The FACTS on Food Stamps

[Immanuel]

It's an assumption, considering employees in the US have a lot less rights than we do.

You assume wrong.

That's the problem with you uneducated foreigners commenting on US domestic issues. You are profoundly ignorant.

seriously? You don't think a person could be fired for refusing to work a 12 hour day? Of course they would. Over 12 hours is OT.

Where the heck did you come up with that stat?

Here are the basics for most American workers:

About Federal Labor Laws on Overtime | eHow

Overtime means 150% compensation for any and all work performed above 40 hours per week, but only in certain occupations. However, many workers in the US are exempt from overtime protection/benefits. administrative, professional, and executive employees, as well as independent contractors, are exempt from overtime provisions. These types of employees are typically paid flat salaries, rather than hourly compensation. Approximately 50 million American workers are not eligible for overtime.
It is illegal for an employee to waive his or her overtime guarantees. This provision prevents employers from intimidating employees into giving away their legally-guaranteed benefit.
Another form of overtime compensation is "time off in lieu," or giving the employee compensation for overtime worked in the form of extra paid leave time at a future date.

Immie

 

[KissMy]

Alright back to food stamp facts...
[MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION]


same question from last night.....


are coffee and soda food?

I would buy you fruits, vegetables, lobster & filet mignon with with food stamps or SNAP.

One problem is junk food like soda, chips, hot dogs etc are subsidized, so it is way cheaper than healthy food.

Another problem is most low cost food's have expensive co-products. So everyone can't eat the cheap food or prices will soar. Take hamburger vs steak for instance. Before the recession around here in the mid-west hamburger was selling for about $0.75/lb & good cuts of steak was about $15/lb. Hamburger was an affordable staple food for the poor. The main reason it was cheap was because it was a leftover excess from the cow when they were butchered to get steak that the majority sought, bought & consumed. That high steak price paid for the whole cow & processing. The leftover burger was sold at steep discount to get rid of it much like a waste product.

A live cow on hoof cost about $1.50/lb & only 1/3rd is consumed as meat. So that makes the average price per lb of meat $4.50 + slaughter cost so lets just say $5/lb. During good economic times the high priced steak is 3 times the actual meat cost & hamburger is sold at a huge loss.

When you have a major economic downturn the majority want to buy hamburger. So now around here good steak now sells for $9/lb & hamburger sells for well over $3.00. Those who can afford good steak got a cut in their food bill & the poor took a 4 fold increase in their food cost. That is a major punch in the gut for the poor & especially while we are in a recession.

This is why you need food stamps in a recession to even things back out. They can also help those that would have bought burger to reach for steak thus lowering the price of burger for the rest.

The Bible says to feed the poor. If people are born with nothing & have no means of getting food because only 58% of US citizens can get a job, they have only 2 choices. Die of starvation or possibly die stealing your stuff.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

All welfare programs are riddled with fraud. You give money away and you're gonna be swamped with liars who claim they are entitled to it. And the recipients kick back some of the money to the social workers who falsely ok'd them.

Govt can't do anything right.

 

[asterism]

No such right exists.

You want more than 10 dollars an hour, make yourself worth it.

A high school diploma isn't worth 10 dollars an hour.

What about the right of the employer to get an equal return in skilled labor for his 10 dollars?

Not true.

The minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Someone working 12 hours a day gets time and a half for the 4 hours above 8 hours. That's $10.85 per hour.

The 12 hour pay is $101.50 which is more than $10 per hour.

I do not know of anyone who works standard days of 12 hours per day. The standard here is 8 hour days, 40 hour weeks and thanks to Obamacare, the hours of the people who need it most are being cut to below 30 hour weeks.

Someone might work OT when available, but generally that is by choice.

12 hours @ $10.85 is $130.20 gross. Not sure where you came up with $101.50.

Immie

It's only $10.85 for the 4 hours of overtime. The 8 hour day is at minimum, $7.25.

You're correct, nobody regularly works 12 hour days for minimum wage. The point was to refute her comment that every worker should be entitled to not have to work 12+ hour days for less than $10 an hour.

 

[Darkwind]

You assume wrong.

That's the problem with you uneducated foreigners commenting on US domestic issues. You are profoundly ignorant.

seriously? You don't think a person could be fired for refusing to work a 12 hour day? Of course they would. Over 12 hours is OT.

Where the heck did you come up with that stat?

Here are the basics for most American workers:

About Federal Labor Laws on Overtime | eHow

Overtime means 150% compensation for any and all work performed above 40 hours per week, but only in certain occupations. However, many workers in the US are exempt from overtime protection/benefits. administrative, professional, and executive employees, as well as independent contractors, are exempt from overtime provisions. These types of employees are typically paid flat salaries, rather than hourly compensation. Approximately 50 million American workers are not eligible for overtime.
It is illegal for an employee to waive his or her overtime guarantees. This provision prevents employers from intimidating employees into giving away their legally-guaranteed benefit.
Another form of overtime compensation is "time off in lieu," or giving the employee compensation for overtime worked in the form of extra paid leave time at a future date.

Immie

I worked for a printer that had 12 hour days, and went 4 days on, 4 days off. It screwed the pay check pretty badly because they paid every two weeks.

What they did was pay you for weeks where you worked 48 hours as 80 straight, with 16 overtime. The problem started when your pay period split your work week, and with the 4 days off, you sometimes ended up getting only 3 days in one weak, 4 in another, and if the timing went just right, you'd only get 3 days in both weeks, and ended up working 48 and getting paid 36.

It also ended that you worked 4 weekends out of every 6 weeks because your work week rotated throughout the week. An example:

Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur...then you were off Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon..
Tues, Wed, Thurs, Fri....then you were off Sat, Sun, Mon, Tues....etc..

The work week ended on Saturday.

When you took vacation, you were paid on a 40 hour week, even though your standard work week was 48.

NY State forced Me to accept this job after I spent some time on the Unemployment line after the job I had closed in 2010.

I left that job in less than a year for a more reasonable self employment and another job that helps Me pay for insurance.

However, no one forced Me to accept the job and no one forced Me to remain in the job. It was the first job in 40+ years of working that I actively hated.

Noomi's point, however, is still wrong. I didn't have to work that job, and I worked as hard finding a different one as soon as I discovered what a sweat shop it was.

 

[Immanuel]

Not true.

The minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Someone working 12 hours a day gets time and a half for the 4 hours above 8 hours. That's $10.85 per hour.

The 12 hour pay is $101.50 which is more than $10 per hour.

I do not know of anyone who works standard days of 12 hours per day. The standard here is 8 hour days, 40 hour weeks and thanks to Obamacare, the hours of the people who need it most are being cut to below 30 hour weeks.

Someone might work OT when available, but generally that is by choice.

12 hours @ $10.85 is $130.20 gross. Not sure where you came up with $101.50.

Immie

It's only $10.85 for the 4 hours of overtime. The 8 hour day is at minimum, $7.25.

You're correct, nobody regularly works 12 hour days for minimum wage. The point was to refute her comment that every worker should be entitled to not have to work 12+ hour days for less than $10 an hour.

Duh! On the four hours. Should of thought about that.

Immie

 

[AVG-JOE]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

can you buy lobster with snap?

Yes, but you would have to be a complete idiot. It's pretty hard to ignore a basic need like hunger. Recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

Correction:

Educated recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

​

Of course, well educated recipients would be tax payers instead of being recipients, leaving assistance for the unlucky elderly and the truly disabled...

​

 

[Billy000]

The majority on food stamps are idiots.. else they would have made better decisions to begin with

Most? You are painfully ignorant.

No.. those who do things to put themselves in bad situations are the ones who are woefully ignorant

To be at a point where you NEED assistance, shows that bad decision making.. AKA IGNORANCE

can you buy lobster with snap?

Yes, but you would have to be a complete idiot. It's pretty hard to ignore a basic need like hunger. Recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

Correction:

Educated recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

​

Of course, well educated recipients would be tax payers instead of being recipients, leaving assistance for the unlucky elderly and the truly disabled...

​

Once again a massive over simplification. Why can't you guys understand that nothing is simple? There is no blanket explanation as to why people need welfare. If you think they are all moochers then you aren't giving the subject nearly as much thought as you should.
We can all agree that economically the US is in trouble. Why is it so hard to believe that there are people who do need help? People who really do need outside help before they can help themselves. There is no evidence to suggest that our welfare system is designed to keep people dependent. Some people get away with mooching sure, but those individuals are keeping you from accepting the facts about the system.

 

[Immanuel]

Most? You are painfully ignorant.

No.. those who do things to put themselves in bad situations are the ones who are woefully ignorant

To be at a point where you NEED assistance, shows that bad decision making.. AKA IGNORANCE

Yes, but you would have to be a complete idiot. It's pretty hard to ignore a basic need like hunger. Recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

Correction:

Educated recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

​

Of course, well educated recipients would be tax payers instead of being recipients, leaving assistance for the unlucky elderly and the truly disabled...

​

Once again a massive over simplification. Why can't you guys understand that nothing is simple? There is no blanket explanation as to why people need welfare. If you think they are all moochers then you aren't giving the subject nearly as much thought as you should.
We can all agree that economically the US is in trouble. Why is it so hard to believe that there are people who do need help? People who really do need outside help before they can help themselves. There is no evidence to suggest that our welfare system is designed to keep people dependent. Some people get away with mooching sure, but those individuals are keeping you from accepting the facts about the system.

Why? Because Obama and his Democrat goons keep telling us everything is "peachy-keen".

No evidence? Ever see a Democrat in Washington do something to lift someone out of "public assistance"? No? Didn't think so. The moochers don't need or want help getting off public assistance. In fact, they would refuse it if offered. They are there by choice stealing from the rest of us.

The needy on the other hand are thrown scraps and left to suffer in the grasp of the liberals who keep telling them that Republicans want to take food away from their children. Vote for Republicans at your own peril they are told.

Well here is a fact that should be pretty damned evident. Just like abortion, affirmative action, social security and all the other progressive enslavement programs, when Republicans had control of the government they did nothing, I repeat nothing, at all to change things just as they won't with Obamacare if they get the opportunity. Democrats and Republicans are not very different at all. The one major difference between the two is which right they want to take from us first.

Immie

 

[squeeze berry]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

horse shit

middle income people in many countries are not as affluent as our "poor"

that have

cars
computers
flat screen tv
microwave
washer/dryer
cell phones
cable tv
snap
free school lunch
tanf
toys at x-mas
etc
etc

this country is generous to the poor

 

[Papageorgio]

The right not to work a 12+ hour day for less than $10 an hour?

Everyone in the U.S. has that right.

Where did you get your education on this?

Pretty sure if a casual employee refused to work a 12 hour day they'd be sacked on the spot.

Wouldn't happen over here.

I don't think it happens here.

Where do you get your strange ideas? American press? Australian propaganda?

 

[Billy000]

No.. those who do things to put themselves in bad situations are the ones who are woefully ignorant

To be at a point where you NEED assistance, shows that bad decision making.. AKA IGNORANCE

Correction:

Educated recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

​

Of course, well educated recipients would be tax payers instead of being recipients, leaving assistance for the unlucky elderly and the truly disabled...

​

Once again a massive over simplification. Why can't you guys understand that nothing is simple? There is no blanket explanation as to why people need welfare. If you think they are all moochers then you aren't giving the subject nearly as much thought as you should.
We can all agree that economically the US is in trouble. Why is it so hard to believe that there are people who do need help? People who really do need outside help before they can help themselves. There is no evidence to suggest that our welfare system is designed to keep people dependent. Some people get away with mooching sure, but those individuals are keeping you from accepting the facts about the system.

Why? Because Obama and his Democrat goons keep telling us everything is "peachy-keen".

No evidence? Ever see a Democrat in Washington do something to lift someone out of "public assistance"? No? Didn't think so. The moochers don't need or want help getting off public assistance. In fact, they would refuse it if offered. They are there by choice stealing from the rest of us.

The needy on the other hand are thrown scraps and left to suffer in the grasp of the liberals who keep telling them that Republicans want to take food away from their children. Vote for Republicans at your own peril they are told.

Well here is a fact that should be pretty damned evident. Just like abortion, affirmative action, social security and all the other progressive enslavement programs, when Republicans had control of the government they did nothing, I repeat nothing, at all to change things just as they won't with Obamacare if they get the opportunity. Democrats and Republicans are not very different at all. The one major difference between the two is which right they want to take from us first.

Immie

Okay answer me this question and really give it some thought. Why are you so convinced that welfare mooching is such a wide spread problem? Where is the evidence? There is anecdotal evidence that mooching really is an issue, but what is the evidence that it is an actual crisis? Where are the numbers that show us we need to make serious conservative changes in our system? The statistical evidence in my thread shows that it isn't a crisis. Those anecdotal, individual cases that say otherwise simply tells us that some times people get away with mooching. Those people figured out how to play the system. Fortunately, the numbers show us those people are not very common.

Let me give you the numbers one more time:

The average household that receives SNAP has an average gross income of $744 a MONTH. The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a MONTH which is less than $1.50 a meal.

So based on those numbers, why are you so convinced that food stamps mooching is a crisis? Where are your numbers? Anecdotal evidence of mooching only shows us that mooching itself happens. It does not show us that mooching is an actual crisis.

Look I don't buy into everything liberals/democrats say. For instance I agree with cons/repubs who say many on the left sugar coat the race issue. What politics comes down to is the numbers. The numbers show us that both the right and the left get it wrong. Nothing is black and white. Both ends of the political spectrum kid themselves into believing things that are not true.

EDIT: forgive the redundancy of the writing in my post. I'm trying to drive a point home.

 

[GHook93]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

can you buy lobster with snap?

Yes, but you would have to be a complete idiot. It's pretty hard to ignore a basic need like hunger. Recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

Both sides over blow the food stamps issue. It's called food assistance not food providing. Meaning it's supposed to help your food costs not cover it completely.

The amount it pays now covers so little because of inflation it's ridiculous, but that's the intent. Help with the cost, but don't cover it.

What makes me sick is when you see illegals that don't speak a lick of English getting food stamps or people buying liquor, cigarettes in cash and then using the link card! Just the other day, this woman was buying all kinds of groceries on the link card and then bought a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of Hennessy! I just saw something wrong with that!

 

[Billy000]

can you buy lobster with snap?

Yes, but you would have to be a complete idiot. It's pretty hard to ignore a basic need like hunger. Recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

Both sides over blow the food stamps issue. It's called food assistance not food providing. Meaning it's supposed to help your food costs not cover it completely.

The amount it pays now covers so little because of inflation it's ridiculous, but that's the intent. Help with the cost, but don't cover it.

What makes me sick is when you see illegals that don't speak a lick of English getting food stamps or people buying liquor, cigarettes in cash and then using the link card! Just the other day, this woman was buying all kinds of groceries on the link card and then bought a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of Hennessy! I just saw something wrong with that!

You're wrong about illegals. It is a myth that illegals get SNAP. Go to the Dept. of Agriculture's website. It specifically says in black and white that illegals are ineligible for SNAP.

You're also wrong about alcohol. Recipients of SNAP cannot buy alcohol or tobacco with government funds.

 

[asterism]

Once again a massive over simplification. Why can't you guys understand that nothing is simple? There is no blanket explanation as to why people need welfare. If you think they are all moochers then you aren't giving the subject nearly as much thought as you should.
We can all agree that economically the US is in trouble. Why is it so hard to believe that there are people who do need help? People who really do need outside help before they can help themselves. There is no evidence to suggest that our welfare system is designed to keep people dependent. Some people get away with mooching sure, but those individuals are keeping you from accepting the facts about the system.

Why? Because Obama and his Democrat goons keep telling us everything is "peachy-keen".

No evidence? Ever see a Democrat in Washington do something to lift someone out of "public assistance"? No? Didn't think so. The moochers don't need or want help getting off public assistance. In fact, they would refuse it if offered. They are there by choice stealing from the rest of us.

The needy on the other hand are thrown scraps and left to suffer in the grasp of the liberals who keep telling them that Republicans want to take food away from their children. Vote for Republicans at your own peril they are told.

Well here is a fact that should be pretty damned evident. Just like abortion, affirmative action, social security and all the other progressive enslavement programs, when Republicans had control of the government they did nothing, I repeat nothing, at all to change things just as they won't with Obamacare if they get the opportunity. Democrats and Republicans are not very different at all. The one major difference between the two is which right they want to take from us first.

Immie

Okay answer me this question and really give it some thought. Why are you so convinced that welfare mooching is such a wide spread problem? Where is the evidence? There is anecdotal evidence that mooching really is an issue, but what is the evidence that it is an actual crisis? Where are the numbers that show us we need to make serious conservative changes in our system? The statistical evidence in my thread shows that it isn't a crisis. Those anecdotal, individual cases that say otherwise simply tells us that some times people get away with mooching. Those people figured out how to play the system. Fortunately, the numbers show us those people are not very common.

Let me give you the numbers one more time:

The average household that receives SNAP has an average gross income of $744 a MONTH. The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a MONTH which is less than $1.50 a meal.

So based on those numbers, why are you so convinced that food stamps mooching is a crisis? Where are your numbers? Anecdotal evidence of mooching only shows us that mooching itself happens. It does not show us that mooching is an actual crisis.

Look I don't buy into everything liberals/democrats say. For instance I agree with cons/repubs who say many on the left sugar coat the race issue. What politics comes down to is the numbers. The numbers show us that both the right and the left get it wrong. Nothing is black and white. Both ends of the political spectrum kid themselves into believing things that are not true.

EDIT: forgive the redundancy of the writing in my post. I'm trying to drive a point home.

You still don't get it.

The fraud that is known exposes devastating flaws in the controls in the programs. You want to call the known fraud "minor," but then don't consider that over $100 in free steak and lobster bought by a guy with rich parents is not considered fraudulent by administrators. The anecdotal evidence I posted about a case I reported (the one where a former employee of mine bragged about wearing a Rolex to the hearing) was deemed to be 100% legal by investigators.

Why do I think mooching is so widespread? Because the system is so easily gamed and the definitions of fraud are VERY loose. If the system had proper controls there would be ZERO allowed purchases of porterhouse steaks on EBT. There would be ZERO instances of $1 bananas being bought across the street from a store where they sell bananas for 50¢ per pound.

ALL of that is legal, not considered fraud, but is most definitely fraudulent.

 

[Billy000]

Why? Because Obama and his Democrat goons keep telling us everything is "peachy-keen".

No evidence? Ever see a Democrat in Washington do something to lift someone out of "public assistance"? No? Didn't think so. The moochers don't need or want help getting off public assistance. In fact, they would refuse it if offered. They are there by choice stealing from the rest of us.

The needy on the other hand are thrown scraps and left to suffer in the grasp of the liberals who keep telling them that Republicans want to take food away from their children. Vote for Republicans at your own peril they are told.

Well here is a fact that should be pretty damned evident. Just like abortion, affirmative action, social security and all the other progressive enslavement programs, when Republicans had control of the government they did nothing, I repeat nothing, at all to change things just as they won't with Obamacare if they get the opportunity. Democrats and Republicans are not very different at all. The one major difference between the two is which right they want to take from us first.

Immie

Okay answer me this question and really give it some thought. Why are you so convinced that welfare mooching is such a wide spread problem? Where is the evidence? There is anecdotal evidence that mooching really is an issue, but what is the evidence that it is an actual crisis? Where are the numbers that show us we need to make serious conservative changes in our system? The statistical evidence in my thread shows that it isn't a crisis. Those anecdotal, individual cases that say otherwise simply tells us that some times people get away with mooching. Those people figured out how to play the system. Fortunately, the numbers show us those people are not very common.

Let me give you the numbers one more time:

The average household that receives SNAP has an average gross income of $744 a MONTH. The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a MONTH which is less than $1.50 a meal.

So based on those numbers, why are you so convinced that food stamps mooching is a crisis? Where are your numbers? Anecdotal evidence of mooching only shows us that mooching itself happens. It does not show us that mooching is an actual crisis.

Look I don't buy into everything liberals/democrats say. For instance I agree with cons/repubs who say many on the left sugar coat the race issue. What politics comes down to is the numbers. The numbers show us that both the right and the left get it wrong. Nothing is black and white. Both ends of the political spectrum kid themselves into believing things that are not true.

EDIT: forgive the redundancy of the writing in my post. I'm trying to drive a point home.

You still don't get it.

The fraud that is known exposes devastating flaws in the controls in the programs. You want to call the known fraud "minor," but then don't consider that over $100 in free steak and lobster bought by a guy with rich parents is not considered fraudulent by administrators. The anecdotal evidence I posted about a case I reported (the one where a former employee of mine bragged about wearing a Rolex to the hearing) was deemed to be 100% legal by investigators.

Why do I think mooching is so widespread? Because the system is so easily gamed and the definitions of fraud are VERY loose. If the system had proper controls there would be ZERO allowed purchases of porterhouse steaks on EBT. There would be ZERO instances of $1 bananas being bought across the street from a store where they sell bananas for 50¢ per pound.

ALL of that is legal, not considered fraud, but is most definitely fraudulent.

What so because the system isn't perfect that means the whole thing is a sham? Is that really what you believe?

Not only do the stats prove that mooching isn't wide spread, but there really isn't much incentive to do it. Okay so a guy with an official reported shitty income is receiving both SNAP and expensive gifts and money from his parents, right? Why would a guy bother going through the rigourous process of receiving only $133 a month when his rich parents are fiddling him? While your anecdotal story may be true about this Rolex guy, there is no reason to believe many people in the same situation would do the same thing if all they would get is peanuts. That story of yours is completely atypical.

Also, because recipients do get peanuts, why the fuck do you even care if people blow all of their SNAP on steak? If they buy goddamn steaks, they wouldn't be able to buy much else now would they? It doesn't fucking matter what these people buy as long as they get the same amount of money each month which is less than $1.50 a meal!

 

[asterism]

Okay answer me this question and really give it some thought. Why are you so convinced that welfare mooching is such a wide spread problem? Where is the evidence? There is anecdotal evidence that mooching really is an issue, but what is the evidence that it is an actual crisis? Where are the numbers that show us we need to make serious conservative changes in our system? The statistical evidence in my thread shows that it isn't a crisis. Those anecdotal, individual cases that say otherwise simply tells us that some times people get away with mooching. Those people figured out how to play the system. Fortunately, the numbers show us those people are not very common.

Let me give you the numbers one more time:

The average household that receives SNAP has an average gross income of $744 a MONTH. The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a MONTH which is less than $1.50 a meal.

So based on those numbers, why are you so convinced that food stamps mooching is a crisis? Where are your numbers? Anecdotal evidence of mooching only shows us that mooching itself happens. It does not show us that mooching is an actual crisis.

Look I don't buy into everything liberals/democrats say. For instance I agree with cons/repubs who say many on the left sugar coat the race issue. What politics comes down to is the numbers. The numbers show us that both the right and the left get it wrong. Nothing is black and white. Both ends of the political spectrum kid themselves into believing things that are not true.

EDIT: forgive the redundancy of the writing in my post. I'm trying to drive a point home.

You still don't get it.

The fraud that is known exposes devastating flaws in the controls in the programs. You want to call the known fraud "minor," but then don't consider that over $100 in free steak and lobster bought by a guy with rich parents is not considered fraudulent by administrators. The anecdotal evidence I posted about a case I reported (the one where a former employee of mine bragged about wearing a Rolex to the hearing) was deemed to be 100% legal by investigators.

Why do I think mooching is so widespread? Because the system is so easily gamed and the definitions of fraud are VERY loose. If the system had proper controls there would be ZERO allowed purchases of porterhouse steaks on EBT. There would be ZERO instances of $1 bananas being bought across the street from a store where they sell bananas for 50¢ per pound.

ALL of that is legal, not considered fraud, but is most definitely fraudulent.

What so because the system isn't perfect that means the whole thing is a sham? Is that really what you believe?

No. I believe the system is so poorly designed, so easily gamed, and so full of corruption that it needs to be scrapped and replaced.

Not only do the stats prove that mooching isn't wide spread, but there really isn't much incentive to do it. Okay so a guy with an official reported shitty income is receiving both SNAP and expensive gifts and money from his parents, right? Why would a guy bother going through the rigourous process of receiving only $133 a month when his rich parents are fiddling him? While your anecdotal story may be true about this Rolex guy, there is no reason to believe many people in the same situation would do the same thing if all they would get is peanuts. That story of yours is completely atypical.

The statistics do not prove that mooching isn't widespread. The rules of the system prove that mooching is allowed and encouraged. Why would a guy with rich parents enroll for "only" $133 a month? Because it's a small effort once to get free stuff. If you knew there was a $100 bill laying on the ground in the same spot one day each month would you not walk over there and pick it up?

Also, because recipients do get peanuts, why the fuck do you even care if people blow all of their SNAP on steak?

Because it shows they don't need assistance. SNAP is supposed to keep people from starving, it's not supposed to subsidize stupid choices. A very simple implementation of UMC code screening (the same one used to eliminate alcohol and cigarette purchases with EBT) would end this stupid practice.

If they buy goddamn steaks, they wouldn't be able to buy much else now would they?

If they buy steaks, they don't need this assistance to survive. DUH!

It doesn't fucking matter what these people buy as long as they get the same amount of money each month which is less than $1.50 a meal!

If they are wasting that $1.50 per meal (90 times per month every month) then the obviously don't need the assistance.

 

[Billy000]

You still don't get it.

The fraud that is known exposes devastating flaws in the controls in the programs. You want to call the known fraud "minor," but then don't consider that over $100 in free steak and lobster bought by a guy with rich parents is not considered fraudulent by administrators. The anecdotal evidence I posted about a case I reported (the one where a former employee of mine bragged about wearing a Rolex to the hearing) was deemed to be 100% legal by investigators.

Why do I think mooching is so widespread? Because the system is so easily gamed and the definitions of fraud are VERY loose. If the system had proper controls there would be ZERO allowed purchases of porterhouse steaks on EBT. There would be ZERO instances of $1 bananas being bought across the street from a store where they sell bananas for 50¢ per pound.

ALL of that is legal, not considered fraud, but is most definitely fraudulent.

What so because the system isn't perfect that means the whole thing is a sham? Is that really what you believe?

No. I believe the system is so poorly designed, so easily gamed, and so full of corruption that it needs to be scrapped and replaced.



The statistics do not prove that mooching isn't widespread. The rules of the system prove that mooching is allowed and encouraged. Why would a guy with rich parents enroll for "only" $133 a month? Because it's a small effort once to get free stuff. If you knew there was a $100 bill laying on the ground in the same spot one day each month would you not walk over there and pick it up?



Because it shows they don't need assistance. SNAP is supposed to keep people from starving, it's not supposed to subsidize stupid choices. A very simple implementation of UMC code screening (the same one used to eliminate alcohol and cigarette purchases with EBT) would end this stupid practice.

If they buy goddamn steaks, they wouldn't be able to buy much else now would they?

If they buy steaks, they don't need this assistance to survive. DUH!

It doesn't fucking matter what these people buy as long as they get the same amount of money each month which is less than $1.50 a meal!

If they are wasting that $1.50 per meal (90 times per month every month) then the obviously don't need the assistance.

My god. Your stupidity is just astounding. Tell me, genius, where are your facts that clearly say the system is easily gamed and full of corruption? So far you have not provided ANY evidence that suggests it. And where are the facts that say these recipients buy nothing but luxury items like steaks? Just because they can buy crap like steaks, it doesn't mean many of them actually are. You are making retarded, baseless assumptions. Your thinking is so full of fallacy it is ridiculous.

 

[asterism]

What so because the system isn't perfect that means the whole thing is a sham? Is that really what you believe?

No. I believe the system is so poorly designed, so easily gamed, and so full of corruption that it needs to be scrapped and replaced.



The statistics do not prove that mooching isn't widespread. The rules of the system prove that mooching is allowed and encouraged. Why would a guy with rich parents enroll for "only" $133 a month? Because it's a small effort once to get free stuff. If you knew there was a $100 bill laying on the ground in the same spot one day each month would you not walk over there and pick it up?



Because it shows they don't need assistance. SNAP is supposed to keep people from starving, it's not supposed to subsidize stupid choices. A very simple implementation of UMC code screening (the same one used to eliminate alcohol and cigarette purchases with EBT) would end this stupid practice.



If they buy steaks, they don't need this assistance to survive. DUH!

It doesn't fucking matter what these people buy as long as they get the same amount of money each month which is less than $1.50 a meal!

If they are wasting that $1.50 per meal (90 times per month every month) then the obviously don't need the assistance.

My god. Your stupidity is just astounding. Tell me, genius, where are your facts that clearly say the system is easily gamed and full of corruption? So far you have not provided ANY evidence that suggests it. And where are the facts that say these recipients buy nothing but luxury items like steaks? Just because they can buy crap like steaks, it doesn't mean many of them actually are. You are making retarded, baseless assumptions. Your thinking is so full of fallacy it is ridiculous.

So because it's possible and has been documented that people who clearly don't need this assistance are getting it and wasting it equates to my thinking being full of fallacy?


There is fraud documented in this thread, fraud that exposes the lack of controls, acts that are deemed legal but are most definitely fraudulent. As I said, you don't get it and as I said earlier, that's why progressive programs are terrible.

 

[Billy000]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

horse shit

middle income people in many countries are not as affluent as our "poor"

that have

cars
computers
flat screen tv
microwave
washer/dryer
cell phones
cable tv
snap
free school lunch
tanf
toys at x-mas
etc
etc

this country is generous to the poor

Food is something you need to buy on a regular basis, assclown. You don't buy all of those items over and over. You are making too many assumptions about what poor people actually own.


Cars are a necessity. Just because poor people own them, it doesn't mean they aren't hungry.

Microwaves are cheap as hell.

A computer can come from anywhere and new ones have a price range.

Washers/dryers are also necessities.

The average recipient who qualifies for SNAP cannot afford cable TV.

You obviously have no idea what TANF is. It's a temporary emergency fund for taking care of children.

Most poor kids get toys through donations.