On 6/1/2013 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Yes, it is.

On Jun 1, 5:17*pm, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:11:09 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:





"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:
...
All of which are doing exactly what I said. *They are paying a hell of
a lot in total taxes. *It's just that the effective rate gets reduced
from 35% to 15% or 20% through various tax exemptions.
So what? * It has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. * Capiche?

So it's okay with you if GE doesn't pay income tax, but if a person
living on $8,000/year doesn't pay any income tax, you are livid.

You must be very sad that Michele Bachmann decided not to run again.

Not a SINGLE corporate entity actually pays "income tax"
For the very simple reason that to a corporation a tax is just another cost
that is factored into the bottom line
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumer
Corporate tax is nothing but indirect citizen tax

Which is a great argument for a gross receipts tax, which is far harder
for corporations to dodge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You imbecile. Attila's point is that any tax on a corporation
is passed on just like any other cost and consumers, for the most
part, wind up paying it. If the price of wheat goes up, Kellogs
raises
the price of cereal. If the cost of gas for the ovens goes up, they
raise the price of cereal. If their taxes go up, whether it's an
income tax or gross receipts tax, what do they do?

On Jun 1, 4:04*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:54 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 5/31/2013 11:35 PM, Jason wrote:

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:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything anyone could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really
are
dumb****s.

When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about RR
and his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to them on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers, he was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly if
they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and
bigotry still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St. Ronnie who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have 50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the children, the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single day.

Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same way.. I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT card is a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead
of food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior of the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story of a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food stamps away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program. However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing the food
stamp rules.

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?

Do you have the same zeal for ferreting out fraud and abuse when it
comes to big corporations that get billions from the taxpayers? Or is it
only the poor and powerless that get your scorn and ire?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, for the most part, corporations are not getting billions from
the taxpayers. *It's that you libs like a tax system where you have
a high theoretical rate, so you can make it look like you're socking
it to those evil companies. * Then you also pass all kinds of
exemptions
and loopholes that reduce their rate, so instead of paying 35%, they
actually wind up paying 20%.

You fell into the straw pit. *The issue isn't avoiding taxes by
OBEYING THE LAW, it's *FRAUD*. *If a corporation is involved in
*FRAUD*, I think we agree that they should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. *Why should welfare queens be any
different?

They are different issues. One is fraud. The other is that
it's not corp welfare when you have one of the highest corp
tax rates in the world, then allow corp to pay a more reasonable
rate via an endless scheme of exemptions, loopholes, etc.
These libs like to try to claim that because you have a max corp
tax rate of 35%, and after fairly using the available tax deductions
a corp then pays an effective rate of 20%, that it's "corp welfare".



Kind of like when you do your own
taxes. * You do know how to fill out an IRS form, don't you? *We
conservatives would cut that 35% rate, one of the highest in the
world,
to something like 20% and get rid of all the loopholes, nonsense, etc.
But you libs will have none of it because you like to keep waging
classwarfare and pretending that corporations are evil.

How about the abomination congress put Apple through?

Did you hear what Rand Paul said in that hearing? It should
go in the record books. It included an apology to Apple. He
told them that the senators sitting here are responsible for the
tax laws, that they do exactly what Apple does, which is to
minimize the taxes they pay within the law. Yet you have the
nerve to drag them here and put on this spectacle.

I was waiting for the Apple CEO to ask those senators if
they would prefer it if Apple move all it's operations overseas
or better yet, just close up.

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:31:46 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason
because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything
anyone could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about
RR and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to
them on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers,
he was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St.
Ronnie who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have 50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the
children, the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same
way. I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT
card is a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior
of the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food
stamps away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who
want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000 in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective way to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

Even though, at the moment, fraud only costs 1% of the entire program.
Will you take the money from those in need or get Republicans to vote to
increase the size of the program, a program they are trying to cut at
the moment?

It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat fraud
and abuse.

No, it does not.

If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

You have no idea what you are talking about, again.

Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

The current system is more secure than the old one.

The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it does not work like a credit card. You are misinformed.

I quick google search revealed that the food stamp cards and welfare cards
have been used at these types of businesses:

mainly: Indian casinos
strip clubs

We have all heard stories of welfare and foodstamp clients trading food
stamp and welfare cards for illegal drugs.

You don't seem to care about the hungry children that are the results of
the fraud and abuse.

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.

On Jun 1, 2:01*pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote :





On Jun 1, 9:30 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote
innews:c26f7eae-81a
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "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 i
n
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,

Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.

or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.

Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Liar, liar, pants on fire! * You carefull edited out this part which
totally
changes the math:

"Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues,
which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.
However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in
uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not
paid for by the state.

So:

$1.58bil - $1.16bil - $1.44 bil = *- $1bil

In other words illegal alliens actually cost the citizens of TX,
$1bil.

* * You aren't factoring in the consumer cost of
goods and service kept artifically low by the
work of illegals.

No, I just used your own reference and showed how you tried
to use it in a lie. You just cut off the very next sentence in the
TX Comptrollers report where they said that the cost to the
"state" didn't include the additioanl $1.4bil that healthcare for
illegal aliens is costing TX municipalities. I'm not sure they
included the cost to the FEDERAL Govt either. IT appears
they just looked very narrowly at what it cost the TX state govt.

Now you want to try to change the argument to something
else. It's funny. When Walmart creates a job and pays an
American citizen the min wage, why it's a very bad thing. They are
exploiting and taking advantage of them. Yet now you want
to argue that cheap illegal alien labor that is keeping wages
low is a good thing? Go figure.




How high would wages (and thus
prices) have to go to lure Americans into fields
to pick lettuce and strawberries and to gut cattle
and "process" chickens and pigs?

How high would a wage have to go at Walmart to shut
you libs up? Maybe we should find out. I would think you libs
would be all for $4 a head lettuce if it means an American
has a higher paying job. Make up your mind.

As for how high wages would have to go before Americans
would take them instead of collecting unemployment, disability,
food stamps, welfare, etc, well given all the lib programs that
offer an alternative to work, who knows?



* * Why do you think growers have to go as far away
as Jamaica to find legal field hands?


Eastern Washington farm hires 300 Jamaican workers
May 24, 2010

A farm in Eastern Washington is employing hundreds of
Jamaican workers to replace the illegal immigrants it
lost after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
investigation last year.

If you don't like the idea of letting wages rise to the point they
need to be at to get Americans to take those jobs, then I'm
OK with a LIMITED guest worker program. One where they
are documented, checked to make sure they aren't criminals,
pay all the appropriate taxes, etc. George Bush proposed such
a plan. Why do you libs insist that it be done illegally?







Yes, when the elected govt is anti-American, denies basic human
rights to women, persecutes Christians and supports our enemies.

* * Oh, puh-leeze. Where was that concern for womens
rights and "supporting our enemies" when it comes to
US aid to Saudi monarchy?

Saudi Document Shows Kingdom Linked with Al-Qaeda Terror
May 25 2010

An Iraqi news agency has revealed more evidence linking
Saudi Arabia with terror. The Buratha news service
published what it said it is a secret document disclosing
how much money the Saudi kingdom has transferred to Al-Qaeda
in Iraq. The kingdom reportedly sends explosives and weapons
to terrorist groups in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia did not comment on the report and instead
criticized intelligence officials for disclosing the
document. Buratha said that King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz
ordered a special committee to investigate the intelligence
leak and inform him about those liable in the case. Saudi
authorities reportedly have arrested 37 of the country's
intelligence officials for being behind the leak.http://tinyurl.com/27ra64g- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We don't provide foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. Egypt is near the
top of the list. Capiche?

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?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything anyone
could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about RR and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to them
on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers, he
was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor (particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St. Ronnie
who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have 50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the children,
the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same way.
I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT card is
a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior of
the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the story
of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food stamps
away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000 in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective way to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

But you didn't explain why you want to waste 5-10% of the SNAP budget to
examine the 1-2% of fraud in the SNAP program.



It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat fraud
and abuse.

Liar.



If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

Let's see some figures on how many people are doing any such thing
without being caught and stopped.


Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

No, it didn't. There was a HUGE black market in those pieces of paper.


The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it doesn't. How can knowing exactly how the money is being spent
make fraud and abuse easier. Selling pieces of paper is where the fraud
was. Which is one of the reasons it was changed.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:31:46 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason
because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything
anyone could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about
RR and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to
them on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers,
he was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and
bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan
because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St.
Ronnie who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have 50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the
children, the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single
day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same
way. I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the dollar
by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT
card is a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead
of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior
of the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food
stamps away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who
want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing
the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000 in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective way to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

Even though, at the moment, fraud only costs 1% of the entire program.
Will you take the money from those in need or get Republicans to vote to
increase the size of the program, a program they are trying to cut at
the moment?

It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat fraud
and abuse.

No, it does not.

If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

You have no idea what you are talking about, again.

Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

The current system is more secure than the old one.

The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it does not work like a credit card. You are misinformed.

I quick google search revealed that the food stamp cards and welfare cards
have been used at these types of businesses:

mainly: Indian casinos
strip clubs

We have all heard stories of welfare and foodstamp clients trading food
stamp and welfare cards for illegal drugs.

You don't seem to care about the hungry children that are the results of
the fraud and abuse.

And there's that passive aggressive lying thing you always do when
you're losing the argument.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55*pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:42:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.

It's a pretty pointless question, I'm afraid, Jeanne.
What people will tell you is that they would do the same job
for reasonable and sutainable wages -- it's the
ideologically correct thign to say. What people DO, on the
other hand, is to sit and kvetch about the lousy labour
market without ever even going anywhere near a farm. People
will likely tell you that they are prepared to pay more for
fruit or meat or services if that helps save American jobs.
Then they will go and buy the cheap stuff which they know
cannot have been produced without cutting corners -- and
labour costs are the single biggest corner to cut.

Several years ago in Germany, the government, pressured by
trade unions, passed a law forcing farmers to pay their
casual and illegal foreign seasonal labour the same rate as
native German workers. As a direct result, that very year
the asparagus crop rotted in the fields as farmers found it
cheaper to let their crops go unharvested than to pay these
excessive wages. The law was very quickly modified.

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason
because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything anyone
could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about
RR and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess
to them
on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers, he
was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan
because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St. Ronnie
who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have 50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the children,
the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every
single day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same way.
I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the
dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT
card is
a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol
instead of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior of
the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story
of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food stamps
away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who
want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000 in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective way to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

But you didn't explain why you want to waste 5-10% of the SNAP budget to
examine the 1-2% of fraud in the SNAP program.



It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat fraud
and abuse.

Liar.



If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

Let's see some figures on how many people are doing any such thing
without being caught and stopped.


Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

No, it didn't. There was a HUGE black market in those pieces of paper.


The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it doesn't. How can knowing exactly how the money is being spent
make fraud and abuse easier. Selling pieces of paper is where the fraud
was. Which is one of the reasons it was changed.

How could food stamp coupons be used to get into strip joints and gamble
at Indian casinos?

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:


A quick google search revealed that the food stamp cards and welfare cards
have been used at these types of businesses:

mainly: Indian casinos
strip clubs

We have all heard stories of welfare and foodstamp clients trading food
stamp and welfare cards for illegal drugs.

You don't seem to care about the hungry children that are the results of
the fraud and abuse.

And there's that passive aggressive lying thing you always do when
you're losing the argument.

And you failed to answer the question about the hungry children?

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

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?

The only other option is to do nothing about it and the end result will be
hungry and malnourished children.

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55*pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

It's more like this: They may be fat but could also be malnourished.

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:


A quick google search revealed that the food stamp cards and welfare cards
have been used at these types of businesses:

mainly: Indian casinos
strip clubs

We have all heard stories of welfare and foodstamp clients trading food
stamp and welfare cards for illegal drugs.

You don't seem to care about the hungry children that are the results of
the fraud and abuse.

And there's that passive aggressive lying thing you always do when
you're losing the argument.

And you failed to answer the question about the hungry children?

Since I was the one who brought up hungry children, your question is
even stupider than I thought at first.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason
because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything anyone
could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about
RR and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they
sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess
to them
on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers,
he
was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and
bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan
because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St.
Ronnie
who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have
50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the
children,
the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every
single day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same
way.
I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the
dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT
card is
a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol
instead of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior
of
the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story
of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food
stamps
away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who
want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing
the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000 in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective way
to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

But you didn't explain why you want to waste 5-10% of the SNAP budget to
examine the 1-2% of fraud in the SNAP program.



It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat fraud
and abuse.

Liar.



If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

Let's see some figures on how many people are doing any such thing
without being caught and stopped.


Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

No, it didn't. There was a HUGE black market in those pieces of paper.


The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it doesn't. How can knowing exactly how the money is being spent
make fraud and abuse easier. Selling pieces of paper is where the fraud
was. Which is one of the reasons it was changed.

How could food stamp coupons be used to get into strip joints and gamble
at Indian casinos?

You sell them to somebody for cash.

Are you really this ignorant? If you're going to complain about
something, it is absolutely necessary for you to know what you're
talking about.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.


BULL****


If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.


BULL**** AGAIN


You only need so many calories a day The amount varies according to your
physical activity

The problem is not "keeping your family's stomach full"
That can be done easily and cheaply
It's keeping it full of the wrong stuff..
Which is less easy and less cheap

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Yes, it is.

Too bad, it happens ONLY in the minds of the useful idiots on the left, who
have no clue about nutrition and good eating habits.

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?


And do you know WHY they exist ?

By the way, ALL rural areas are effectively "food deserts"
Because the closest food shops are not blocks but miles away.
WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural areas ?
Why is that ?

"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..

On 6/1/2013 8:29 PM, Jason wrote: In article
, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:20 PM, Jason wrote:

snip

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html




So you are concerned about the 2028 election? You assume that the
Republican party would make no changes to attract those voters. You
also recon without the natural increase in Hispanic and other
minority populations, which would also cut into Republican hopes.

Some republicans are already discussing becoming soft on immigration
so as to remain in the game. I doubt if the plan will work:

Do you agree with Phyllis Schlafly that the Republican party should give
up on minorities and concentrate on getting more white people out to vote?

In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Yes, it is.

Too bad, it happens ONLY in the minds of the useful idiots on the left, who
have no clue about nutrition and good eating habits.

It's a major issue in America. Pizza stores, MacDonalds and Burger King
are making millions selling mostly un-nutrition foods. My 350 pound
neighbor loves going to Costco and getting processed food such as a
processed meal that contains meatloaf and mashed potatoes. I looked at the
bottom of the container and it had dozens of long words that meant
"chemical preservatives". She offered to serve me a portion and I stated,
"No thanks".

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason
because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything anyone
could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about RR
and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they
sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to
them
on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers,
he
was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and
bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan
because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St.
Ronnie
who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have
50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the
children,
the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single
day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same
way.
I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the
dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT
card is
a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead
of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior
of
the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story
of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food
stamps
away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who
want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing
the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000 in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective way
to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

But you didn't explain why you want to waste 5-10% of the SNAP budget to
examine the 1-2% of fraud in the SNAP program.



What makes you claim it would be a waste ?






It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat fraud
and abuse.

Liar.


Yes you are
And you do it every chance you get.




If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

Let's see some figures on how many people are doing any such thing
without being caught and stopped.


You're the one claiming that the fraud is only 1-2%
What is the basis of that claim ?
How do you know that is an ACTUAL representation of ALL the fraud ?
(Are you claiming 100% success at identifying and stopping the fraud ?)




Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

No, it didn't. There was a HUGE black market in those pieces of paper.


YUP
There will ALWAYS be fraud
Even more when you don't aggressively control it and accept a certain level
of cheating



The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it doesn't. How can knowing exactly how the money is being spent
make fraud and abuse easier. Selling pieces of paper is where the fraud
was. Which is one of the reasons it was changed.


NOPE
The reason it was changed is because it's cheaper to issue one card and
replenish it on a regular basis, than it is to print, process, handle a
bunch of paper.

IT was an administrative cost reduction and NOT an increase in control.

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:31:46 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article
,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article
,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason
because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything
anyone could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You
lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about
RR and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they
sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess
to
them on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have
Alzheimers,
he was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get
enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and
bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan
because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St.
Ronnie who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan
became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we
have 50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the
children, the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every
single
day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many
government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same
way. I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the
dollar
by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT
card is a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade
their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol
instead
of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the
behavior
of the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot
of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food
stamps away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who
want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what
Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of
enforcing
the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000
in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective
way to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

Even though, at the moment, fraud only costs 1% of the entire program.
Will you take the money from those in need or get Republicans to vote
to
increase the size of the program, a program they are trying to cut at
the moment?

It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat
fraud
and abuse.

No, it does not.

If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food
stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting
strip
clubs.

You have no idea what you are talking about, again.

Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used
to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system
worked
very well for dozens of years.

The current system is more secure than the old one.

The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse
far
easier.

No, it does not work like a credit card. You are misinformed.

I quick google search revealed that the food stamp cards and welfare
cards
have been used at these types of businesses:

mainly: Indian casinos
strip clubs

We have all heard stories of welfare and foodstamp clients trading food
stamp and welfare cards for illegal drugs.

You don't seem to care about the hungry children that are the results of
the fraud and abuse.

And there's that passive aggressive lying thing you always do when
you're losing the argument.


LOL
SIXHIRB strikes again

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:42:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.

It's a pretty pointless question, I'm afraid, Jeanne.
What people will tell you is that they would do the same job
for reasonable and sutainable wages -- it's the
ideologically correct thign to say. What people DO, on the
other hand, is to sit and kvetch about the lousy labour
market without ever even going anywhere near a farm. People
will likely tell you that they are prepared to pay more for
fruit or meat or services if that helps save American jobs.
Then they will go and buy the cheap stuff which they know
cannot have been produced without cutting corners -- and
labour costs are the single biggest corner to cut.

Several years ago in Germany, the government, pressured by
trade unions, passed a law forcing farmers to pay their
casual and illegal foreign seasonal labour the same rate as
native German workers. As a direct result, that very year
the asparagus crop rotted in the fields as farmers found it
cheaper to let their crops go unharvested than to pay these
excessive wages. The law was very quickly modified.




Yup
The pinkies still haven't figured out how market forces work and that
ultimately prices will settle for what the market will bear..

In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:29 PM, Jason wrote: In article
, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:20 PM, Jason wrote:

snip


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html




So you are concerned about the 2028 election? You assume that the
Republican party would make no changes to attract those voters. You
also recon without the natural increase in Hispanic and other
minority populations, which would also cut into Republican hopes.

Some republicans are already discussing becoming soft on immigration
so as to remain in the game. I doubt if the plan will work:

Do you agree with Phyllis Schlafly that the Republican party should give
up on minorities and concentrate on getting more white people out to vote?

Her plan won't work since about half of them are liberal democrats.

On 6/1/2013 8:41 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:29 PM, Jason wrote: In article
, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:20 PM, Jason wrote:

snip


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html




So you are concerned about the 2028 election? You assume that the
Republican party would make no changes to attract those voters. You
also recon without the natural increase in Hispanic and other
minority populations, which would also cut into Republican hopes.

Some republicans are already discussing becoming soft on immigration
so as to remain in the game. I doubt if the plan will work:

Do you agree with Phyllis Schlafly that the Republican party should give
up on minorities and concentrate on getting more white people out to vote?

Her plan won't work since about half of them are liberal democrats.


Not quite half, but enough to make her proposal hash.

"Alex W." wrote in
:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:42:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.

It's a pretty pointless question, I'm afraid, Jeanne.
What people will tell you is that they would do the same job
for reasonable and sutainable wages -- it's the
ideologically correct thign to say. What people DO, on the
other hand, is to sit and kvetch about the lousy labour
market without ever even going anywhere near a farm. People
will likely tell you that they are prepared to pay more for
fruit or meat or services if that helps save American jobs.
Then they will go and buy the cheap stuff which they know
cannot have been produced without cutting corners -- and
labour costs are the single biggest corner to cut.

Several years ago in Germany, the government, pressured by
trade unions, passed a law forcing farmers to pay their
casual and illegal foreign seasonal labour the same rate as
native German workers. As a direct result, that very year
the asparagus crop rotted in the fields as farmers found it
cheaper to let their crops go unharvested than to pay these
excessive wages. The law was very quickly modified.




Conservatives have no clue about the dynamics
of the labor market.




Pear Crop Rots as Hands Kept from Crossing Border
ABC News

Nick Ivicevich has been growing pears in northern
California for 45 years, but never had he seen as
good a crop as the one that blossomed here this
season. But now, much of his crop, almost two
million pounds, lies on the ground -- rotting away.

Thanks to increased security along the Mexican
border, thousands of migrant workers who harvest
the nation's fruits and vegetables never showed
up for work. Ivicevich's pears ripened and then
just fell off the tree.

Farmers across the country blame Congress for
not coming up with legislation that would grant
migrant workers "seasonal worker status,"
allowing them to come work in U.S. fields
temporarily and legally. It's a matter of
national security, some say.

"We couldn't get by without foreign workers in
California," said Jack King of the California
Farm Bureau. "We employ some 450,000 workers."

As if things weren't bad enough, the farmers in
California are worried about the pruning season
for the pear trees in December. And then there's
the next harvest -- not only pears, but also of
grapes and walnuts. Unless those workers somehow
get across that border, agriculture here once
again will be hard hit, if not crippled.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/US/story?id=2677661&page=1

"Attila Iskander" wrote in news:koe7qg$mb1$1
@dont-email.me:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:42:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.

It's a pretty pointless question, I'm afraid, Jeanne.
What people will tell you is that they would do the same job
for reasonable and sutainable wages -- it's the
ideologically correct thign to say. What people DO, on the
other hand, is to sit and kvetch about the lousy labour
market without ever even going anywhere near a farm. People
will likely tell you that they are prepared to pay more for
fruit or meat or services if that helps save American jobs.
Then they will go and buy the cheap stuff which they know
cannot have been produced without cutting corners -- and
labour costs are the single biggest corner to cut.

Several years ago in Germany, the government, pressured by
trade unions, passed a law forcing farmers to pay their
casual and illegal foreign seasonal labour the same rate as
native German workers. As a direct result, that very year
the asparagus crop rotted in the fields as farmers found it
cheaper to let their crops go unharvested than to pay these
excessive wages. The law was very quickly modified.




Yup
The pinkies still haven't figured out how market forces work and that
ultimately prices will settle for what the market will bear..


More rightwing ignorance.

The US has ALWAYS depended on a large pool of
cheap labor, from indentured servants to chinese
coolies to Irish immigrants to slaves to (always)
Mexicans. Have YOU ever picked crops for a living?
Do you really think our current generation of
Gen Xer's is going to put down their Ipads and
pick lettuce 10 hours a day?

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:36:41 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 4:04*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:54 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 5/31/2013 11:35 PM, Jason wrote:

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:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything anyone could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really
are
dumb****s.

When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about RR
and his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to them on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers, he was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly if
they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and
bigotry still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St. Ronnie who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have 50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the children, the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single day.

Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same way. I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT card is a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead
of food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior of the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story of a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food stamps away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program. However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing the food
stamp rules.

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?

Do you have the same zeal for ferreting out fraud and abuse when it
comes to big corporations that get billions from the taxpayers? Or is it
only the poor and powerless that get your scorn and ire?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, for the most part, corporations are not getting billions from
the taxpayers. *It's that you libs like a tax system where you have
a high theoretical rate, so you can make it look like you're socking
it to those evil companies. * Then you also pass all kinds of
exemptions
and loopholes that reduce their rate, so instead of paying 35%, they
actually wind up paying 20%.

You fell into the straw pit. *The issue isn't avoiding taxes by
OBEYING THE LAW, it's *FRAUD*. *If a corporation is involved in
*FRAUD*, I think we agree that they should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. *Why should welfare queens be any
different?

They are different issues. One is fraud. The other is that
it's not corp welfare when you have one of the highest corp
tax rates in the world, then allow corp to pay a more reasonable
rate via an endless scheme of exemptions, loopholes, etc.
These libs like to try to claim that because you have a max corp
tax rate of 35%, and after fairly using the available tax deductions
a corp then pays an effective rate of 20%, that it's "corp welfare".

In the real world, the US corporate tax rate is relatively low.

....

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?

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.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:40:19 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:31:46 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason
because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything
anyone could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about
RR and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to
them on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers,
he was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St.
Ronnie who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have 50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the
children, the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same
way. I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT
card is a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior
of the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food
stamps away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who
want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000 in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective way to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

Even though, at the moment, fraud only costs 1% of the entire program.
Will you take the money from those in need or get Republicans to vote to
increase the size of the program, a program they are trying to cut at
the moment?

It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat fraud
and abuse.

No, it does not.

If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

You have no idea what you are talking about, again.

Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

The current system is more secure than the old one.

The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it does not work like a credit card. You are misinformed.

I quick google search revealed that the food stamp cards and welfare cards
have been used at these types of businesses:

mainly: Indian casinos
strip clubs

We have all heard stories of welfare and foodstamp clients trading food
stamp and welfare cards for illegal drugs.

You don't seem to care about the hungry children that are the results of
the fraud and abuse.

I remember when Ronald Reagan was elected president by appealing to
racists in the United States. That was truly a low moment in America and
evidence that the GOP had lost its mind and honor.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:11:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:
....

If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

Let's see some figures on how many people are doing any such thing
without being caught and stopped.


Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

No, it didn't. There was a HUGE black market in those pieces of paper.


The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it doesn't. How can knowing exactly how the money is being spent
make fraud and abuse easier. Selling pieces of paper is where the fraud
was. Which is one of the reasons it was changed.

How could food stamp coupons be used to get into strip joints and gamble
at Indian casinos?

You sell them to somebody for cash.

Are you really this ignorant? If you're going to complain about
something, it is absolutely necessary for you to know what you're
talking about.

Jason would be absolutely silent if he weren't allowed to spout his vile
opinions until he had some evidence.

He clearly has the delusion that SNAP cards can be used the same way a
pre-loaded debit card is and he will never bother to find out why he is
wrong.

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Yes, it is.

Too bad, it happens ONLY in the minds of the useful idiots on the left, who
have no clue about nutrition and good eating habits.

It's a major issue in America. Pizza stores, MacDonalds and Burger King
are making millions selling mostly un-nutrition foods. My 350 pound
neighbor loves going to Costco and getting processed food such as a
processed meal that contains meatloaf and mashed potatoes. I looked at the
bottom of the container and it had dozens of long words that meant
"chemical preservatives". She offered to serve me a portion and I stated,
"No thanks".

The problem for the poor is having no access to anything else beyond
convenience stores and fast food.

Food deserts are a vitally important issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

http://www.marketmakeovers.org/why/food-desert

http://www.fooddesert.net/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-product...-atlas/about-t
he-atlas.aspx#.Uaq2xRxlFoU

That should be enough to educate the educable.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55*pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"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

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

It's more like this: They may be fat but could also be malnourished.

That's exactly right. Wow.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

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?

The only other option is to do nothing about it and the end result will be
hungry and malnourished children.

No, there are many options, which is why the fraud level is pretty much
as low as it gets in any kind of program.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:40:19 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:31:46 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:23:06 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer
capable
of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason
because
it's
endangers the country more than almost anything
anyone could
do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties
really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about
RR and
his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they
sorta
ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to
them on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers,
he was
just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough
hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor
(particularly
if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and
bigotry
still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan
because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St.
Ronnie who
looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became
President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have
50
million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the
children, the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single
day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government
giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful
organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the
underground
and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same
way. I've
seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the
dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT
card is a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead
of
food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior
of the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of
sense.
^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the
story of
a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for
marijuana
and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food
stamps away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who
want to
take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus
taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program.
However,
it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing
the
food
stamp rules.

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.


Another false argument
You have waste in the MILLIONS, if not billions

I asked Jason how much he would be willing to spend to avoid $1,000 in
fraud.

Take it up with Jason, he's the one who wants to spend huge amounts.

USDA says fraud is about 1% of SNAP. Do you have a cost-effective way
to
cut it further? They want to hear about it.

I seem to recall that I stated that 5% to 10% of the entire food stamp
program should be set aside to investigate cases of fraud and abuse.

Even though, at the moment, fraud only costs 1% of the entire program.
Will you take the money from those in need or get Republicans to vote to
increase the size of the program, a program they are trying to cut at
the moment?

It appears that at least some posters want to do nothing to combat fraud
and abuse.

No, it does not.

If nothing is done, it means millions of children will suffer
from hunger due to their parent or parents making use of their food stamp
cards to purchase illegal drugs; gambling in casinos and visiting strip
clubs.

You have no idea what you are talking about, again.

Why not go back to the older system where food stamp coupons were used to
buy food and only for real food and not for whiskey. That system worked
very well for dozens of years.

The current system is more secure than the old one.

The food stamp cards that work like credit cards make fraud and abuse far
easier.

No, it does not work like a credit card. You are misinformed.

I quick google search revealed that the food stamp cards and welfare cards
have been used at these types of businesses:

mainly: Indian casinos
strip clubs

We have all heard stories of welfare and foodstamp clients trading food
stamp and welfare cards for illegal drugs.

You don't seem to care about the hungry children that are the results of
the fraud and abuse.

I remember when Ronald Reagan was elected president by appealing to
racists in the United States. That was truly a low moment in America and
evidence that the GOP had lost its mind and honor.

And Poppy Bush added his own moment of low in '88. And Bush Jr. added
his own against McCain in 2000.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden