DIYbanter - View Single Post

Attila Iskander

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:31:23 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

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.

As they should have.

Why do you think they were saying we should ignore the issue of
fraud?

Since the fraud level is only about 1% or 2%. So why would you waste
5-10% of the SNAP budget to investigate that tin y amount?

Because by doing so aggressively you reduce the numbers
By letting them slide you encourage MORE FRAUD..

Nobody is letting fraud slide in this program.

If nothing is done to stop the fraud, the amount of fraud will escalate.

Then it's a brilliant thing that they are doing all the right things to
keep fraud from getting out of hand.

Sure hope the Republicans don't cut the money needed to police the fraud.

We have all read about welfare clients receiving checks and food stamps
from several different nearby cities.

Yes. You've read about them because they've been arrested and thrown in
prison. Duh!

That's proper anti-fraud enforcement, as it should be. So why do
Republicans always cut the money necessary to do the job properly?

Do you think the fraud detection department should be fully funded?

Funny how earlier YOU were arguing that spending money to reduce fraud was a
bad thing
Obviously you can't decide which way to go, so you go EVERY WHICH WAY..

How pathetic is that ?