On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:07:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
DerbyDad03 writes:
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 2:35:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Max writes:
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people sti=
ll
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use=
=20
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)
=20
Just because it is possible, doesn't make it likely. Do you have
any actual data that supports your supposition? Or is it more likely
that the vast majority of folks receiving assistence actually need it
and actually use it to buy food so they can spend what little cash they
have on essentials like rent, transportation and toilet paper?
=20
I've no doubt that there are people that abuse AFDC and other
assistance programs. I doubt that the number of those people
is significant on any scale that matters.

What is your definition of "significant on any scale that matters".

From your URL::

"The trafficking rate in SNAP has dropped dramatically. Due to
increased oversight and improvements to program management by
USDA, the trafficking rate has fallen significantly over the
last two decades, from about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to
about 1 cent in 2006-08 (most recent data available)."

That's 1%. That's not significant on any scale that matters.


So, are you saying that the FNS should stop investigating and prosecuting and supplying benefits to the states for sting operations? Should they not try to harvest the $57.7MM in monetary results?

One might assume that if they ceased their efforts the abuse would escalate back to the 1993 level of 4%. Of course, with the increased sophistication of the bad guys these days, one might easily assume that the abuse would escalate well beyond the 4% level of 2 decades ago.

What percentage of abuse would you consider significant?





Stolen without permission from:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud

"In FY 2012, over 100 analysts and investigators reviewed over 15,000 store=
s and conducted nearly 4,500 undercover investigations. Close to 1,400 stor=
es were permanently disqualified for trafficking and nearly 700 stores were=
sanctioned for other violations such as the sale of ineligible items. FNS =
also works with State law enforcement authorities to provide them with SNAP=
benefits that are used in sting operations, supporting anti-trafficking ac=
tions at the local level. USDA's Office of the Inspector General also condu=
cts extensive criminal investigations - many resulting from FNS administrat=
ive oversight findings and referrals - to prosecute traffickers. In FY 2012=
, OIG SNAP investigations resulted in 342 convictions, including a number o=
f multi-year prison terms for the most serious offenses, and approximately =
$57.7 million in monetary results. In FY 2012, OIG devoted more than 50 per=
cent of its investigative resources to prevent SNAP fraud, waste and abuse.=
"