrats are dividing the nation by turning minorities against Republicans by convincing them they are all rich womanizing white men who want to take everything away from them. That couldn't be further from the truth. Country music/nascar fans are considered rich?  Am I saying Republicans are right on everything? Heck no I'm not but they really aren't that extreme either.

To be fair I have had this same conversation with Republicans.

My honest opinion is this. Most people have already chosen a side for whatever reason so by repeating the extremes of the other side they hope to sway the few people who haven't. I am a registered Democrat that has found more common ground under the Republican party as I have gotten older and opened myself up. You have no idea how far I have come to say that. Prior to George W. getting elected I thought my Republican relatives were absolutely racist and biased and I would argue to no ends.  I think it's really funny how much a person can change in 10-15 years ... that's for sure.  But the funny thing is I really haven't changed that much. I feel I see things differently but still want the same things for the most part.

[Dave Gray]

 But the funny thing is I really haven't changed that much. I feel I see things differently but still want the same things for the most part.

Aren't you born again?  If I had to guess, that's a pretty big part of your politics at this point, whereas it probably wasn't before.

[badger6]

Listen, this isn't complicated: either income can be verified, or it cannot be verified.  If, as you claim, it cannot be verified, then you have no foundation for claiming that people are receiving benefits incommensurate with their income (because you don't know what their income is).
You can't have it both ways.

Are you saying that if something can't be verified by our government that it doesn't exist ? Are you implying nobody receiving benefits is fraudulently hiding income from being verified by the government to continue to receive said benefits ? And that if they are successful at hiding that income that it doesn't exist ?

The 1996 welfare reforms created a huge bureaucracy dedicated to exactly that: finding people who are abusing the system and removing them from the rolls.  Your Reagan-era objections were addressed many, many years ago.

Full of loopholes and waivers. Didn't fix much of anything.

Do you live in a run-down ghetto?  Are you watching a 15" B&W TV?  The fact that you regularly post to a internet website (at all times of the day) implies that you have both a computer and internet access.  So we can reasonably conclude that you choose to spend your money on certain things, when you could spend them on fancy shoes instead (if you wanted to).

You have already conceded that owning a car and driving a car are two very different things.  A poor person choosing to spend more of their money on shoes (and less on whatever things you personally like to spend money on) does not make them less poor.  And you have absolutely no way to know what kind of lifestyle these people live at home.

This has got to be one of the silliest things you have ever said and you have clearly made my point. I can choose to buy the things that I buy because I don't ask the taxpayers to feed me. I buy my own fucking food. The point is that if they can afford $150 nikes, gold teeth or chains, nice clothes, or fancy cars, then they can afford their own food. Let me repeat, if they can afford that material bullshit with as you say "their money", then they can afford food with "their money" and forgo all that crap. Food is more important that all of those things. Their lifestyle at home is not relavent if they can afford all the "extra" shit you speak of and choose to buy it instead of food. What a joke, ha ha ha

Once again, we run into consistency issues.  Does living in a poor area mean you are on government assistance, or not? 

More likely and a higher percentage than other areas of town. Would you not agree ?

I had a nice car when I was living in a poor area, and I wasn't on government assistance.  Furthermore, many of my neighbors were not poor people; they were old people who bought their homes when they were new (before that area became run-down) and simply didn't want to sell their home that they had lived in for many years.  Why should these old people have to defend owning a nice car?

If you and said neighbors were not on assistance who cares ?

...but then you also say that they shouldn't be eating worse (i.e. cheap food).  So basically, in order to satisfy you, they must be eating exactly well enough (but not enough to be fat!).

I look forward to the comprehensive list you will surely provide of exactly which foods are allowed, and exactly what prices must be paid for them.  Will people who perform jobs with high degrees of physical labor (and therefore, burn more calories) be alloted a greater food credit than those who push pencils for a living?  Will fat people be given a smaller allowance than skinny people?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Round and round we go. So you think that people on food stamps, a benefit that they don't pay for, should be able to buy whatever they want at the grocery store ?

[badger6]

Thanks.  Based on that fact, if I steal from the US Goverment I am going to do it by inflating defense contracts and falsifying what I claim to ship.  That rarely results in jail time.  Stealing via foodstamps sounds a lot more risky.  

I think that I might agree with you. Start a thread about US Government Contract Fraud and I will join you in the conversation to exchange ideas.

---------> Back to regularly scheduled programming.................. ......

[badger6]

Is that the best reply you have, ha ha. The name of your picture says it all -------->black-guys-laughing.gif

Oh Buddha, I expected so much more out of you 

[Spider-Dan]

Are you saying that if something can't be verified by our government that it doesn't exist ?

No, I'm saying that if the gov't can't verify it, you personally damned sure can't verify it.

This has got to be one of the silliest things you have ever said and you have clearly made my point. I can choose to buy the things that I buy because I don't ask the taxpayers to feed me. I buy my own fucking food. The point is that if they can afford $150 nikes, gold teeth or chains, nice clothes, or fancy cars, then they can afford their own food.

So then, in your opinion, poverty is not defined by the actual amount of money you have, but rather what you spend that money on?

One person makes $11,000 a year and has one pair of $100 Jordans.  Another person makes $13,000 a year and has four pairs of $30 Wal-Mart shoes.  According to you, the person making less is living the more extravagant lifestyle.  Have I accurately described your position?

[re: nice cars in poor areas]
More likely and a higher percentage than other areas of town. Would you not agree ?

If you and said neighbors were not on assistance who cares ?

Please explain exactly what it is supposed to mean if I see a nice car in a poor area of town, when you have just admitted that you can live in a poor area without being on government assistance!  What was the point you were trying to make when you cited fancy cars in the ghetto as "proof" of fraud and abuse?

So you think that people on food stamps, a benefit that they don't pay for, should be able to buy whatever they want at the grocery store ?

No, I think your argument for disallowing food that's too cheap (at the same time you are citing fraudulent criminal activity as proof that food stamp recipients have it too good) is the one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

[Buddhagirl]

Is that the best reply you have, ha ha. The name of your picture says it all -------->black-guys-laughing.gif

Oh Buddha, I expected so much more out of you 

It's all I could come up with after my eyeballs rolled so far back in their head while reading your statement about birth control. Then dropping the Race Card bullshit all in the same reply?

Comedic. Gold.

[CF DolFan]

Aren't you born again?  If I had to guess, that's a pretty big part of your politics at this point, whereas it probably wasn't before.

I was born again in 1997. Prior to that I was, what I call, a non practicing Christian. Obviously I didn't think that's what I was at the time but I was.  Anyway, I supported gay whatever, I was for a women's right to choose, and generally felt that if it didn't directly affect anyone else, then go for it. It wasn't until years later that I changed my perspective on each of these things. Not that I'm entirely opposed to any of them but I'd say I see things more from a Replican view ... but not the extreme one that keeps getting repeated.