• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food Stamp Rolls to Grow Through 2014, CBO Says

I would be interested in seeing those number too. I know many people on food stamps who will take you shopping for your groceries and you give them cash equal to 50% of the transaction. Selling food stamps is fairly common. I am not going to estimate a percentage of people who do it, however, I can tell you that there is no shortage of people doing it. If I were to guess, I'd say that 1% was based on convictions.

I agree. I haven't seen much of any statistics that I would feel good about quoting. But I think this fellow states my thoughts on the matter fairly well:

Well, accurate welfare fraud statistics are simply not maintained properly on a state-by-state basis, virtually allowing politicians and welfare foes to throw out any number that sounds good, like Reagan’s Cadillac story.

Not tracking these trends is a mistake on the part of any local government. Not producing and publishing accurate figures will allow the poor to continue getting a bad rap, while the frauds will simply keep on bilking the system.

Abuse Allegations Continue Despite Lack of Clear Welfare Fraud Statistics | Top Secret Writers
 
I would be interested to see numbers. A student quoted in a speech the other day that actual abuses only add up to about 1% of those on food stamps. If true, and as it wasn't my class and no work cited turned into me, than it would be hard to better than that.

Food Stamp Fraud Still Costs The US $750 Million Each Year - Business Insider

And the food stamp fraud rate has more than doubled since the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's 2006-2008 report, when it was estimated to suck $330 million from the country annually.
 
Hmm...1% fraud.

Wow.

As others have stated, they don't know the full extent, as they don't keep a lot of records, nor do they have the manpower to do a lot of checking.

And maybe it's just me, but a 3/4's of a billion dollars of wasted money is still a hell of a lot of money wasted. But maybe I see it that way because I don't see the 'rich' as an empty checkbook to write losses off against, unlike many on the left do.
 
As others have stated, they don't know the full extent, as they don't keep a lot of records, nor do they have the manpower to do a lot of checking.

And maybe it's just me, but a 3/4's of a billion dollars of wasted money is still a hell of a lot of money wasted. But maybe I see it that way because I don't see the 'rich' as an empty checkbook to write losses off against, unlike many on the left do.

translation: its there, I just know it in my gut even if I can't provide proof
 
As others have stated, they don't know the full extent, as they don't keep a lot of records, nor do they have the manpower to do a lot of checking.

And maybe it's just me, but a 3/4's of a billion dollars of wasted money is still a hell of a lot of money wasted. But maybe I see it that way because I don't see the 'rich' as an empty checkbook to write losses off against, unlike many on the left do.
Yeah, a big number.....BUT IT IS A HUGE PROGRAM.

If person is overwhelmed by the numbers and can't deal with the proportion, maybe they shouldn't comment.

If you can show a similar system that has lower levels of fraud...go for it.
Nothing is perfect, it is always easy to focus on the fault while ignoring the benefit.

What is the solution, malnutrition, starvation?
 
As others have stated, they don't know the full extent, as they don't keep a lot of records, nor do they have the manpower to do a lot of checking.

And maybe it's just me, but a 3/4's of a billion dollars of wasted money is still a hell of a lot of money wasted. But maybe I see it that way because I don't see the 'rich' as an empty checkbook to write losses off against, unlike many on the left do.

No one suggests there is no problem, but perfection is not possible. So, 1% is pretty damn good. Hell, 5% is good. Start moving into double digits, and it gets more troublesome. But you have to provide what percentage are we speaking about? And we all seem to be saying that we need better and more accurate stats and accountability.
 
As others have stated, they don't know the full extent, as they don't keep a lot of records, nor do they have the manpower to do a lot of checking.

And maybe it's just me, but a 3/4's of a billion dollars of wasted money is still a hell of a lot of money wasted. But maybe I see it that way because I don't see the 'rich' as an empty checkbook to write losses off against, unlike many on the left do.
Yes, some people would rather we spend an additional $1B to almost wipe out that $750M loss. Of course, it's incredibly stupid to spend $1B chasing $750M and even more people would complain about all the overhead costs and the "swelling ranks of government workers!" if we did it - but at least no one would get by with fraud! :lol:
 
Yes, some people would rather we spend an additional $1B to almost wipe out that $750M loss. Of course, it's incredibly stupid to spend $1B chasing $750M and even more people would complain about all the overhead costs and the "swelling ranks of government workers!" if we did it - but at least no one would get by with fraud! :lol:

Sometimes our moral instincts are not logical.
 
translation: its there, I just know it in my gut even if I can't provide proof

Do you have anything to offer other than putting worths into the mouths of others? (i.e.. anything other than FAIL?)
 
Yes, some people would rather we spend an additional $1B to almost wipe out that $750M loss. Of course, it's incredibly stupid to spend $1B chasing $750M and even more people would complain about all the overhead costs and the "swelling ranks of government workers!" if we did it - but at least no one would get by with fraud! :lol:

Who said anything about spending a billion? Oh, you did.

Man, you folks on the left really don't give a crap about fraud and abuse in the system, unless it's a 'system' you don't like or agree with eh?

Some of us stand on principle, that fraud and waste is bad, no matter what system it is in.
 
Do you have anything to offer other than putting worths into the mouths of others? (i.e.. anything other than FAIL?)
Who said anything about spending a billion? Oh, you did.

Man, you folks on the left really don't give a crap about fraud and abuse in the system, unless it's a 'system' you don't like or agree with eh?

Some of us stand on principle, that fraud and waste is bad, no matter what system it is in.

Do you have anything to offer other than putting words into the mouths of others.....indeed.

Before that you tossed out what seemed to be definitive numbers...and then backtrack with "but they don't know how much fraud exists"...

Is this it....contradictions and conflicting comments with hypocrisy?

If you don't have a real point, move on.
Maybe you could tell me what a gypsum plant produces instead of avoiding it in the other thread.
 
Do you have anything to offer other than putting words into the mouths of others.....indeed.

I am not surprised you do not know the difference between suggesting someone said something other than what they actually said, and an observation. You are failing all over the place.
 
I am not surprised you do not know the difference between suggesting someone said something other than what they actually said, and an observation. You are failing all over the place.
Your "observation" was putting words into the mouths of liberals, who you claimed "don't give a crap about fraud". Yet most if not all have acknowledged it exists, hence, we do "give a crap", the problem most of us point out to you is the scale of it. When the scale is as small as the numbers YOU provided, we know that the cost of reducing the fraud further brings limited returns. The fraud has been reduced dramatically with the advent of debit cards, SNAP programs at the state level seem to be doing a fairly admiral job in combating it. You just seem to have trouble with the PROPORTION as opposed to the GROSS.

You still can't discuss the SCALE and again, you don't seem to still know what a gypsum plant does in other places here at the forum.

Who is "failing"?
 
Your "observation" was putting words into the mouths of liberals, who you claimed "don't give a crap about fraud".

Several in a row made comments about how the % was so small, it didn't matter. My observation was that they obviously don't care. That is not putting words in their mouths. You are no good at this. And the irony meter is heading off the charts considering your moniker.
 
Several in a row made comments about how the % was so small, it didn't matter. My observation was that they obviously don't care. That is not putting words in their mouths. You are no good at this. And the irony meter is heading off the charts considering your moniker.
See again the problem is that you stop reading the response. If we did not care then we would not discuss how it is being dealt with.

Second....the irony of my moniker, gimmesometruth? What truth am I avoiding? I believe it has been established who is avoiding what.
 
See again the problem is that you stop reading the response. If we did not care then we would not discuss how it is being dealt with.

Second....the irony of my moniker, gimmesometruth? What truth am I avoiding? I believe it has been established who is avoiding what.

..........

pointless1.jpg
 
I'd love to get in the game, but your side makes it impossible to even participate. Death of political competition is one of the first steps to aristocracy. Who am I to vote for? The same folk who caused the problems in the first place? Yeah, that will fix the problem. The Status quo has taken us here and support of the status quo will not fix it.

So instead I participate as much as I can in third party activities, and just count the number of times the founders are rolling over in their graves due to the travesty we have made out of their Republic.

That's not my fault that you people can't sell you ideas, but this game you play will never work. You like bashing Republicans, because you perceive them keeping your candidates out, but that's not the case. Problem is you have a ton of libertarians out there that are basically liberals, and we see them. They're liberaltarians. And then you've got the pot puffing anarcho-nutjobs, that no one takes seriously. To be honest I consider myself more of a conservative libertarian. But I'm not a complete libertarian.
 
"No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive"

Abraham Lincoln, -September 30, 1859 Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society

Let's talk about welfare, we have way to many on it.
 
"Welfare" began as a program to HELP now it is a program to SUPPORT. The scum that lays in it's own waste screaming when that check doesn't come are typical of all mouth breathers that do not grasp the concept of self support much less bettering their situations. The day is coming when welfare like social security and health care, will begin to shrink to oblivion and those that survived off it will then be forced to lives of crime in order to eat.

Why do so many have such irrational disdain for the poor? Scum in their own waste? Seriously?

To me, it makes perfect sense that demand for assistance would spike during and shortly after a severe recession.
 
Last edited:
Let's talk about welfare, we have way to many on it.

How many? Most families who get government assistance have at least one working member.
 
That's not my fault that you people can't sell you ideas, but this game you play will never work. You like bashing Republicans, because you perceive them keeping your candidates out, but that's not the case. Problem is you have a ton of libertarians out there that are basically liberals, and we see them. They're liberaltarians. And then you've got the pot puffing anarcho-nutjobs, that no one takes seriously. To be honest I consider myself more of a conservative libertarian. But I'm not a complete libertarian.
So let me guess....conservative on social issues, but a free-marketeer (economic liberal)?
 
Back
Top Bottom