In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

If he is a legal citizen of America, he has nothing to worry about.

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card. If the green card info.
checks out, he would not have to be concerned about being sent back to
Mexico. He may get a ticket for speeding or running a red light.

On the other hand, if the Latino does NOT have a green card, he could be
arrested and border patrol agents would be notified to pick him up since
he was not an American citizen and did not have a green card.

The Supreme Court stated it was OK for cops to do it. Don't you support
Supreme Court decisions?

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 14:47:13 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 22:38:51 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:42:16 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch
wrote:

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

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

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

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

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.

Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and
just allow
it to happen?

Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.

When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be used to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me like
flies on fecal matter.

Because fraud is only about 1% of the food stamp budget today. Why would
you spend ten times as much as the fraud?

Do you want that money to be taken from your retirement check?

No--taken from the food stamp total budget.

Even though fraud is less than 1-2% of the current expenditure, you want
to cut help for the poor by an additional 5-10% so you can try to track
down a few more people.

You are heartless. You are reminding us, once again, that you mock
Jesus' teachings.

They probably already have
some fraud investigators. Several years ago, they arrested a social worker
that set up phony clients and rented post office boxes for the various
phony clients. She would visit the post office boxes each month and pick
up about a dozen welfare checks and cash them in. I believe she had a
phony ID card for each client. I believe a fraud investigator was
responsible for finding out about what that welfare worker was doing. I
hope she spent some time jail.

Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 14:53:24 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

If he is a legal citizen of America, he has nothing to worry about.

Tell that to the hispanic citizens that Arpaio harrassed.

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 2, 9:43*am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:





"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
* * The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
* * Innuit ?

* *My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Arresting illegal aliens is not bigotry. What is in fact bigotted
is your implying that an Italian-American enforcing immigration
law makes him racist.

I'm noting that he is a man who has no understanding of history.

The court case showed that he was racist and bigoted and that he was
engaging in illegal actions in the way he enforced the law.

The supreme court said it was OK for his officers to check the immigration
status of people they pull over for committing traffic violations or other
types of law violations.

"Jason" wrote in message
...
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card. If the green card info.
checks out, he would not have to be concerned about being sent back to
Mexico. He may get a ticket for speeding or running a red light.

On the other hand, if the Latino does NOT have a green card, he could be
arrested and border patrol agents would be notified to pick him up since
he was not an American citizen and did not have a green card.

The Supreme Court stated it was OK for cops to do it. Don't you support
Supreme Court decisions?

Some I do others I don't. Recall the Dread Scott case?

On 6/2/2013 4:47 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 22:38:51 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:42:16 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch
wrote:

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

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

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

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

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.

Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and
just allow
it to happen?

Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.

When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be used to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me like
flies on fecal matter.

Because fraud is only about 1% of the food stamp budget today. Why would
you spend ten times as much as the fraud?

Do you want that money to be taken from your retirement check?

No--taken from the food stamp total budget.

Even though fraud is less than 1-2% of the current expenditure, you want
to cut help for the poor by an additional 5-10% so you can try to track
down a few more people.

You are heartless. You are reminding us, once again, that you mock
Jesus' teachings.

They probably already have
some fraud investigators. Several years ago, they arrested a social worker
that set up phony clients and rented post office boxes for the various
phony clients. She would visit the post office boxes each month and pick
up about a dozen welfare checks and cash them in. I believe she had a
phony ID card for each client. I believe a fraud investigator was
responsible for finding out about what that welfare worker was doing. I
hope she spent some time jail.

Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.


But you don't want more IRS auditors to go after tax fraud, which mostly
takes place with folks with more money.

If we had more tax auditors, we'd increase tax collection to the point
where we could really fund programs for the poor and education. But you
don't want that, either.

Why the difference?

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:01:23 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card. If the green card info.
checks out, he would not have to be concerned about being sent back to
Mexico. He may get a ticket for speeding or running a red light.

Except that American citizens have no duty to carry papers. Police don't
have the right to ask you every day to show that you are a citizen.

On the other hand, if the Latino does NOT have a green card, he could be
arrested and border patrol agents would be notified to pick him up since
he was not an American citizen and did not have a green card.

The Supreme Court stated it was OK for cops to do it. Don't you support
Supreme Court decisions?

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:01:23 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card. If the green card info.
checks out, he would not have to be concerned about being sent back to
Mexico. He may get a ticket for speeding or running a red light.

Except that American citizens have no duty to carry papers. Police don't
have the right to ask you every day to show that you are a citizen.

On the other hand, if the Latino does NOT have a green card, he could be
arrested and border patrol agents would be notified to pick him up since
he was not an American citizen and did not have a green card.

The Supreme Court stated it was OK for cops to do it. Don't you support
Supreme Court decisions?


There is a requirement that legal immigrants to America must carry green
cards. I have no problem with cops asking latinos to show them their green
cards when they are pulled over for law violations such as speeding or
running red lights.

In California, I had to show the DMV my birth certificate in order to get
a driver's license. That means my driver's license is proof of the fact
that I was born in America.

In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 4:47 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 22:38:51 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:42:16 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch
wrote:

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

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

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

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

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.

Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and
just allow
it to happen?

Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.

When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be used to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me like
flies on fecal matter.

Because fraud is only about 1% of the food stamp budget today. Why would
you spend ten times as much as the fraud?

Do you want that money to be taken from your retirement check?

No--taken from the food stamp total budget.

Even though fraud is less than 1-2% of the current expenditure, you want
to cut help for the poor by an additional 5-10% so you can try to track
down a few more people.

You are heartless. You are reminding us, once again, that you mock
Jesus' teachings.

They probably already have
some fraud investigators. Several years ago, they arrested a social worker
that set up phony clients and rented post office boxes for the various
phony clients. She would visit the post office boxes each month and pick
up about a dozen welfare checks and cash them in. I believe she had a
phony ID card for each client. I believe a fraud investigator was
responsible for finding out about what that welfare worker was doing. I
hope she spent some time jail.

Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.


But you don't want more IRS auditors to go after tax fraud, which mostly
takes place with folks with more money.

If we had more tax auditors, we'd increase tax collection to the point
where we could really fund programs for the poor and education. But you
don't want that, either.

Why the difference?

We have proof that IRS auditors went after conservative organizaions such
as tea party groups.

In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.

On 6/2/2013 6:10 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 4:47 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 22:38:51 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:42:16 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch
wrote:

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

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

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

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

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.

Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and
just allow
it to happen?

Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.

When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be used to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me like
flies on fecal matter.

Because fraud is only about 1% of the food stamp budget today. Why would
you spend ten times as much as the fraud?

Do you want that money to be taken from your retirement check?

No--taken from the food stamp total budget.

Even though fraud is less than 1-2% of the current expenditure, you want
to cut help for the poor by an additional 5-10% so you can try to track
down a few more people.

You are heartless. You are reminding us, once again, that you mock
Jesus' teachings.

They probably already have
some fraud investigators. Several years ago, they arrested a social worker
that set up phony clients and rented post office boxes for the various
phony clients. She would visit the post office boxes each month and pick
up about a dozen welfare checks and cash them in. I believe she had a
phony ID card for each client. I believe a fraud investigator was
responsible for finding out about what that welfare worker was doing. I
hope she spent some time jail.

Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.


But you don't want more IRS auditors to go after tax fraud, which mostly
takes place with folks with more money.

If we had more tax auditors, we'd increase tax collection to the point
where we could really fund programs for the poor and education. But you
don't want that, either.

Why the difference?

We have proof that IRS auditors went after conservative organizaions such
as tea party groups.


No, we don't. The department that did that was NOT auditing department.

Learn some facts. Ignore Fox, Beck and Limpballs.

On 6/2/2013 6:14 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.


You are certifiable.

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 16:14:34 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

That is your guess even though the Department of Agriculture continually
investigates levels of fraud and finds that it it currently around 1% of
benefits. Why should we listen to your ignorant guess when there is
actual evidence?

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.

"Many customers".

Jason, you really despise the poor. You are shameless in your
condescension about them. Clearly you hate what Jesus taught about how
we should treat the poor.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"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 ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

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

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...



As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural
areas ?
Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"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 ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

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

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...



As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural
areas ?
Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us
have, or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements
with friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 00:37:28 +0100, "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*?

What's really a disgrace is that given the education budget of the US,
there is anyone as stone stupid as the common lefty.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:16:51 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"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 ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

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

You can define anything, any way you want, but it doesn't mean that
the words have any useful meaning. "Food desert" is just another
useless lefty feel-bad phrase. If the consumer *wanted* decent food,
it would be there, not like the middle of nowhere, where the
population isn't sufficient for much selection. Such places are
exceedingly rare and, by definition, few are affected.

Do try to do something useful with your life. Whining doesn't help
anyone.

"Jason" wrote in message
...
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators
to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

Food stamps are under a debit card system and have been since sometime in
GWB admin. As such it is *very* difficult to sell them on the black market.
Not saying it can't be done but only that it is not as easy as you would
have us believe. For example benifits issued in Texas can ONLY be used in
Texas. There are very limited exception were community where food can be
purchased are on the other side of the state border. To my knowledge there
are limited areas along the Texas/Louisiana border where Texas stamps can be
use in the Shreveport area.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


According to various government investigations (GSA and IGs) food stamp
fraud by sale of stamp credits is on the order of 3 to 5% and would cost
more in the way of enforcement than would be recovered.

Unqualified applicants are another matter but those are usually uncovered by
data mining. Either of the system's own data or of other sources. SSN
crossed with the SSA and with other state food stamp programs data. kids in
the foster program make their parents (somewhat) ineligible for food stamps.

More often than not these are errors on the part of the various systems and
not on the part of recipiants.

"Jason" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an
end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud
investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents
sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children
will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.

Bahahahahahahahaahahaha you expect drug dealers to not only respond to
questions but to do so honestly?

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"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 ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

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

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...



As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles instead
of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

Bad assumption. I've lived in rural areas off and on for most of my life.
Most recently W NC where one literally (long story) has to drive 40 miles to
get a traffic ticket.

Food stores in the area were 30+ miles in any direction. There were no
farmers' market and the only place to get fresh veg was from your own back
yard. Fruit was location specific and very seasonal.

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

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

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

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex
W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

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

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

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

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

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.

Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and
just
allow
it to happen?

Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.

When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be used
to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me
like
flies on fecal matter.

As they should have.

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

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


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

Nobody is letting fraud slide in this program.

Yep, I think it would be hard to find another federal program with
lower, or even equal, efficiency and low level of fraud.

Whatever they're doing is working, so they need to keep doing it. But
that SNAP money damned well better be added back to the farm bill.
Taking the food out of the mouths of children, the elderly, and
hard-working Americans is just pure evil. This should be the very last
resort, not the first one.


By the way, if they're so hard-working, how come they need free food ??
Maybe they should stop being so "hard-working" and try "smart-working"
instead .

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

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

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

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

In article ,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex
W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700,
(Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free
Lunch
wrote:

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

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

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

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

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.

Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and
just
allow
it to happen?

Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.

When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be
used to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me
like
flies on fecal matter.

As they should have.

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

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


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

Nobody is letting fraud slide in this program.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

How pathetic is that ?

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:01:04 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:



Damn those pesky facts.

Facts, pesky or not, may not be found on the Fox
Entertainment Network.



Well DOH !
The you dimbulbs had better start looking elsewhere..

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
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.

--

If they're fat, they're getting more than enough of those "calories" jd was
blubbering about
If they were as "malnourished" and you moronic goalpost movers claim, they
wouldn't have the strength to stuff their faces.

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"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 ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

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

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...



As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles
instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist.


And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators
to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.

How can people trade their SNAP cards. If they do that, they can't buy
food.

--

JD

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

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

--

JD

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

(Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0206131453240001@66-53-217-
93.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

If he is a legal citizen of America, he has nothing to worry about.


He is not a legal citizen, he is resident alien
married to an American, on a valid visa. How long
will Sheriff Joe hold him in jail while he verifies
this?

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:01:23 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The
cop would ask him for his driver's license and his green card. If
the green card info. checks out, he would not have to be concerned
about being sent back to Mexico. He may get a ticket for speeding or
running a red light.

Except that American citizens have no duty to carry papers. Police
don't have the right to ask you every day to show that you are a
citizen.

On the other hand, if the Latino does NOT have a green card, he
could be arrested and border patrol agents would be notified to pick
him up since he was not an American citizen and did not have a green
card.

The Supreme Court stated it was OK for cops to do it. Don't you
support Supreme Court decisions?


There is a requirement that legal immigrants to America must carry
green cards.



Not if they are naturalized US citizens.


I have no problem with cops asking latinos to show them
their green cards when they are pulled over for law violations such as
speeding or running red lights.


So you think Sheriff Joe can put Arnold
Schwartzenegger in jail "because he sounds
foreign" while he checks out his citizenship
status?

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 2, 9:43*am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:





"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
* * The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for * * Innuit ?

* *My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Arresting illegal aliens is not bigotry. What is in fact bigotted
is your implying that an Italian-American enforcing immigration
law makes him racist.

I'm noting that he is a man who has no understanding of history.

The court case showed that he was racist and bigoted and that he was
engaging in illegal actions in the way he enforced the law.

The supreme court said it was OK for his officers to check the
immigration status of people they pull over for committing traffic
violations or other types of law violations.


They cannot jail them just for suspicion of illegal entry.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 16:17:42 -0500, 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.

Really, you don' have to prove just how stupid you are. You don't
like Americans working. We got it, already.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 16:41:36 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 9:06 AM, 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%. 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.

Now there is some direct handout to corporations, but the best
example of that would be the recent experience of the govt and
Solyndra and all the other failed miracle energy companies. And
yes, with regard to any govt handouts or tax breaks, I'm all
for rooting out the fraud. Of course, the less of these we have
to begin with, the less fraud to worry about. If there was no
govt handouts to the likes of Solyndra, there would be no fraud.

KBR. Haliburton. Exxon and other oil companies. Etc.

Do tell us about the fraud these companies have committed. I bet you
*love* GE, though.

Except for the proven frauds by KBR/Haliburton, I guess you are right.

Of course I'm right, even though you lie.

Unless you think that legalized bribery is fraud.

You're the one who's making up words, dumb****!

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:09:47 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

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

Of course they are. How ignorant are you of government spending?

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%. 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.

This has nothing to do with the absurdly low taxes that corporations pay
because the 35% rate is a joke that is paid by few companies if any.
This is about the huge amount of money spent by the government.

Now there is some direct handout to corporations, but the best
example of that would be the recent experience of the govt and
Solyndra and all the other failed miracle energy companies.

Don't you wish that George W Bush hadn't set up that program? Goodness,
look how much of a failure Tesla is, oh, nevermind.


I think it's time to set up a rule that whenever George W Bush is brouhgt up
by some moron, the thread is dead



Now, let's talk about overpriced goodies that the Defense Department
buys, or the billions in subsidies that huge corporate farms get, or the
billions spent making the "Beltway Bandits" rich in their consulting
gigs.


As your fellow (idiot) traveller likes to post,
Redirection noted, redirection rejected


And yes, with regard to any govt handouts or tax breaks, I'm all
for rooting out the fraud. Of course, the less of these we have
to begin with, the less fraud to worry about. If there was no
govt handouts to the likes of Solyndra, there would be no fraud.

Let's start by making it a crime for professional sports teams to demand
handouts.

No problem there.
Let's do that for ALL business ventures.

*AND* individuals.

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

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.

"Do you have the same zeal for ferreting out fraud and abuse when it
comes to big corporations that get billions from the taxpayers?"

The subject was fraud. He changed the subject and you fell for it.

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.

Right. Different subjects. The moron changed the subject on you and
you fell for it.

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".

If *anyone* keeps a dime of what they've earned, it's "welfare". Tax
cuts are expenses, right?

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.

That's what I was referring to. Is old man may be a kook, but Rand is
looking better all the time (perhaps even an acceptable level of
kook).

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.

I'd vote for them doing a GE. The fact is that the political class is
****ed at Apple, not for its "tax avoidance", rather for it's refusal
to play the Washington game. They *should* move everything possible
off-shore until Washington kisses *their* ass. Like always,
Washington has everything backwards.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 21:42:23 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

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.

In the real world, you're as stupid as a stone.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:57:04 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (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?

Of course. The lefties *want* it to be a direct transfer from the
productive to the unproductive. What better way to do it that give
them an EBT card that can be used in the whorehouse, drug den, or
casino of their choice? Lefties really *are* that stupid.

Clearly you have no idea how the program works.

You're simply too stupid to see what's clearly in front of you.

In article , "NotMe" wrote:

"Jason" wrote in message
...
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators
to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

Food stamps are under a debit card system and have been since sometime in
GWB admin. As such it is *very* difficult to sell them on the black market.
Not saying it can't be done but only that it is not as easy as you would
have us believe. For example benifits issued in Texas can ONLY be used in
Texas. There are very limited exception were community where food can be
purchased are on the other side of the state border. To my knowledge there
are limited areas along the Texas/Louisiana border where Texas stamps can be
use in the Shreveport area.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


According to various government investigations (GSA and IGs) food stamp
fraud by sale of stamp credits is on the order of 3 to 5% and would cost
more in the way of enforcement than would be recovered.

Unqualified applicants are another matter but those are usually uncovered by
data mining. Either of the system's own data or of other sources. SSN
crossed with the SSA and with other state food stamp programs data. kids in
the foster program make their parents (somewhat) ineligible for food stamps.

More often than not these are errors on the part of the various systems and
not on the part of recipiants.

Thanks for your above post. Could you tell us the number of people getting
food stamps in the government investigation mentioned in your post?