|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,free.usenet,alt.home.repair,alt.politics.homosexuality
|
|
|
The IRS Scandal.
On 6/2/2013 4:47 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 22:38:51 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:42:16 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:
In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:
In article ,
(Jason) wrote:
In article , "Alex W."
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:
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.
I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.
But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.
Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.
Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and
just allow
it to happen?
Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.
When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be used to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me like
flies on fecal matter.
Because fraud is only about 1% of the food stamp budget today. Why would
you spend ten times as much as the fraud?
Do you want that money to be taken from your retirement check?
No--taken from the food stamp total budget.
Even though fraud is less than 1-2% of the current expenditure, you want
to cut help for the poor by an additional 5-10% so you can try to track
down a few more people.
You are heartless. You are reminding us, once again, that you mock
Jesus' teachings.
They probably already have
some fraud investigators. Several years ago, they arrested a social worker
that set up phony clients and rented post office boxes for the various
phony clients. She would visit the post office boxes each month and pick
up about a dozen welfare checks and cash them in. I believe she had a
phony ID card for each client. I believe a fraud investigator was
responsible for finding out about what that welfare worker was doing. I
hope she spent some time jail.
Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?
I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.
I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.
But you don't want more IRS auditors to go after tax fraud, which mostly
takes place with folks with more money.
If we had more tax auditors, we'd increase tax collection to the point
where we could really fund programs for the poor and education. But you
don't want that, either.
Why the difference?
|