"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:





In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid $1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse. Is that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and difficult to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so, but as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will get away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than allow a far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law enforcement, the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?


The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry